he Battalion
o PINION
Page 9 • Friday, March 26, 1999
ar in ad). This rate
you get an addito
leduled to end to i
REAL ESTATE)
Dole for president:
Elizabeth Dole‘s many accomplishments,
spirituality makes her prime candidate
A
fter a turbulent
year in the White
House, there is lit-
ROOMMATEie doubt Americans are
mo, , e , s- 'Oking for a refreshing
or mo-e • ew i eac j er .
sufnmef-99 «rc For a nation tired of
.TT’,;’'’. earing about sex, it
\ tight be beneficial for
te next presidential elec
iiowE mH :PH to look at a person
Christina
BARROWS
'ho is wearing skirts rather than chasing
aTap—r: ien:
Elizabeth Dole has devoted herself to
ublic service throughout her career, work-
tg to improve the quality of life for Ameri-
an citizens. Her strong character and vast
chievements make her a highly qualified
andidate for President of the United
tates.
—-R. Dole was the outstanding leader of the
*>, tamu merican Red Cross for eight years. During
qp R w|pr Q lis time she secured medical care, bal-
need funds and coped with one disaster
so . fter another.
«rT..r'v According to campaign information,
'hen Dole was head of the American Red
' ross she supervised some 30,000 staff
tembers and nearly 1.4 million volunteers
i the Red Cross’s many educational and
umanitarian programs. Her work there
xj e ’ aowcases her deep care for humanity and
er heart for service, something few of her
pponents can claim with proof.
, Th * p ^; : Dole also has a political resume that
lany candidates will find difficult to com-
TUTORS ete with.
Nat,.espeaker While many candidates for presidency
ain their experience in leadership roles
ach as Governor or Senator, Dole has a
EIGHT LOSEiuch greater understanding of the internal
; warned 42 orkings of our federal government.
, a ; -eco-j^K she has worked for five U.S. presidents,
aiding two cabinet positions. Her experi-
45 c 5 ' - v:ri ice is on a national level, not local or
tm -wi •^T ate ’ an< ^ this experience has made her a
. re candidate.
3 . Because of her accomplishments as Sec-
. tary of Transportation under President
iteeMifrar ?agan and Secretary of Labor under Presi-
spring Br.1." Bush, Dole has made herself a high
gonenc MtuboMe). Untender with the broader public and is
95-6983 0,693-2M0 Tpected to draw many independent voters.
-epted
in January, Time reported that Dole aid
ed in the development of air bags, rear
windshield break lights and airline safety
measures while serving as Secretary of
Transportation.
And as Secretary of Labor she helped
push for the first minimum wage increase
in eight years. These small but highly pop
ular changes could make all the difference
when election time arrives.
There is no doubt Dole is extremely pop
ular among women voters. Time reported
in recent polls she might draw independent
women voters back to the GOP for the first
time in 20 years.
She was named in both the 1996 and
1997 Gallup polls as one of the “Ten Most
Admired Women” and under the Bush ad
ministration fought to bring down the cor
porate “glass ceiling” for women and mi
norities in the workplace.
But one of the most refreshing things
Dole would bring to the White House is her
spirituality. Her faith in God and His place
for her is something she takes very serious
ly-
Dole dedicates 30 minutes everyday to a
Bible study and Time reports she can truly
move people with her scriptural account of
rediscovering God at midlife.
In July 1996, Dole told Time that by
1982 her career had become the center of
her life.
In theological terms, to lose oneself in
ambition is a form of idolatry, and Dole re
alized God did not want worldly successes.
He wanted her heart.
Dole has a goal to beautify America’s
soul, and truly improve the United States.
She is a woman confident in the source of
her strength and powerful because of its
origin.
In Feb. 1999 Dole said during an inter
view, “If I run, this will be an important
reason: because the United States of Ameri
ca deserves a government worthy of her
people. We are a good and great nation and
we must demand a government with the in
tegrity to inspire trust and the straightfor
ward strength to keep us free.”
Christina Barrows is a sophomore
English major.
the sequel
nited States should not send troops into Bosnia, action improper
mencans are
again at a fork
in the road. We
ave left behind the
hite Rabbit, and
ow we are dancing
ith the Mad Hatter.
e White House
as decided to take
ilitary action in the
real crisis and civil
ASON
STARCH
iar between the Albanians and Serbs,
idividualst0^ ere the death toll continues to rise
ach week. The struggle is both ethnic
ice Staff, nd territorial. And America has no
fion at the business interfering in it.
T « Avenif In 1984 > then Secretary of Defense
lexas Aven ; as L er Weinberger developed six ques-
ie positions ons concerning the involvement of
Fall.
3
146-4242
merican military forces in the affairs
f other nations.
It became known as the “Weinberg-
r Doctrine,” and was followed rather
lyally until the current administration
)ok office. The six questions Weinberg-
r proposed were simple and direct con-
erning the involvement of U.S. troops
t combat: Is it a vital national interest
t stake? Will we commit sufficient re-
aurces to win? Will we sustain the
ommitment? Are the objectives clearly
defined? Is there reasonable expectation
that the public and Congress will sup
port the operation? Have we exhausted
our other options?
If a reasonable person looks at that
set of questions, it should be obvious
that Casper Weinberger’s intentions
were not politically motivated so much
as morally motivated.
He knew full well that involvement
of U.S. troops in combat leads to the
loss of American fighting men and
women. That is no small consequence
for any decision-maker to weigh.
American actions in the Persian Gulf
were both morally and ethically justi
fied. The U.S. was protecting its eco
nomic interests by protecting both the
Middle Eastern nations and the oil sup
ply. America committed enough re
sources to win. America stayed commit
ted until the task was complete.
The objectives were simple and
clear: to remove Iraqi troops from
Kuwaiti soil and protect the other oil
producers in the Gulf region. The public
overwhelmingly supported the action,
and Congress echoed that support.
The U.S. also exhausted diplomatic
efforts right up until the war kicked off.
America was sending a clear message to
the world: you cannot march into a
country that has American national in
terests involved and then expect to get
away with it.
Now compare that to the Bosnia
question. Are there vital American in
terests at stake? This question is a hard
one to answer. America certainly wants
stability in the world, but that interest is
not vital to national security.
The U.S. has no business in their civ
il war. This is not like the humanitarian
efforts in Kenya or Somalia, where nat
ural disaster struck and the helpless
cried out for relief. Those missions lost
their national interest when they turned
from humanitarian aid to peace keep
ing. The issues really dies on the first
Weinberger question, but the rest of the
points can be addressed as well.
The U.S., of course, does have
enough troops to commit and to sustain
a committed effort, but will the Ameri
can people and the Congress support it?
More importantly, should they support
it?
They did not support the same situa
tion in Vietnam. And there may still be
some means that are available in the
diplomatic arena to end the conflict. So
it is time to answer another pressing
question: Will any of these efforts,
diplomatic or military, actually stop the
war in Bosnia?
The American Civil War did not end
overnight when European countries en
forced trade restrictions on the states.
That is because there were causes that
Americans believed were worth fighting
for, as ideologically different as they
were.
The ethnic struggle in Bosnia, as ter
rible as it is, may be a defining moment
for the people of that charred and ru
ined country.
Many of the principles Americans
hold dear are the same ideals other peo
ple in the world consider fundamental.
Do we really think we are so much
smarter and better that the rest of the
world in assuming their reasons are not
as justified as ours?
The most disturbing point to address
in determining military involvement in
Bosnia concerns the training and readi
ness of our troops. It has been voiced
that American troops could use the
combat experience for development in
case of a real war.
What the heck is a “real” war, any
way? Are guns and killing and death not
enough? It is pure stupidity to send our
fathers, mothers , brothers, sisters, sons
and daughters into harm’s way for the
sheer experience of gaining combat
leadership training.
If I never bury another fellow Ma
rine it will be too soon. We train for the
possibility that war might occur, but we
pray that it will not.
Incidentally, the oath military mem
bers take says they swear to “defend the
Constitution of the United States against
all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
There is nothing in there about solving
the world’s problems, nor should there
be. Yet soldiers still obey orders and go
where they are sent.
Daniel Webster once said, “God
grants liberty to those who love it, and
to those who are willing to guard and
defend it.”
Citizens need to be ready and willing
to protect American liberties, and let
the rest of the world fight for the causes
they hold dear.
And when this country’s interests are
once again at stake, it would behoove
America to stand firm against the ag
gressor.
Jason Starch is a junior rangeland
ecology major.
Meat, industry not
K>rtrayed correctly
_ In response to Lisa Foox’s Mar.
* 3 opinion column.
First of all, I do not want to
vershadow the anecdote about
le little girl that was mentioned
i the article. Her unfortunate ill-
ess is a sad reality that affects
ur society.
I am pleased to see that
aox's article was printed in the
pinion section of The Battalion,
ecause that is truly what it was.
was not based on factual infor-
lation.
My advice to Foox (since she
; a journalism major), would be
) research the topic on which
du are writing your opinions.
It is understandable to be ig-
orant about a topic, but it is
MAIL CALL
foolish to broadcast one’s igno
rance to the entire campus.
James Allen
Class of ’99
Lisa Foox needs to get her
facts straight about the meat in
dustry. With a little research, she
would realize that her statements
about food-borne illnesses and
slaughter facilities are incorrect.
Most strains of E. coli are
harmless and a normal part of a
mammal’s digestive tract, but E.
coli 0157H7 is a deadly
pathogen.
The beef industry takes an un
fair share of the blame for E. coli
illnesses. Raw milk, lettuce,
sprouts and apple cider are other
foods that carry E.coli 0157H7.
Proper cooking of ground beef and
simple hand washing dramatically
decreases the chance of E. coli
0157H7 poisoning.
Slaughter facilities are not
dirty, disease-ridden places as
Foox would have people believe.
Plants have detailed plans to
clean, sanitize and disinfect their
equipment in order to prevent con
tamination.
The Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Point (HACCP) system has
been implemented in all slaughter
plants, required by law.
Animals are subjected to a pre
slaughter exam by a veterinarian
and if any abnormality is found,
the animal is not used for human
consumption.
No animal can be slaughtered
in a plant without a USDA inspec
tor present at each phase of
slaughter.
Such a false column about
the meat industry has no place
in the school newspaper at one
of the country’s leading agricul
tural universities.
If Lisa Foox wants to know the
truth, she can come over to West
Campus and take Animal Science
307, a class on meat production
that will educate her on how the
meat industry really is.
Laura Booth
Class of '99
Column misread,
writer not hypocrite
In response to Jeff Becker’s and
Joshua Hill’s Mar. 25 Mail Calls.
As any other reader would natu
rally do, I think you have each taken
Parekh’s article and twisted it into
something to scoff about. I do not
think Parekh was in any way being
hypocritical. If you would re-read,
she clearly states that “it would be
easy to dismiss Short as an igno
rant, illogical man, but to do that
would be to ignore the threat that
his breed of intolerance poses to
everyone.”
Basically Jeff, she admits and
recognizes that this also includes
her. She did not need you to fill an
entire column turning that into neg
ativity towards her.
And how is she “demanding that
all subject themselves to her own
views of tolerance.” I guess we as a
University should not come togeth
er and love one another for who or
what we are, huh? Is that too much
to ask?
Well, I ask that we do.
And Joshua, do you suggest that
God is not human? And how do you
know? Why does it make it a prob
lem that Parekh, in your opinion,
"supposes all religion is as based
on humans as her own.” I don’t re
call Tom Short preaching to the
birds and insects on campus.
The matter in question refers to
us as humans, right? Where is the
problem? So what about God?
I think that was answered in the
paragraph you obviously failed to
read: “God expects us to love one
another, not to condemn anyone,”
which was the main focus of
Parekh’s article that I hope you now
see.
BJ. Selman
Class of ’01
The Battalion encourages letters to the ed
itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in
clude the author’s name, class and phone
number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to edit
letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters
may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc
Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also
be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 1.111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: batt@tamvml.tamu.edu