Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 27, 2003)
NATION THE BATTALION urt OKs otests nization for Women, heidler said the ibly draw new adherents lo ause, but is not likely to a new round of violem sm outside clinics, fhat’s in the pasi," dler said. “Now we Opinion The Battalion Page 5B • Thursday, February 27, 2003 Facing united Korea outh Korea's friendly new policies toward North Korea could prove bad for U.S. otesting and counseling the clinics, doing INQUtST ffl| things that we'; do. We’l much freedom.” The ends a begun in 1986, when NOW and two ion clinics in Wisconsin Delaware went to court ing racketeering andextor- aws should protect tasi- s from violent protests that away clients, ey accused the groups of ing clinic entrances, men- doctors, patients and din- ff, and destroying equip- during a 15-year campaign lit abortions. The demon- rs were ordered to pay $258,000 in damages, hnquist said there is in :e that abortion protesters ered with clinic opera- and in some cases com- 1 crimes. ut even when their acts erference and disruption /ed their ultimate goal of ing down’ a clinic that med abortions, such acts ot constitute extortion,” ote. ! offices could not be com- because of busy circuits will let out fingers ink ing and demand thM be heard," said 1® ms, the national dire* n for War, the group tint zed the protest, ews said about 400,0011 : had registered through oup's web site for the call- npaign. By Wednesday oon, he projected the er of calls made and faxes cceeded 1 million. ifty years ago, the United States came to the aid of the young Asian country South Korea, and ever since, the United States and South Korea have presented a united front against North Korean aggression. But recently, South Korea has turned its policy in a new and dangerous direction. By pursuing the “Sunshine Policy’’ of engagement with North Korea, they risk worsening relations with the United States, lengthening North Korea, and possibly bringing lin to their country and others. South Korea decided that by opening ties nth the North Koreans and offering them aid, insions will be eased between the two coun- iesto build a more favorable relationship, lements of this policy have included food aid to [orthKorea, opening transportation lines and lowing families on both sides to be reunited, ccording to The Houston Chronicle. However, orth Korea has not shown any signs of yielding nor ivenany reason for South Korea to believe it is look- igfor a peaceful resolution. In South Korea’s eyes, it is eonly way to ensure peace. Thus South Korea would ither continue this policy than join with the United Jaies in standing up to North Korea’s development inuclear weapons. In fact, South Korea is so sure about this policy latit would deny North Korea even has any nuclear [capons. According to The Chronicle, South Korea stated pit believes there is no proof North Korea has built |ucbr weapons, contradicting the United States, which lieves that North Korea currently has at least two corn- weapons. U.S. efforts to make North Korea see the rrorof its ways by all means necessary have been consis- underminded by South Korea. It seems that South would rather have a false peace with North loreathan defend their country alongside the United .If South Korea continues to place a high lie on appeasing North Korea than trying Blind a joint policy with the United Stapes, the ’S. government may eventually decide to move its troops from the Korean peninsula and leave doth Korea defenseless. MAIL CALL By feigning friendship with South Korea, North Korea hopes to melt icy international relations. This will allow it to import the technology needed to modernize its military and build more sophisticated nuclear weapons. It has no intention of reuniting the peninsula ex except under the rule of Jong II or his son Kim Jong Chul, who is now the focus of a media campaign to paint him as successor to the elder Jong, according to The Houston Chronicle. There is no sign that the North Korean dictatorship has decided that it should eventually step down and reunite its impoverished country with South Korea due to it’s Sunshine Policy. And by using its acceptance of the policy as a tool against South Korea in disputes with the United States, North Korea seeks to separate South Korea from its staunchest ally and defender. By allowing its pursuit of a sunshine policy to separate it from its allies. South Korea is setting the stage for instability. Besides raising the risk of an eventual armed takeover of Sout Korea, a penin sula united under North Korea would pose a serious threat. A united, hostile Korean peninsula would be a dagger pointed straight at the heart of the Japanese. According to an article on janes.com, Japan has already considered buying North Korea’s medium range missiles and paying it not to make more after North Korea launched one on a test that passed over Japan. If the North were allowed to progress unchecked, the Japanese might also be forced alter their defensive mili tary stance and consider developing nuclear weapons of their own to deter North Korea’s regional ambitions. The United States would also be at risk, as North Korea has been continually improving its missiles and will eventually field one capable of reaching the United States. This ability could be used as blackmail by North Korea to prevent American intervention in its activities. Eventually the desire of North Korea to dominate its region al arena could be fatal for Russia and China. All of these possibilities should make the countries of the region aware of the risks South Korea is taking. By con tinuing their Sunshine Policy of appeasement, South Korea is flirting with danger and destruction for itself, its allies and its region. David Shoemaker is a junior management major. Graphic by Josh Darwin. MY on-3 nament i“ games) i, One Army nu.edu or the mament i ims of 4 UZES :ek Ranch am lec Center fee will directly befit student body ■ In response to the Feb. 25 Rec Fee jJitorial: 'Is a full-time student and a part-time jdent worker, I understand as well as lyone that frugality is a necessary evil iring these tough times. However, lore you vote on the Rec Sports Fee ierendum, let me remind you all of a w key points left out of Tuesday's litorial. The Rec Center is one of the most visi le signs that a student fee is being put use. ow many other fees do you see direct- jhelping students on a consistent basis? panted, tuition will probably increase, [it how many people would make a big ss about a $310 tuition increase, but "ot a $300 one? ■he expansion of the weight room (one could mean the difference tween paying $10 per semester more r a less crowded workout and paying e more expensive membership to old's Gym and other fitness centers. It would also keep student money with Winstead of private businesses. you play intramurals, exercise at the ec, work at the Rec or play on a sports ob, this choice should be a no-brainer. ^ even if these do not apply to you, rails, lakes and picnic tables" are some- ing anyone can enjoy, hshort, vote yes today and eat two less lue meals at Wendy's. Todd Alsup Class of 2004 m Student Services fee does not fund vital programs In response to the Feb. 26 Student Services Fee editorial: Gabby Oroza, the chair of the Student Services Fee Advisory Board, says that the increase is "to provide services vital to student life." While some of the ways in which the additional fees are going to be used are definitely worthy of the increase, "Choral Activities" and "Aggie Nights" are clearly not vital to student life. "Aggie Nights" alone gets almost $200,000 from the increased fees. Secondly, the report mentions that the SSFAB had a $1 million windfall in 2001 when the transportation fee was approved. There is another windfall that the report fails to mention — the one that came about because of the previous Rec Sports Fee referendum, in which students voted to increase the actual fees by $7 and consolidate that with $21 the Rec Center was getting from the Student Service Fee into one fee totaling $78. Students were supposed to see a DECREASE of $21 in their Student Services Fee, a point stressed several times in the days leading up to the above mentioned referendum, but they never did. The proposed fee increase just barely breaks the current cap of $150 (SSF would come to $150.84). Could the SSFAB not have managed with $0.84 less? Vinod Srinivasan Graduate Student Prison violating First Amendment rights E arlier this month, an advocacy group sued members of the Iowa state prison system, contending that a Christian inmate rehabilitation program funded by state tax dollars violates the idea of separation of church and state, according to The New York Times. Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued that because the program, called Inner Change, receives state tax dollars, it violates the idea behind separating church and state as implied by the First Amendment. This group should be praised for defending a fundamental right of American citizens. The first and most important strike against Inner Change is that it is simply - unconstitutional. The First Amendment clearly out laws the type of bfehavior in which Inner Change partakes. The amend ment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...” By providing state tax dollars to the Christian program, the state clearly endorses Christianity over any other religion, which is unconstitutional. Americans United also claims that the prisoners involved in this program receive special privileges, such as televisions, keys to their cell doors, and free phone calls. These privileges also reward a state-sup- ported religion because of the benefits inmates receive while participating in Christian activities. Not only does this program violate a fundamen tal right, but other programs have proven more effective. Mark Earley, president of the group that funds Inner Change, told The New York Times that three other states have adopted the program, including Texas, and that all of the states excep; Texas pro vide state funding for the program. Earley responded to the lawsuit on Feb. 12. In his group’s defense, he cites a recent Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council publication reviewing the effectiveness of inmate rehabilitation programs. “Of the Inmates who completed the Texas Inner Change Freedom Initiative program, only 8 percent returned to prison within two years,” he said, “compared to a 22 percent return rate for inmates who were eligible for the program By providing state tax dollars to the Christian program, the state clearly endorses Christianity over any other religion, which is unconstitutional but did not participate.” On the surface, this seems like a miracu lous achievement for the program, but a closer inspection of the report reveals the truth. Earley’s claim only takes into consid eration inmates who completed the pro gram. All participants in the program suf fered a 24.3 percent re-incarceration rate, which is actually 2 percent higher than the control group that Earley cites. In other words, the inmates who began but did not complete the program were actually more likely to return to jail than inmates who were never exposed. According to the Inner Change Web site, the program “utilizes a transformational model of change rather than a therapeutic model.” These models differ in how they attempt to rehabilitate the inmate. Inner Change focuses on rehabilitation through reading, understanding, and applying the les sons taught in the Bible; whereas therapeutic programs focus on inter action with people. However, in the Texas report, a therapeutic model boasts better results. The In-Prison Therapeutic Community program shows only 5 percent of inmates who completed this program returning to jail — three points better than Inner Change. This improvement contin- ues throughout the program. Overall, all participants only returned to prison 12.1 percent of the time — nearly half that of the Inner Change program. IPTC is a program for serious drug abusers and, for most participants, is a mandatory step in the parole process. Inner Change is a voluntary pro gram. If IPTC can achieve better results using inmates who have more serious problems and are participating in a program they were forced into, imagine what a similar program in Iowa could accomplish with more funding. Because Inner Change violates the First Amendment, it should be stopped. The extra state funding should be spent on other programs that do not violate the Constitution and are more effective in rehabilitating inmates. Matt Rigney is a sophomore journalism major.