- s day, July 3]
> s (price must
srsonal posses;
em doesn’t sei;
ualify fortheS
elled early.
1 WANTED
needed. Fullt;;
ipt to work i
>yment drug ;
person, Bill Cnd
I.
Manager
I. inventory cons: J
'his job is 50% 7
sntal sharpness, :
r ull time only,
sductivity bonus |
9-731-1358.
)RCYCLE
idow 650VLX i
'bo. (979)260-65';
‘ETS
Srazos Animal I
helterpets.org
ite tabbies, firsli
ed, $15,820-059;
Russell Terriers
K) call 693-1902
ras a great sete
doption! 979-626
ESTATE
ownhome. 2M
Jining. Enclose! 3
storage. 776
/MATES
nates for 3/2 Im
je backyard 4i
i. 695-7778.
id a.s.a.p. 4txM
;imately $100/mo. I
Is welcome witlim
'9.
ng. 2bdrm/1btt!M[
Deal. $400/mo
bdrm/2bth a
nd bills, own bdtf
ints, 694-7868,
new house, hort
2-blocks from camp
needed. 4bdrm/2t
ill appliances, fence
. +1/4 Mis. 696-835
ided, AbdmMWh coi
317-219-^^'
EDITORIAL
Farewell, Bowen
Outgoing president led
A&M into 21st century
Today is Dr. Ray M. Bowen’s final day as the 21st president of Texas
A&M University. A&M’s campus has undergone a variety of changes
in the eight years since Bowen began his tenure, and he should be
applauded for his efforts to make A&M a better university.
Since Bowen became president in 1994, The Zone was added
to Kyle Field, work began on the tunnel beneath Wellborn Road,
the physical plant was expanded and Vision 2020 was developed.
Bowen has also been crucial in A&M’s reaction to the 1999
Bonfire collapse.
Although Bowen’s legacy will probably be Bonfire, the full
impact of his tenure is yet to be decided. Bowen initiated Vision
2020, the plan to make A&M a top-10 university by the year
2020 and announced the decision to cancel Bonfire in 2002,
making him one of A&M’s most controversial leaders. His deci
sion to cancel Bonfire in 2002, after delaying the tradition for
two years following Bonfire’s collapse, also stirred debate in the
A&M community.
By initiating change at a university which prides itself on tradi
tion above all else, Bowen has displayed a great deal of courage
in leading A&M into the 21st century. His legacy should not be
remembered solely for his actions following Bonfire’s collapse; he
has also been instrumental in improving A&M’s academic stand
ing and gaining A&M greater respect on the national scene. For
these accomplishments, Bowen deserves Aggies’ respect for his
leadership during the past eight years.
THE BATTALION
I SINCE 1893 I
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief \ DOUGLAS PUENTES
Managing Editor
Executive Editor
Opinion Editor
News Editor
Guy Rogers
True Brown
Richard Bray
Christina Hoffman
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
serves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submit-
/afin person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be
mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS Till, Texas A8.M University, College Station, TX
77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com
TS
ie for
Travis 57«
MAIL CALL
Animals killed for
food suffer too
ln response to Richard Bray's
July 22 column:
Mr. Bray is right, the amount
of abuse inflicted on compan-
l0n animals is devastating, but
oe fails to admit that animals
killed for food suffer no less.
Boing bred for a specific pur
pose does not change an ani
mal’s biological capacity to feel
Pain and fear. In many Asian
countries, cats and dogs are
bre d for meat as chickens, pigs
^ n d cows are here in the
United States. Whether the ani
mals are tied by the neck to
ackyard chains or slung up by
neir legs to slaughterhouse
conveyers. People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals
( ETA) will continue to fight
'ke hell to protect all animals.
Liz Welsh
PETA Staff Writer
Student says he
Wa s cheated
A few
weeks ago I was
cheated by the delivery driver
Opinion
The Battalion
from a local restaurant. I had
ordered food that totaled
around $11 when the delivery
came the man told me he only
had $2 in change on him but if
I let him, he would go back
and bring me back more
change. As an Aggie I didn't
think anything of it and gave
him a $20 bill. No sooner had
he left did I realize the scam.
He would win either way by
short-changing me or taking
off with all $20.
I called the store and asked
for my money they told me he
would be back ... obviously he
never came back. I thought it
was just some kid that may
have wanted some extra cash,
so I let it go. It wasn't until a
local friend told me he had
been subjected to the same
scam that I realized what had
happened.
If this is how the local estab
lishments treat their cus
tomers, I believe it needs to be
reminded that we the students
are what keep them in busi
ness. Students should not sup
port establishments that do
this kind of business.
Clint Oilman
Class of 2001
Page 5 • Wednesday, July 31, 2002
Lights out in California
California governor, not Texas companies, to blame for energy crisis
MATTHEW MADDOX
N O'
since
Huey
P. Long has
a state’s
chief execu
tive been as
associated with corruption and bungling
as the present governor of California. In
a territory with only one Republican
elected to statewide office, it would
seemingly take Armageddon to turn vot
ers against a democratic incumbent. That
is precisely what California has
endured under Governor Gray
“Gray-out” Davis. Most recent
poll figures place his dis
approval rating evenly
matched with his
approval numbers.
This November,
Californians have
the opportunity to
remove Gray
Davis, and they
must seize the day.
Under Davis’
leadership,
California has
endured a reversion to
third-world conditions.
The roving blackouts
that became the norm
two years ago may
only be a memory,
but the
California
energy crisis is
still wreaking
havoc along
the West
Coast. In what is
arguably the
most liberal
region in the
United States,
the policies
under Davis
might leave the
state permanent
ly biased against
government
deregulation. In 1998, crippling govern
ment restrictions imposed on the deregu
lation process came to a head. Companies
were stopped from making long-term
agreements with energy generators. This
prevented those corporations from float
ing spikes in the cost of energy over long
periods in time, instead exposing them to
the volatility present in the open market.
Contrary to advice available in
Economics 101, California then enforced
a rate freeze on power providers, essen
tially driving them to bankruptcy when
their costs exceeded what they were
allowed to charge to customers. In one of
the largest bankruptcy cases prior to
Enron and WorldCom, Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E) became a casualty of the
government's deregulation policy, filing
Chapter 1 1 in April 2001.
Once intermediary companies such as
PG&E were no longer in place to sell to
customers, California proceeded to buy
its energy directly from the open
market, or “spot market.” This left
taxpayers and energy users directly
exposed to fluctuations present in
the market. Eventually, the only
option open to California was to
restrict energy use to the point that
it inhibited business and normal
life. Adding to the mess was the
fanaticism with environmental regu
lation present in the state's laws. Due
to the rigorous process, no new power
plants had been built in the decade
preceding the energy crisis despite a
rapidly growing population. The gov
ernment had no one to blame but
itself for the crisis.
Long thought to be a chapter
already etched in history, Davis
unburied the energy crisis issue
recently in an attempt to
raise his faltering approval
numbers in the election
year. While all of
Washington was riding the
Enron tragedy bandwagon,
Davis decided to project his short
comings as far away from himself
as he could. His targets: the White
FRANK CHANCE • THE BATTALION
House and Houston. Even as Enron
employees were packing up their valu
ables, Davis began slinging mud at
almost every energy provider in the
Southwest. These unfounded attacks
alleged that Houston-based corporations
had bilked the state of California out of
billions. In the face of such accusations,
investors watched their stock prices tum
ble in the face of threatened litigation.
This month, the governor also signed
off on legislation aimed at raising his
approval numbers and courting the envi
ronmentalist voting base. The target of
the legislation is the sport utility vehicle
and other above-average fuel guzzlers.
The law will empower an unelected com
mission to decide how high to raise auto
mobile efficiency standards above the
national requirement. Davis cited the
Bush administration's inaction on the
Kyoto Protocol as a reason to pass the
higher standards. The Kyoto Protocol is a
United Nations treaty under fire by both
democrats and republicans as a potential
ly detrimental accord for the United
States to abide by. Davis' legislation calls
for the reduction in “greenhouse gases,”
specifically carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is the gas expelled by
human respiration and the substance
most plant life requires for photosynthe
sis. The Air Resources Board has until
2005 to draft a plan of action. At that
time, automakers would be required to
incorporate the regulations into the
design of their 2009 models. In a Rueters
report, a spokesperson for the Alliance of
Automobile Manufactures said automak
ers plan to fight the legislation, possibly
through a referendum on California’s
November ballot.
The implications of the bill are no
laughing matter. The real threat is that
while California's political ideologies
might only make up a tiny wing of main
stream America, California auto sales
represent an estimated 13 percent of the
U.S. automobile market. If Davis is suc
cessful, auto manufacturers would most
likely be forced to make the changes not
only to their Pacific Coast auto line, but
to all cars sold in the United
■—t- States. Thus, while Californians
might not be allowed by law to
purchase the safer, larger steel-
manufactured vehicles, all
Americans might be reduced to
purchasing domestic aluminum
compact cars or looking outside
the country's borders for their
next purchase.
By voting out Davis, Californians will
not only be doing their civic duty and
their part for their state's future. They
will doing the entire country a favor.
Matthew Maddox is a junior
management major.
Bombing is no longer needed
(U-WIRE) CHICAGO - It seems we may have won the war
in Afghanistan only to lose the peace. This should not surprise
any of us. Afghanistan has always been relatively easy to con
quer, but it has proven nearly impossible to govern. The Soviets
overran the country in just four days but were bogged down for
a decade. Our own campaign in the fall lasted only two months.
Even the infamous British expedition to Kabul in 1839, where
only one man came back alive, had a relatively easy time con
quering the country.
Unfortunately, we are not talking about how to conquer
Afghanistan. We are talking about preventing the return of al-
Qaida and Taliban forces. Some of these fanatics are hiding in
the Pashtun-dominated parts of the country, with others watch
ing from neighboring Pakistan. To keep them from regaining a
foothold in a country, we must win a propaganda battle every bit
as crucial as the military one.
Unfortunately, all the good feelings in the world will be for
naught if we do not stop dropping bombs all over the country.
Earlier this month, a U.S. plane mistakenly attacked an
Afghan wedding party at Kakrak, killing at least 48 civilians.
Reports indicate the pilot believed he was taking ground fire
from Afghans who were firing their weapons into the air as part
of the celebration. While this is just one incident of many, this
recent bombing happened in “peacetime” (I use the term with
regards to Afghanistan in the loosest possible sense of the
word). Civilian casualties are expected during war, but are hard
to defend in the absence of one.
Why are we still relying on air power in Afghanistan? Partly
in case our ground forces come under attack. During Operation
Anaconda in March, the Air Force's close-support bombing
saved many of our soldiers’ lives. However, the al-Qaida and
Taliban forces are not stupid, and it is doubtful they will make
the mistake of sending major cohesive units into conventional
battle with us again. In fact, in the four months since Anaconda,
it has become clear that most of our enemies have stayed across
the border in Pakistan’s tribal areas. So while our bomber force
in Afghanistan has been substantially downgraded, it still packs
a heavy punch. But one of the hazards of keeping these bombers
over Afghanistan is that the odds increase that this lethality will
be used on the wrong people, and increase resentment towards
our peacekeeping forces.
During the war 1 was very much in favor of our bombing
campaign, despite my desire to see ground troops introduced.
However, the decision not to field significant numbers of ground
troops (aside from some well-publicized raids) made sense at
the time, as we could not have supported them logistically and
they could not have been put into place in such a short time.
Bombing, in short, was the most expedient solution. However,
now that the war is over, we are able to supply a substantial
number of ground troops in Afghanistan.
Our mission requirements have also changed. Instead of
fighting a country run by the Taliban-al-Qaida alliance, we are
charged with keeping the peace where it exists and developing
peace where it does not. These missions are not suited for air
power.
Last week. The New York Times compiled a list of all the
U.S. bombing errors since October. While the article displays a
certain naivete about the confusion and snafus that plague any
battlefield (sample quote: “Before you bomb, you should be
100 percent certain of who you are bombing”), it did cause me
to wonder if we haven't been leaning on air power too much in
recent years. Our ability to bomb anything that moves, one of
our biggest assets in combat, is one of the biggest drawbacks of
using bombers for peacekeeping work. For example, there have
been quite a few incidents when our soldiers have mistakenly
raided villages and gotten into firefights with the wrong people.
And that’s on the ground. When looking down from 15,000
feet, the view must be even more confusing. Also, the victims
of the previous incidents are usually in the single digits, as
opposed to the massive double and triple-digit casualties of a
bombing screw-up.
The final drawback is the image we have given by relying on
our planes to do our dirty work. Bill Maher may have been tact
less when he proclaimed that flying planes into buildings is more
courageous than bombing from 15,000 feet, but he was definitely
onto something. Last March, Israel launched a massive attack on
the main West Bank cities, an attack that was notable for its lack
of air power. In fact, before the fighting in Jenin, the prevailing
view on the street was that Israel might be too soft to fight a war
of attrition against the Palestinians. That view, confronted with
images of Israeli soldiers fighting and dying house-to-house,
changed practically overnight. Whatever else one thinks about
the Israelis now, no one thinks they’re cowards.
More incidents like Karak will hardly convince the Afghans
that a western-style democracy is the best way of governing
themselves. The presence of al-Qaida and Taliban forces means
the United States cannot just abandon the country and manipu
late it from the sidelines like so many other great powers have
done in the past. We must find a way to guarantee the security
of the Karzai government without alienating an already-suspi-
cious population in the process.
Increasingly, air power is looking like the wrong tool for
that job.
Justin Palmer is a columnist
for the Chicago Maroon.