; h 4,1992
wm
aic and
:cess in
Blocker.
> in 243
Blocker,
r more
t VICES:
is. The
i," takes
lay mail
second
iurvivinq
DS. 7
viewing
3321 for
nitted to
no later
desired
me and
ask us.
hat lists
nissions
? basis,
run. If
room at
:e
?e will de-
r Scholars
pplicant’s
in original
n GPR re-
Jt the pro
to histon
rers hope
ase of sto-
participat
ing in the
laen from
nber, and
:t weather
e January
n" - cold
2
1G
•u
Opinion
Wednesday, March 4, 1992 The Battalion Paged
The
Battalion
The Battalion Editorial Board
DOUGLAS PILS, Editor-in-Chief
iRIDGET HARROW, Managing Editor I MACK HARRISON, City Editor
BRIAN BONEY, Opinion Editor I KARL STOLLEIS, Photo Editor
JASON MORRIS, Night News Editor I SCOTT WUDEL, Sports Editor
MORGAN JUDAY, Night News Editor | ROB NEWBERRY, Lifestyles Editor
The following opinions are a consensus of The Battalion opmion staff and senior editors.
No guarantees
Israel has no right to unconditional loans
Last week. Secretary of State James
Baker took a hard stance against Israel.
Baker correctly warned Israel it
must halt building settlements in the
territories it occupies or it would
forfeit a possible $10 billion in loan
guarantees.
The United States gives Israel more
than $3 billion a year in aid, more than
any other country in the world. That is
a questionable practice when the
money is so desperately needed here
at home. It would be more useful to be
spent in this country.
Furthermore, the United States
wants to stabilize the situation in the
Middle East. In the past several
months, the United States has put a
considerable effort into bringing Arab
and Israeli representatives to
Washington to discuss peace.
However, the building of the
settlements has become a massive
obstacle to allowing the talks to
proceed.In fact, Isreali Deputy
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, top aid
to Prime Minister Shamir and
spokesman at the peace talks, said last
Tuesday that Israel will not accept the
U.S. proposal to halt Jewish
settlements. Netanyahu went on to say
that the. Israelis would take their cause
to the American people.
Yet, President Bush said he would
not back down, although it could be
politically dangerous to challenge
Israel and its influential lobby in the
United States.
The Israeli government could
convince the U.S. government with its
dominating lobby, but convincing the
American people is questionable.
The Israeli government should stop
building new Jewish settlements at
least during the peace talks.
It would only serve their interests
better because they would gain $10
billion in housing loan guarantees and
a little respect from the Palestinians at
the negotiating table.
Issues
Choose substance over flash
Issues. It's a term that gets thrown
around by politicians, activists and
constituents alike, especially during an
election year. However, the exact
( definition of the issues, or the
important issues, seems to be pushed
further and further from the forefront
of every election.
It's time that the^eal issues, those
which affect our everyday life and will
affect the lives of our children, take
their rightful place. We must take it
upon ourselves to address the
important issues of an election — the
environment, education, drugs in our
society, competition within and a
peaceful coexistence with our global
village.
This isn't a bold concept or even a
new one. The problem lies in what
news actually sells to the reading
public. When too much emphasis is
placed on who a candidate spends his
or her spare time with, what drugs he
or she took in the 1960s or what he or
she did to avoid going to war, society
loses. The American public must
begin taking a greater interest in the
real issues and quit clamoring to pull
the skeletons out of each politician's
closet or America will continue to
spiral toward becoming a second-rate
nation.
The new generation taking its place
in the work force must make the
dream of an issue-based election a
reality. This generation has been
raised amid the turmoil of Watergate,
the ineptness of the Carter
administration and the complacency of
the Reagan years. It has grown up
with a general mistrust of government,
and it's time that its voice is heard.
The days of the perpetual
incumbent are over. Politicians must
realize this and start dealing with
issues, or they will feel it at election
time.
This is not a matter of Democrats
versus Republicans. It is a matter that
deals with Americans. It's time for the
voters to make their move,
acknowledge the fact that our
environment is fading away, that our
education standards are dismal
compared to the rest of the world and
that our drug problem is making a
mockery of our country.
If we don't stop falling for the
mud-slinging tactics which have
become commonplace in today's
elections, the same mediocre
politicians will be re-elected year after
year.
The media can push the issues at
the public all they want, but it will
never make a difference unless that
public lends a contemplative ear.
As soon as we stop worrying
about politicians' tabloidish ways and
start holding them accountable for
their views, this nation can look
forward to being a viable part of the
world community.
Yesterday's war
Journal entry triggers memories of the day America went to war
In the past few days there has been a
great deal of attention focused on the
event that was Desert Shield/Storm. We
have had rallies, protests, news stories
and talk shows all discussing various
aspects of our short lived, enigmatic war
with Saddam Hussein.
All these events have compelled me to
push through the cobwebs of my mind
and recall what we were like on this
campus as events unfolded around us. In
doing so, I came
across a journal
entry I made one
desolate day over a
year ago.
At the time, I
had been chastising
myself for not
keeping my journal
up to date in such
tumultuous times.
When else, I
thought, would it
be more important
to keep record of my
world? Finally, I picked up my pen early
one Wednesday morning and kept a
running account of my thoughts
throughout the day. I would have no idea
that the day I chose to pick up the pen
would be noteivorthy in the annals of this
nation's history.
I now share what I wrote on that day
because I want everyone to step away
from all the hoo-rah long enough to
reflect on hozv they actually felt at the
time.. What I felt may not be what you
felt, but if it makes you remember, then
I've accomplished what I set out to do.
Toni Garrard
January 16,1991
8:42 p.m.
Somehow, I always thought that
Vietnam would be the last war before
the last war. I never imagined that I
would be a college student standing
in the shadow of a massive military
movement. I find myself expecting at
any moment to be walking across
campus or in class when someone
announces: "We're at war!" And
years from now, just as anyone can
tell you where they were the day
Kennedy was shot, we will also be
able to recite where we were the day
our country went to war with Iraq.
Having said all this — and knowing
that the likelihood of war is now
probable — I have an odd feeling of
detachment. War is something my
parents and grandparents saw. I've
studied it in history books and seen it
in countless movies. No way could a
child of the "Me decade," of
"Reaganomics," of the thawing of the
Cold War possibly see my country at
war.
Should it actually happen, I
believe my first reaction would be
shocked disbelief. After all, my
generation will live forever.
The feeling, at least among my
friends, is that of calm detachment.
They — we — all want to be kept up on
events and in turn show anger,
impatience and great concern. But
these emotions surface almost solely
because we all know that is what we
should be feeling.
It has apparently become my job to
keep us informed. A friend asked me
calmly this morning if the United
States had made any decisive move at
the deadline hour last night. I replied
I had heard nothing. In reflection, I
realize that the exchange was
perfunctory at best. The question was
asked as if it had originated from a
passing thought and any answer
would be acceptable. No fear lurked
in her voice or mine. I find this self-
evaluation to be almost frightening —
at least bothersome.
Perhaps, it is because events are
occurring halfway around the world
in a country I know almost nothing
about and for reasons that no one
seems capable of naming with any
assurance.
Still, I know that shoujd the worst
happen, many lives will be lost. Lives
who are all cherished by someone.
Shouldn't that realization be enough?
My government instructor started
class today by remarking, "What a
beautiful day today is. Much too
pretty to go to war."
"Amen," I murmured. The boy
next to me shifted uncomfortably.
Hours later....
I looked up at a friend of mine
from my place on the bed. He had
just asked me if I wanted to eat with
him and another friend. Then,
suddenly added: "Toni, did you
know we're at war?"
Wltite House Spokesman Marlin
Fitzwater: "As of seven o'clock p.m.
Eastern Standard time. Operation
Desert Storm forces were engaging
forces in Kuwait and Iraq."
Where were you, Toni Garrard,
when the United States went to war?
Sitting on my bed, comfortably
reading the Houston Post before I
began to read William Blake's "Songs
of Innocence and of Experience."
Every exchange now, every
question, every thought is startlingly
real. My generation, it seems, will not
live forever.
Garrard is a sophomore
speech communications major
Mail Call
Sullivan misplaces
his respect
I am going to attempt undertaking the
formidable task of sharing what I think of the
'wide sweeping' generalizations in Michael
Sullivan's article of Feb. 21.
The point about the student not willing to give
his name for what he purported to believe in is
well taken. . . but, really Michael, was that
incident enough to arouse such prophetic
revelations about "conservatives"(strictly two
types) and "nonconservatives"? And what is this
respect stuff you are talking about by saying
David Duke and Martin Luther King, Jr. in one
breath. . . who are you going to start respecting
next?. . . .Saddam Hussein and Alessandra
Mussolini? The point I'm trying to make is that
when someone like Rush Limbaugh says
something, heMias two sides: one is his own
personal view and the other, that you and I hear
about, is to support the Institution(namely the
Republican Party) that he feels is good for all
Americans. Taking that one step further, David
Duke is an outspokfen rabble rouser who sole aim
is to pit 'black' against 'white' and that is not in
the interest of all Americans or more broadly,
does not serve the common good.
And I think the word respect, especially when
used by a celebrated columnist such as yourself(a
senior English maior is going to hit the work
force soon with his deep analysis) should be used
in the proper context, i.e. outspoken is not equal
to brave and respect(ful). One last thing, I feel
compelled to add this disclaimer at the risk of
losing(your) respect: Do not tell me to get the hell
out of America. . . because I love it, and I can't
wait to cast my vote for Paul Tsongas.
Haneef Mohamed
Class of'91
Sullivan’s column
comes in first
I found Michael Quinn Sullivan's column,
"Something to Believe In," to be the most
rewarding column I have read since coming to
Texas A&M in 1991. As a graduate of an
extremely apathetic university, one whose
students took pride in not caring, and of a
commuter school, one whose students could not
take the time to even consider issues, I have been
amazed by TAMU students' devotion to their
beliefs.
My amazement stems from their lack of
understanding. I have routinely overheard
"Highway Six runs both ways" or "Bonfire is a
waste," yet the people who espouse these
opinions seem to be parroting phrases common
to their social groups. It seems that each student
must choose whether to be conservativefi.e..
support A&M) or radical(i.e., be opposed to
traditions.) There is no room for individuals who
are individuals, who seek to create their own
understandings.
Michael Sullivan's concluding statement
"Don't just say things to fit in or be different. Say
things because you believe them" would make a
much better axiom for A&M students.
Aleta Best
Ph.D. student
Boney wrong
about Gulf War
I read the pro-con argumentation about the
continuation of the Gulf War, and I was amazed
and upset to see the idealistic "Saddam bashing"
arguments.
Not that I like the guy, but I am upset to see
how people can have a selective memory and
short hindsight. While Saddam the Iraqi was
killing his Kurds, Hafez the Syrian was not only
killing his own people (at least 20,000 people
were killed in Hama in 1982), but also
slaughtering the Lebanese in the neighboring
Lebanon. Furthermore, a little after Saddam
invaded Kuwait, Hafez invaded Lebanon, the
Iraqis were defeated while the Syrians were
honored for their "contribution" in the coalition.
and the Lebanese had to "thank" their neighbors
for their "help". Don't you think that there is
much more to it than "justice," "freedom," or
whatever?
Please, Mr. Boney, for the sake of those who
died, those who still suffer occupations and
humiliations, don't be so narrow minded. There
is much more to the Middle East politics than
you would be able to figure out.
George Naser
Graduate student
Have an opinion?
Express itl
The Battalion is interested in hearing from
its readers.
All letters are welcome.
Letters must be signed and must include
classification, address and a daytime phone
number for verification purposes. They should
be 250 words or less. Anonymous letters will
not be published.
The Battalion reserves the right to edit all
letters for length, style and accuracy. There is
no guarantee the letters will appear. Letters
may be brought to 013 Reed McDonald, sent
to Campus Mail Stop 1111 or can be faxed to
845-2647.