NATION
THE BATTALION
rcent
ales
. at retail sales,
justed.
■ a
muim
mu
iiimmi
ange from
vious month
i. -0.9%
DM A M A) S 0
02
lent of Commerce AP
’s new 10-year, $1.3tril-
e isn’t needed right non
nomy, dealing a blow to
)rts to sell the plan to
ajections for record higli
cits this year and next,
1 that any new tax cuts
by either raising oto
•ending, a position that
ninistration’s.
hat if geopolitical uncer-
businesses remain reluc-
;ir operating pace tliei)
iscal policy actions may
irder
Navigator belonging to
isband’s receptionist-
aver, Gail Bridges,
ink I closed my eyes,”
estified. “After that, 1
now who was driving,
ing seemed like a
nse experts said tit
:s’ turning radius anil
idence indicated she hit
/ once. Her lawyers also
Bridges a “home
” while David Harris'
testified in support of
ugh ter-in-law and said
iple’s marriage was
n heaven.”
rosecutors said witness-
mts, bloodstains on the
e of the car and tire
n the body all showed
im over at least twice,A
ideotape recorded by a
westigator Clara Harris
;d to follow Bridges
e Mercedes circling the
tedly.
i return
jlivia
options,” they chanted.
:h, organized by labor
nded without violence,
here, troops fired tear
ubber bullets at groups
s breaking into shops
ings. Five people were
>y rubber bullets, the
s said.
■s scoured the Ministry'
inable Development
a dozen governmeni
torched Wednesday,
ves threw chairs and
t the windows while a
300 people cheered
ide.
e were great things
amputers, radios, bur
me two it,” said one
siding a metal trophy
tged to snatch,
az fell into chaos
ly after most of the
00 police walked off
s and led protests that
ed into the violent
alks with the govern-
police slowly trickled
their barracks and
•atrols.
netropolitan area of
million, public trans-
came to a halt and
ers covered windows
ood and metal,
officers spent most of
with family members,
funeral services for
cers who died in
y’s clashes.
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Friday, February 14, 2003
Restricting trade
with China
T he United
States' con
tinuing trade
relationship with
China, despite the
enduring unfavor
able human rights
practices that are
still evident there,
sends a message of
acceptance and tolerance to the
oppressed in China and to nations
around the world.
In September of 2000, the
Senate approved a bill granting
China status as a permanent trade
partner, according to CNN.com.
The debate that followed the
Senate approval is now being
ignored. Despite China’s member
ship in the World Trade
Organization, problems continue to
occur because of an absence of
laws to protect the two billion
inhabitants of China.
China is far from enjoying
equality of opportunity or a fair
and organized court system, but
worse, the basic and intrinsic rights
of the people are being denied. In
addition to religious persecution
and a heavily censored, govern
ment-controlled press, the real
issue that relates clearly to com
mercial concerns is that of work
ers’rights. Chinese workers are
subject to abuse and harassment,
exposure to dangerous chemicals.
Slid art forced into working over
lime. China is also characterized by
lack of labor unions without the
means to begin to organize such
unions, according to the Human
Rights Watch Web site.
However, American business
men, politicians, and economists
insist that a few million suffering
Chinese is not the question at hand.
They maintain that through contin
ual trade with the United States,
American principles will eventually
seep into China’s ideology until the
human rights issues magically
solve themselves.
a
China is far from
enjoying equality of
opportunity or a fair and
organized court system,
but worse, the basic and
intrinsic rights of the
people are being denied.
These businessmen and politi
cians believe that through trade, the
United States will ship its beliefs to
China, and that by commercial
interaction with the Chinese,
America provides the best opportu
nity to improve their lifestyle.
However, the concern is not solely
about trade. Merely shipping prod
ucts is not going to communicate
freedom to China any more than
importing their products convinces
us to adopt communism.
The United States acted selfish
ly in the admission of China into
the status of permanent normal
trading relations in 2000, proving
to be arrogantly concerned with
increasing its own wealth, even
at the expense of countless
unseen slave-driven children in
a factory.
In all aspects of politics,
there is a growing trend to sepa
rate morals from actions and to
force the ends to justify the
means. However, for economic
transactions, one cannot simply
choose to ignore the rights of
those who produce the goods,
especially when such people are
too oppressed to speak out for
themselves. Ideals and rights are
inextricably intertwined with
business and cannot be ignored.
Trade is not a right given to
every country, but the funda
mental human rights that China
denies its citizens should be.
Trade with China should not
continue to go unnoticed. To get
results from the Chinese govern
ment, instead of further empty
promises, the United States must
restrict commercial actions to see
improvement.
The Chinese economy
depends upon the United States
just as the United States’ econo
my depends on Chinese trade.
However, life and freedom
should be more important. The
United States must begin to
uphold principles instead of
destroying them.
Sara Foley is a sophomore
journalism major.
Graphic by Leigh Richardson.
Vagina Day objectifies women, vaginas
Vulgar games and rhetoric dehumanize women, reduce them to a body part
T oday marks the conclusion of V-
day’s second annual Vagina Day,
which started Feb. 13. Don’t be
confused by the name, it will be objecti
fying women for two days in the
Academic Plaza.
V-day does nothing to accomplish the
avowed objective of bringing awareness
to women’s issues. Through vulgar dis
plays in public, the organizers are able to
slowly objectify women by focusing on
single pieces of the woman’s body, effectively
dehumanizing women and making the focus only
on one body part.
One of the stated goals of V-day is to make peo
ple comfortable saying the word “vagina.” If V-day
is working to further this cause, vagina should not
be abbreviated in its name. Interestingly, in no way
does overuse of the word vagina do anything to
help women who are abused, raped or otherwise
MAIL CALL
Student body president responds
In response to the Feb. 13
editorial:
hurt.
V-day is nothing more than an excuse to
bring out vulgar exhibits, play vulgar
games, say vulgar things and draw atten
tion to people who would otherwise
receive none. Attempting to say that V-day
is about anything else is flat-out wrong.
Such a misguided attempt to bring
attention to women’s issues does more to
set the women’s movement back than it
does to further the cause. V-day is a laugh
ingstock - a joke between classes or at the water
cooler.
Eve Ensler, the founder of V-day and the author
of the Vagina Monologues, says, “the word (vagi
na) should be said over and over until the shame
and pain and disdain are gone and love, compas
sion, respect and appreciation are all that are left.”
By celebrating that part of a woman’s body in such
a manner as the “pin the clit on the vagina” game.
organizers are not representing a love and respect
for the vagina, but rather making a game out of it.
Making the body into a game will not automatical
ly achieve the respect and appreciation for the
vagina that Ensler seems to think it will. This only
makes it more of a joke, dehumanizing and desen
sitizing people even more.
V-day’s Web site says organizers believe that
“bringing the word vagina into common usage
allows us to openly address the terrible issues of
violence.” This contradicts another goal later men
tioned on the page: “to break down the barriers
people have constructed around the word ‘vagina’
and to focus not on the victimization of women.”
These stated goals on the same page completely
contradict themselves. Talking about violence
against women is the same thing as talking about
the victimization of women.
Clearly, V-day exists only to attract attention.
Texas A&M’s campus is not the place for such a
display. While most college students are mature
enough to view adult material, there are children
visiting campus every day who are not. These chil
dren should not be subjected to such unnecessary
vulgarity as the “best moan” or “the most vagina
slang.” Having obscene contests such as this is an
embarrassment to A&M.
This day will do nothing for anyone, especially
college men who, after going through puberty, are
completely aware of the vagina. Throwing con
doms around on Academic Plaza will not change
that. However, it will provide material for count
less jokes.
Sadly, V-day does absolutely nothing to further
any of its contradictory causes, but rather dehu
manizes women and their bodies by reducing them
to a single part.
Thomas Campbell is a senior
agriculturaljournalism major.
lam disappointed at the
antagonism expressed
towards Student
Government by the
Battalion's Editorial Board
on Feb. 13, 2003.
Furthermore, 1 am con
cerned by the inaccuracies
reflected in the article cov
ering Orange & Maroon
Day. I was never contact
ed for comment, and the
Battalion reporter was not
present for over half of the
day's events.
The realities related to
the budget shortfall in
Texas are very concerning.
The state of Texas current
ly funds approximately 30
percent of the costs asso
ciated with each student
Who attends Texas A&M
University. This is a drop
hom approximately 45
Percent in 1990. The pri
mary goals of a public
institution of higher learn
ing are to educate the
people of the state and
perform research vital to
our state and nation. The
current budgetary crisis
threatens the balance of
quality with affordability.
The primary objective of
Orange & Maroon Day
was to communicate the
need for continued fund
ing in higher education.
Texas A&M is faced with
the challenge of maintain
ing our tradition of aca
demic excellence at an
affordable price. The
notion that student lead
ers support the concept of
deregulation is completely
inaccurate. As student
body president, my team
and 1 have been at the
forefront of this issue and
will continue to communi
cate the need for state-
supported funding for the
growth of our institution.
Zac Coventry
Class of 2002
Student Body President
Mandela’s comments regrettable
KATHARINE
MCHENRY
N elson Mandela owes an apology to the
United States for the unfounded remarks
he made late last month.
According to a story by Fox
News, on Jan. 29 Mandela asked
whether President George W. Bush
and Tony Blair are ignoring the
United Nations because its current
secretary general, Kofi Annan, is
black. He then said that Bush’s main
reason for preparing for war against
Iraq is because America wants all of
Iraq’s oil. Mandela later denounced
the United States for the offenses
that it has supposedly committed in all parts of
the world.
“If there is a country that has committed
unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the
United States of America,” Mandela said. “They
don’t care.”
If Bush were a racist, he wouldn’t be in
office today. To imply that the citizens of the
United States —the world’s leader in democracy
and a melting pot of every culture under the sun
— would support a prejudiced leader is an insult
to all Americans. Mandela must think Americans
are racist or stupid to elect such a president.
Mandela is also forgetting that two of Bush’s
top counselors, Condoleezza Rice and Colin
Powell, are black. And while having a working
relationship with blacks doesn’t automatically
exclude one from being a racist, Rice and
Powell would never support a racist president. '
Mandela further slandered President
Bush’s character when he said his main rea
son for pushing for war against Iraq is its oil
supply. Nevermind the fact that Bush has
said repeatedly that Iraq is hiding weapons
of mass destruction. These weapons might
be used against the United States because
it’s the world’s most powerful nation and
the reason Iraq couldn’t take over Kuwait
during the Gulf War.
If Saddam Hussein threatened to use his
weapons on South Africa, would Mandela
meekly sit by and wait for the Iraqi dictator to
make good on his threat? Or would he expect
South Africa to try to defend itself? In reality.
South Africa isn’t at risk; the United States is.
That’s why Mandela isn’t concerned.
Of course Mandela wouldn’t understand why
the United States feels so threatened by Iraq. It
was New York City that was devastated by Sept.
11, not Johannesburg. As a result of the terrorist
attacks of 2001, America realized that it has ene
mies bent on destroying it by either terrorism or
biological warfare.
If the United States was going to take Iraq’s
oil supply, it would have done so during Desert
Storm a decade ago. The fact that America never
attempted to militarily occupy Iraq or replace
Saddam with a puppet dictator shows that Iraq’s
oil was never an issue.
For Mandela to accuse the United States of
atrocities while mentioning nothing of
Saddam Hussein’s torture and genocide makes
one wonder if perhaps Mandela’s underlying
motive for attacking Bush amounts to nothing
more than resentment of America’s power.
Mandela conveniently forgets that the
United States has provided economic and mil
itary assistance to many nations around the
world, including various African countries.
Those nations gladly accept the help. Then
when the United States asks for help from
other nations, no one feels indebted enough to
acquiesce. Not even France will support
America half a century after the United States
helped to liberate Europe at the cost of hun
dreds of thousands of American lives.
Mandela’s speech implies that the choice of
war with Iraq lies solely at Bush’s feet. If Iraq
was truly intent on avoiding war with the
United States, Saddam would already be in
exile by now.
It’s easy enough for Mandela to rant about
how awful Bush and the United States are, but
why doesn’t he attack the real villain, Iraq?
After all, the road to war is never one-sided.
Katharine McHenry is a senior
journalism major.