THE BATTALION
9
Friday, January 25, 2002
©LL
ing in on
imes
rte results of an
ress poll that ask>
their opinions 0'
lympics. Thepo
ad Jan. 11-15a r :'
margin of plus t' i
entage points.
ted are you In h
ipfcs?
Very interest
Some*;
imemfe
o you think ltl$
st attack of son
? pface at the
nes mis winter
ty?
used Ve»yt*»
Son**:
—I *»
Sametfi
[ the Olympics
e too commeroj
lies paying to
•and names
the Games.or:
mmerd^
ilsa necessar-
pay for the
Too comme--;
know, the Wlr«
Sait LakeOty*
e most expens
•s ever, costrc
Ion wfthaflft - :
d by U.S.
o you think ta
d be usedtohB
EDITORIAL
More Middle Eastern
Courses Needed
As a new semester begins, there is a blaring hole in the cur
riculum offered to Texas A&M students. Currently, there are only
six courses offered at A&M that pertain to the Middle East. This is
alarming, because it reveals not only an unrepresented area of
study at the University, but it also uncovers an inability by the
University to keep up with the changing world curriculum. Texas
A&M has dropped the ball on keeping up with the evolving edu
cational demands of students in its lack of offering Middle
Eastern courses.
Texas A&M is a world-class University ranked among the top
public universities in the country, yet there is no one here to
teach Aggies about the events unfolding in our world. Across the
country, universities are offering new, more in-depth courses in
Middle Eastern studies, some even offering courses on interna
tional terrorism. These universities are reacting to the world, giv
ing students a reactive curriculum that adapts to the changing
environment of the world and the educational demands of
today's student. A curriculum based partially on current events is
beneficial to students and should be something Aggies can take
advantage of. The University must equip itself with the faculty
and resources necessary to change with the world and allow for
demanding, reactive courses in each semester.
THE BATTALION
editorial board
Editor in Chief MARIANO CASTILLO
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
News Editor
News Editor
Brian Ruff
Cayla Carr
Sommer Bunge
Brandie Liffick
Member
Member
Member
Member
Melissa Bedsole
Jonathan Jones
Jennifer Lozano
Kelln Zimmer
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or
! less and include the author's name, class and phone number. The opinion editor
I reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submit-
Ited in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be
[mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
[77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com
MAIL CALL
0 ««** Bonfire survey
s* participation high
bei#
In response to Rolando
Garcia's Jan. 23 article:
Media Pa. lor
mat
is
ned vendors fr
/ et Combs says'
ions in his hoc
advertisement
Adhere!”
>lve the proble'
25 from hav
t card compar
some cases li
st udents to fc
udents, they '•
really less of-
says Joe Belt
)ased Consult!
I trade associai
ail and consuff
| The Bonfire poll had more par
ticipation than I have ever seen for
any student election. Dr. Bowen
and other administrators can't
deny that we want Aggie Bonfire.
High visibiltiy suggests a large
saturation of an idea or message
you are trying to promote in a
particular environment. This
was not done effectively. I saw
more visibiltiy for First Yell and
Rush Week than I saw for
Bonfire 2002.
One example was the absence
of reminders in the computer
labs about voting for Bonfire
online. Some people did work
hard, but not enough advertise
ment strategies were used. Dr.
Cole's opinion on the poll
proves that we must fight to
maintain our unioue nature.
The student body did vote but
with little help from our current
leaders. The administration has
forgotten its Aggie heritage by
taking a neutral and an almost
negative approach to Bonfire.
This is an attack on all Aggies,
past and present.
Kevin T. Geiger
Class of2004
ators agree
lion about fi\
tnyone from ctf ;
m selves — isk
the answer tof-
an assistant'!
vhere credit d
added to orien
nt program
olace where
safe and secure!'
■eait
Jnbetong!" ^ ^
Stepping
one Sck»
Idhood EducaP
g
WB depicts teen
reality
In response to Katherine
Tucker's Jan. 23 column:
No matter what you think
about teen dramas, one has to
admit that the situations depict
ed on the shows of the WB net
work do happen in teen and
young adult lives.
Issues like the death of a
parent, alcohol abuse, drug
abuse, school violence and
even discrimination can regu
larly be seen on these WB
shows.
Monday night's episode of
"7th Heaven" was one of great
education. This episode, which
has been advertised as a tool
for classroom education, depict
ed the intolerance of some
towards a Muslim family due to
their religious and cultural back
ground and what the compas
sion and tolerance of a few can
do to change the views of those
around them.
In light of Sept. 11,1 find it
to be great loss for all in our
Aggieland community not to
have had the opportunity to
view this show and learn the
lesson of tolerance and com
passion for others who are
different from you, without
having to stay up late in the
evening.
Theresa Duncan
Class of 2003
Clinton was not
“shameful”
In response to George
Deutsch's Jan. 23 column:
I found Deutsch's column to
be offensive, not just as a
Democrat, but as an American.
It clearly shows the right-wing
bias our student newspaper
possesses, especially with its
continual attacks of the Clinton
Presidency. Deutsch calls the
Clinton Presidency "shameful
and heavily tarnished."
Let me correct a few of the
misconceptions. The Clinton
Presidency resulted in the cre
ation of 22 million new jobs,
passage of the Family and
Medical Leave Act, increased
minimum wage, expanded
Work Study and Pell Grants,
lowest crime rate in history,
the Welfare Reform Act,
Children's Health Insurance
Program, increased invest
ment in biomedical research,
protection of women's repro
ductive rights, all while achiev
ing the slowest per capita
growth of government spend
ing since the 1950s.
Every President deserves to
have statue, and every former
President should have the dis
cretion over his or her own
Presidential Library.
Jonathan Steed
Class of 2004
Tattoo removal
program helpful
In response to Matthew
Madaox's Jan. 24 column:
The "Liberty Tattoo" program
has been designed to help
those with less than desirable
pasts erase those reminders
and move on with their lives.
Maddox's column states
these people need "perma
nent reminders," but painful
memories of the past are
enough. The confidence of a
clean slate is more beneficial
than the negative reinforce
ment.
Jessica Wolstromer
Class of 2004
Military Tribunals are lust
Circumstances similar to World War II tribunals
O n Sept. 11, the
United States
became embroiled
in a struggle unlike any
in its history. In the
wake of catastrophe, new
policies were initiated at home. Most
notable was President George W. Bush’s
executive order empowering him to
choose which cases will be tried in mil
itary tribunals rather than conventional
courts. While this order grants signifi
cant power to the president and the sec
retary of defense and imposes new
restrictions for some of the accused,
establishing military tribunals is pru
dent and necessary in these extraordi
nary times.
Under Bush’s order he can select
cases in which non-citizens suspected
of terrorism can be tried in a military
tribunal. The secretary of defense
appoints military commissions to hear
these cases and regulates the proceed
ings and rules of evidence. These
commissions can sentence death for
convictions on capital crimes.
Critics have objected to the new
standards of justice. Laura Murphy,
director of the American Civil Liberties
Union, criticized several provisions of
the President’s order: the lack of juries,
lower burden of proof on prosecutions
and the requirement of two-thirds
agreement by the commission to convict
and sentence. Furthermore, she con
tends that executive power is unchecked
and compromises our system of govern
ment. Nat Hentoff, of the Village Voice
Alternative Weekly, cites the lack of
appeal opportunity, restrictions on
choosing lawyers and unfair eviden
tiary rules as severe compromises of
liberties.
However, one must view these meas
ures in their context. As Sept. 1 1 is
perceived as the modern Pearl Harbor,
parallels can be drawn between tri
bunals of today and tribunals instituted
by Franklin Roosevelt during World
War II. Although no declaration of war
exists, there are no restrictions making
tribunals exclusive to Congressionally
declared war. The relevant question is
“do circumstances of today resemble
the circumstances of WWII?” Are these
accused terrorists common criminals or
war criminals?
Most agree with Bush. In a poll by
Newsweek, 72 percent support the
civil restrictions and expanded gov
ernmental powers in general. In the
Washington Post, the president
defended his position by noting that
tribunals would protect potential
jurors and prevent compromises of
intelligence. In his executive order.
Bush said that in the current state of
armed conflict threats to US security
and the integrity of military opera
tions demand such measures.
While some contend that past tri
bunals were abusive, John Dean, former
council to the president, said tribunals
have a respectable history
dating back to the
American Revolution.
Those during the Civil War
and World War II evidence
good practice. Michael
Nardotti, former judge advocate gen
eral, cites conviction rates as low as
85 percent in World War II trials,
notably lower than the current rate of
93 percent in federal courts and
courts martial. Although these tri
bunals differ from Bush’s tribunals,
there is nothing fundamentally wrong
with the idea.
The nation is confronted with
extraordinary circumstances today, akin
to those of World War II. When weigh
ing the rights of accused non-citizen
terrorists against the safety of
Americans and military operations, the
nation should conform the former to the
latter. America treads on unfamiliar
ground, fighting an enemy too threaten
ing to perceive as a common criminal
and too elusive to qualify as an object
of war. New policy must be built to
accommodate the times and safeguard
the liberties of all Americans.
DHARMARAJ INDURTHY
Wendy’s founder was humanitarian
D ave Thomas, founder of the
Wendy’s fast food chain, passed
away at age 69 of liver cancer. He
will be remembered by
most as the guy from the
commercials, but in real
life, Thomas had a “Biggie”
size heart. A fitting tribute
would be for elected offi
cials to take his inspiring
story of success and continue to cut the
frustrating red tape on adoptions. Thomas
was a quiet and tireless living advertise
ment for the protection and value of every
human life, and America is better for his
example.
Thomas was a regular guy who consid
ered himself just a hamburger cook. For
some, that made him an easy target of
ridicule. The Arizona Republic had to
decline a cartoon from their cartoonist
depicting Thomas laying on the ground
next to a “Triple Lard Burger” and Biggie
Fries. A tombstone depicted in the cartoon
memorialized him as “another overweight
American who ate a lifetime of junk.”
Dave Thomas was bom out of wedlock.
His mother could not care for him and he
was adopted at six months old. In 1962,
after being mentored by Harland Sanders
of Kentucky Fried Chicken, he purchased a
string of failed KFC restaurants. Six years
later, he made his first million. Thomas is
in the Guinness Book of World Records for
his staying power as company head and
personality. Since 1989, he
has filmed 800 commercials,
when his original intention
was only one. People
responded positively to the
friendly guy who served good
food without yegard to the
gospel according to the Surgeon General.
Thomas repeatedly said humility, hard
work and a strong family background were
the ingredients to his success, which he
happily shared.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush
named him a national spokesman for adop
tion. He created the Dave Thomas
Foundation for Adoption to “educate
prospective parents about the adoption
process and streamline the adoption process
by making it easier and more affordable.”
For adoptive families, the bureaucratic
process can be exhausting. Here was a fast
food tycoon who spent much of his time
actively promoting the right of every child
to life and home. As the 29th anniversary
of Roe vs. Wade approaches, it is appropri
ate to reflect on the importance of children
in our society. For Thomas and adoptive
parents across the country, leaving no child
behind is a lifetime of work.
More than two centuries ago, Thomas
Jefferson wrote that life is an inalienable
right, as “the care of human life and happi
ness and not their destruction is the first and
only legitimate object of good govern
ment.” Currently, more than 100,00
Americans and untold thousands around the
world are waiting to be adopted. Testifying
before Congress in favor of an adoption
tax-credit, Thomas said, “I know firsthand
how important it is for every child to have a
home and a loving family. Without a fami
ly, I would not be where I am today.”
President George W. Bush proclaimed
Jan. 20, 2002 as National Sanctity of
Human Life Day. In his statement, he said
Americans “should join together in pursuit
of a more compassionate society, rejecting
the notion that some lives are less worthy of
others, whether because of age or illness,
social circumstance or economic condi
tion.” Following in the example of Dave
Thomas and adoptive parents, public offi
cials would serve the future well to not
allow the sensationalized, rare cases of abu
sive parents to hinder the adoptive process.
Hopefully, the passing of Dave Thomas, the
anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Bush’s dec
laration will stir a national debate about the
need to protect precious life.
Jonathan Jones is a senior
political science major.
JONATHAN JONES