Friday, March?,20(13
DOO or less (price must
offering personal possessioos
large. If item doesn't sell,
i end to qualify for the 5
id is cancelled early.
LOST & FOUND
thocolate Lab, Male, white spot#
Call 777-8762.
Dog: Rhodesian Ridgeback, tyi
an, female. Reward, 777-8366.
MISCELLANEOUS
Spring Break$? Top$formu$icji>
mts at String&Hom Shop. Call 71}
MOTORCYCLE
Suzuki Katana-600, excellentow
200-mi., $3700/obo. Call (979)7St
Suzuki TLIOOOS, beautiful bike,c
as. $6000/obO. 587-1654.
fonda Shadow Spirit 750, excete
an, 17QOmi., $4999. 218-5542.
Yamaha Y2F600R, Sport Sc-
I. Perfect Condition. $6000 fc
48.
Yamaha Zuma Scooter, 90h
Condition. $1650o.b.o. Call 2lf
PETS
Pets: Dogs, Cats, Puppies, k-
xtany purebreds. Brazos bn
, 775-5755, www.shelterpets.or:
raner puppies full-blooded, d.o.t
ormed, tails docked, $250-350,tr
all (979)279-3359.
REAL ESTATE
fouse Hunting Service revesi
ys in any area and price rangeys,
Visit AndrewSmithOnline.conu!
'9)693-7653 Broker, Century !l
luick over-the-net home evate
isit AndrewSmithOnline.comorti!
3-7653 Broker, Century 21 Beai
ed! 7 Costly Mistakes to Avo-:
Selling Your Home. Free read
essage 1-800-951-2018 ente
3 or visit AndrewSmithOnline.cor
Century 21 Beal.
ROOMMATES
o., 1/2 utilities, 2bdrm/2bth dupk'.
rnson and University Oaks in So
listrict, M/F needed asap, 111
r 2bdrm/2.5bth condo, on slut
August $400/mo. +1/2bills. 2#l'
'5, klebba@houston.rr.com.
nate needed for spacious fumtf
m/2bth house, fenced yard, *
;int, ping pong table, $42*
1.
mate needed, Summer/ Fall ®
ba, $350/mo. Ethernet, Cable,If’
Brian. 694-1794.
ded for summer. 4/3 duplex, f
w/d, cable, ethernet. Writ
Felisha 693-7564.
es ASAP, 3/2 townhouse, f
close to campus, $250/mo., i,
patio w/yard, furnished, «
iking. 832-264-7718, 281-471
oommates needed for 2003 III
3bdrm/2ba house on Hoi
150/mo., utilities included. 696
needed, 3bdrm/2bth, $3®
es, large backyard. Call
6308.
roommate, new 3/2/2, shut
le, internet, $350 +1/3bills. 699
3-383-8524.
nate large 2/1.5Apt $275/n*
Call John 979-224-0822 asap.
rate, 2/2 house, new, furnisW
, utilities paid. 979-218-6288.
IOO/mo., 1/3 utilities, close t
ntact Brown, 779-8452.
" rent 3bdrm/2bth, walking 66’
ampus. Call 979-260-3939.
sublease, 1-F needed to she*
th Rock Hollow duplex, w/d, Id'
? 9-775-9573.
SERVICES
as Defensive Driving. Lots-d’
h-a-lotl! Ticket dismissal/nsi
count. M-T(6pm-9pm), ^
pm), Fri.&Sat.- Fri(6pm-8pi'l
n-2:30pm), Sat(8am-2:30pn!
inkofAmerica. Walk-ins df 1 ’
5/cash. Lowest price allowed h
-Univ. Dr., Ste.2 1 7. 846-611f'
!0/min. early.
jnancy Test; Hope PregnaeQ
College Station 695-9193, Brya»
Post Abortion Peer Counsel
TRAVEL
3 at Spring Break!! Luxe?
i sleeps 15, Ski Taos, R®
gel Fire, Rio Costilla, 0
Call John or Tomoi
255-8905.
TUTORS
ng- Algebra through Diflerert
Grady 696-9113.
i/EIGHT LOSS
it with Total Control. BumsM
atite, boosts energy, ephedra
I-264-9579.
onalwellness2day.com
I o g s t o r e . c QjR
0 - 9 4 8- cTTs.
GOP uses the
media well
Cries of liberal bias untrue
(U-WIRE) PHILADELPHIA — I am so sick and bloody
tired of hearing about this so-called liberal media. It’s gotten
to the point where Bush could be found in a love tryst with
Saddam and Screech from “Saved by the Bell’’ and the second
the story ran. the response would be, “Oh, there goes that lib
eral media again, distorting the facts....”
Constant repetitions of this useful myth make it seem like
there is a giant liberal headquarters (probably in San
Francisco) where the most powerful liberals in the world sit
around thinking of new ways to sully the good names of con
servatives everywhere. This perspective is just as inane as
saying, “Well, you know, the Jews run the media.” I wish the
Jews ran the media; there’d probably be better stuff on TV.
In case you missed it, here are some big-time names in the
media who are decidedly not liberal: George Will. Bob
Novak, Pat Buchanan, William Kristol, Fred Barnes, Paul
Gigot, Charles Krauthammer. John McLaughlin, Rush
Limbaugh, Oliver North, Ann Coulter, William Buckley Jr.,
Bill O’Reilly, Alan Keyes and Tucker Carlson.
All of the preceding are rabid conservative ideologues, and
I challenge anyone to point out an equal number of major-
market seriously dedicated liberal media hounds.
The truth is that the allegations of a “liberal media” by the
right are more than a reactionary measure; it’s actually an
effective strategy. Eric Alterman, from his book What Liberal
Media?: “Conservatives know that if the press is effectively
intimidated, either by the accusation of liberal bias or by a
reporter’s own mistaken belief in the charge’s validity, the
institutions that conservatives revere — the military, corporate
America, organized religion and the powerful conservative
groups themselves — will be able to escape scrutiny and
increase their influence. Working the refs works....”
The effects of this “constant drumbeat of groundless accu
sation” are evident to anyone who watches a panel show. The
“liberal” side of the table feels compelled to agree with their
counterparts on at least one or two issues through the course
of the show, lest they fail to prove their objectivity and get
cast as just another cog in the liberal wheel. Conservatives
feel no such compulsion.
i u
Constant repetitions of this useful myth
make it seem like there is a giant liberal
headquarters (probably in San Francisco)
where the most powerful liberals in the
world sit around thinking of new ways to
sully the good names of conservatives every
where.
The wool has been pulled over our eyes so completely that
the press has become sedated. Far from seeing a liberal
media, I see a media that has forgotten how to ask the tough
questions and has forgotten that the words “no comment”
rarely ever mean that. Reporting, never meant to be a cushy
job, has become just that.
Bill O’Reilly, for example, gets a kick out of casting him
self as the common man: “I understand working class
Americans. I’m as lower-middle class as they come.”
O'Reilly’s contract is an estimated $20 million and he drives
a Lexus.
For all accounts of a rampant liberal slant, when it mat
tered the most (the 2000 election) the liberal media fell asleep
at the wheel.
Perhaps it is too long gone to remember the near-ringing
endorsements that then-Governor Bush got from The New
York Times, The Washington Post and our own dear Inquirer
every time he got in front of cameras and made a speech
without falling down or forgetting how to read (here, we see
the true effects of the “soft bigotry of low expectations”). He
waffled on cocaine use, and it was a non-issue. The combined
three DUI convictions that he and Cheney split were dis
missed as the products of a wild youth, as if that makes it less
of a crime (neither, by the way, was close to his youth at the
time). And let’s not forget the most unforgivable aspect of his
character: This is the man who traded Sammy Sosa! That
move, I think, was a tribute to his business sense.
His vice president’s former company made millions in
deals with Iraq, his ties to corporate America have never been
stronger and right this second as you read this article, a pair
of jack-booted thugs could march in, rough you up and throw
you into a cell indefinitely without ever telling you or your
family why.
Where, I ask, is the liberal media on all that?
In an age where the one thing people can agree on is the
over-sensationalizing.of the news, the fact that all those sto
ries failed to grab attention for long is nothing short of
remarkable.
I think that the much-maligned liberal media put Bush in
the White House; perhaps as a reaction to constant allegations
of liberal bias, perhaps because the Bush campaign actually
did have better food than Gore’s (people who wonder about
these things have all kinds of theories). But whatever the rea
son, Bush got an unquestionably easy ride from the press, and
he took it all the way to the top.
Eliot Sherman is a columnist
at the University of Pennsylvanian.
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7 • Friday, March 7, 2003
Misplaced Aggression
Ashcroft wasting time and money on trivial issues
A pparently frustrated with the miserable
failure of the war on drugs, Attorney
General John Ashcroft and Drug
Enforcement Agency Administrator John B.
Brown turned their ill-informed aggression
toward legitimate businesses in a nationally tele
vised address on CNN last week. Citing ambigu
ous federal law, Ashcroft, Brown and others
announced the indictment of more than 50 sellers
of tobacco pipes, or as Ashcroft might say, illegal
drug paraphernalia distributors.
What should enrage freedom-loving Americans is not the crack
down on drug paraphernalia, but how broadly “paraphernalia” is
being defined. According to www.DEA.gov, the government cites
Title 21 U.S. Code Service Section 863, a 1996 law concerning
what constitutes paraphernalia. Among the many vague stipulations
considered about a product under this law are “circumstantial evi
dence of the ratio of sales of the items to the total sales of the busi
ness, the existence and scope of legitimate uses in the community
and expert testimony concerning its use,... (and any) other logically
relevant factors.” Well, that clarifies everything.
The fact that the federal government itself is determin
ing the “existence and scope of legitimate uses” of these
products and what factors are considered “logically rele
vant” is disheartening, as no government agency could
ever make these decisions objectively, assuming the
agency even understood the obscure jargon of this law.
This is the type of stupidity of thought that tax-paying cit
izens should hold their representatives accountable for.
Equally disappointing is that the two nationwide
crackdowns, which the DEA smugly refer to as
Operations Pipe Dream and Headhunter, come as this
nation is going up and down the colors of the terror alert
ladder and preparing for a possible war with Iraq. Given the
tense nature of the current climate, not only is an attack on
alleged marijuana pipes and their distributors by the federal govern
ment laughable, it is downright embarrassing. Though exact figures
were never revealed by Ashcroft, the fact that these are U.S. tax
dollars at work is clearly a shame.
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
Director Keith Stroup rightly identified Ashcroft as a man with a
personal agenda possibly vying for future political advancement.
Just like Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) used video game violence to
propel himself up the political ladder, Ashcroft is taking on pipes.
According to news.com, Stroup said, “This latest enforcement is
primarily an expression of extremism of this particular attorney
general. President Bush and most of his serious advisers have more
(important) work to focus on right now than whether someone’s
selling rolling papers and roach clips.” Ashcroft probably has more
important work to focus on, too.
But when incarcerating actual drug dealers presents too much of
a challenge, the easy-to-catch, law-abiding businessman is targeted.
Just because marijuana can be put into a pipe should not make
pipes illegal and their dealers criminal; such an assertion is comical.
Pipes and bongs can be made from simple household items as well,
such as two-liter bottles, soda cans and tinfoil. These items, too,
must apparently be confiscated and destroyed by the government,
as they can be broadly defined as drug paraphernalia. Really, any
thing can.
According to this line of thought, guns should be illegal because
they can be used as instruments of crime when loaded with bullets.
One must totally disregard the fact that they have practical, legal
uses. And as ridiculous as all this sounds, it is exactly what this
nation’s government is implying.
In reality, a pipe in its own right hurts no one! Drug abuse may
very well be a problem in this country, but destroying pipes with
legal uses will do nothing to curb that problem. The issue does
bring to light another, much bigger, problem: governmental irre
sponsibility. Unless U.S. citizens hold agencies such as the DEA
and individuals such as Attorney General Ashcroft accountable,
they will continue to persecute and prosecute innocent Americans,
defining federal law as they see fit.
George Deutsch is a senior
journalism major.
Graphic by Leigh Richardson.
MAIL CALL
Antiwar protesters are not
anti-American protesters
In response to Mail Call on March 6:
Many Americans have taken the misguided and reckless opinion of
the Bush Administration in which this war is a protective and moral
imperative and many have not. Those who have stood up against
such hubris are not, by any means, Anti-American as the Limbaughs,
O'Reilleys and Matthew Maddoxes of this world constantly claim.
These are the people who do not have a programmed reaction to any
and everything this administration does.
These are people who have the courage to stand up against what
they feel is wrong and the intellectual depth to understand the impor
tance of global coalitions and diplomacy. It is not a protest of our
troops or our military who are simply following orders, we support
them in everything they do for our country, it is speaking out against
the inept leadership of George W. Bush on the issue of this war.
We have seen these protests frotn California to New York and
Barcelona to Beijing, who are we to ignore the world and just do
whatever we want. We are standing up and saying we choose life over
death, stability over uncertainty, diplomacy over force, we choose
peace over the Bush Doctrine. We must remember we are only a
super power until all the other countries have nuclear weapons which
is not far away.
Keep speaking out and write your congressman. This war probably
cannot be stopped but remember in the 2004 presidential election
who is responsible for sending all of our young troops over there to
fight a war because of a gut feeling.
Justin Hill
Class of 2004
United States' human rights record just as
questionable as nations like Libya
In response to Jerad Najvar's March 6 column:
It is with great pride that I reflect on those Aggies who have
appropriately taken it upon themselves to lead support for the
United States war effort.
Jerad Najvar is correct, Washington did warn against permanent
alliances. Of course, such a warning was premised upon the need
to avoid war, as Washington was quite wary of the conflicts that
had constantly faced Europe in the latter 18th century, but taken
out of context, it makes a strong case for U.S. detachment from
the need for international consensus.
How indeed can the United States participate in an organization
where Libya and Syria are guardians of global human rights? Mr.
Najvar correctly cites the Human Rights watch criticism of these
regimes, although he also fails to mention that the same organi
zation has often criticized the U.S. criminal justice system. In par
ticular, it's continued emphasis on executions, which places it in
the company of other esteemed nations like Libya and Syria.
In any event, such similarities can be easily dismissed because
of their inconsistency with the strong argument in favor of war.
Nicolas Rangel Jr.
Lecturer/graduate student
Texas A&M Department of Communication