SPORTS
HE BATTALION
a
ers Ken Caminili
nseco blamed ram-
use, a claim that
since the only thing
faster than home-
)iceps were their
ts.
)ut the magical
998, Sosa played
/ to McGwire’s
;r. More recently,
ids was cast in the
eavy, Sosa contin-
it from the reservon
he built up.
:r how he chafed at
i surprise drug test
laims about being
Now, he will need
> convince people
eating all along,
y, Cubs manager
and Sosa’s team-
d it was an honest
that ultimately
ract from his con-
omplishments. But
d even fans weren't
irgive or forget,
nanager Joe Torre
sode a “dirty
ta centerfielder
s, who hit a game-
-run homer the
gainst Texas, said
danket allegations
by Caminiti and
ar ago, it would
i over every long
was left to former
1 current Arizona
; Mark Grace to
at Sosa’s reasoning,
d,” Grace said,
itting them 500
s to hit them 550,
t of the second
D‘Leary ran out to
:e the ejected Sosa
he bleachers
n’t pay $35 to see
ght not have shells!
r, to see the Sosa
umping much of
was beaned by a
es pitch that
■Imet last month,
numbers have
downward ever
sa just came off
fter missing 17
s just 2-for-15 in
nee, including a
performance
>n. That Sosa
:d the kind of lift
cal or otherwise-
rovides.
;e to you that I
thing illegal,”he
later, Sosa added,
need to use that,
very strong guy
e to be to survive
) be thrown at him
ad.
Opinion
Battalion
Page 5 • Thursday, June 5, 2003
Ticket this
‘Click It or Ticket’ campaign a waste of taxpayer money and police resources
MIKE WALTERS
O nly a week into summer vaca
tion, many students found
themselves staring at a now-
familiar “public service announce
ment.” In it a young man in his vehi
cle pulls up to a stoplight. Casually,
he glances to his left and freezes for
amoment, seeing a police officer next to him, realizing he’s bro
ken the law. A look of fear washes over his face as he sinks down
in his seat, attempt 1 ig to hide his crime from the officer. It is,
however, too late.irens blare as he cringes, knowing he’s caught.
Was he driving a stolen vehicle, or maybe had a kidnapped
woman in the passenger seat? Did he have a murdered body in his
trunk? No, this man was being stopped by the police for not wear
ing his seat belt.
safety by a group such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This
would be an excellent campaign were that the case. It’s no secret
that wearing your seat belt properly decreases your chance of
being injured or killed in an auto accident. The fact of the matter
is, this is not a campaign led and funded by a private organization
— it’s a statewide operation using tax dollars from the federal
government. According to the Texas Department of Transportation
Web site, it’s using 4.2 million of them.
The “Click It or Ticket” campaign promotes a concept that,
while meaning well, operates in manners and principles that
infringe on the valued freedom America was founded upon.
According to the Insurance Institute for highway safety, only 18
states and the District of Columbia have primary seat belt laws,
meaning that police can stop vehicles and ticket them solely for
seat belt law violations. However, the use of federal tax dollars to
fund this campaign quietly forces the other 32 states to help imple
ment a law they don’t even have. It uses federal tax dollars to fund
a state law, which means that citizens who live in states without
seat belt laws are paying for a campaign to promote our own law.
Besides paying for advertisements and road signs, the funds
include the requirement of state and local officers to work over
time and sit beside streets and highways for the sole purpose of
stopping automobiles whose passengers are in violation of seat
belt laws. While these officers sit on the roads, theft, murder and
rape can conceivably occur behind their backs. This same tax
money could be better spent funding overtime pay to watch for
these more serious atrocities.
This is not the first year the campaign was run, so what results
encouraged the government to continue funding it? According to
the Texas Department of Transportation, last year’s campaign
“exceeded goals” because its observational studies recorded seat
belt use at an estimated “record” of 86 percent after the cam-
i paign’s launch, up from a usual 80 percent. No doubt the states
without primary seat belt laws would be pleased to know that the
I unsanctioned use of their tax dollars went to increase seat belt
| use in a state hundreds of miles away by a paltry 6 percent.
One argument stands as the biggest insult to freedom that the
I “Click It or Ticket” campaign hurls upon our country: the idea
s that it is the government’s right to protect people from them
selves by enforcing a mandatory wearing of seat belts. The con
cept of a free country requires a government whose only moral
purpose is to prevent the initiation of force against enemies for
eign and domestic, to ensure that its citizens enjoy the opportunity
for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To have any of the
three, Americans must be protected against the initiation of force
by fellow citizens via theft, murder or physical injury, or even by a
foreign attacker, and it should be in
this realm alone that the government
is free to take action.
The idea of a seat belt law stands
on the incorrect principle that a
moral government has the
right to coerce its citizens into
living their lives by doing whatever
it decrees is the proper way to live.
In the event of an auto accident, not
wearing a seat belt hurts nobody but
that person, so how can the govern
ment ethically over
step its f ' —
boundaries
by insisting
that it can
lawfully pre
vent one of its
citizens by acting
within their constitu
tional rights? The con
cept might sound
appalling at first. ‘You
mean you have the right to
hurt yourself?’ As long as it
doesn’t involve injury to
another, yes, as crazy as that
sounds. The pursuit of happiness is
a path on which there are usually wrong
turns, and as long as your mistakes do not
cause harm to another, the government must
not intervene.
The government is only free to administer jus
tice to injury between individuals, not against injury to the self, or
else it takes away from the freedom of its citizens. Only when
laws against freedom are repealed can we break the small chains
the government has placed on unaware citizens. It’s sadly fitting
that such an instance as the one described here involves physical
restraint. If Americans are to call ourselves free, however, we
must not accept a single infraction.
Mike Walters is a junior
psychology major.
Graphic by Seth Freeman.
Veil inappropriate for driver’s license photo
Muslim woman in Florida must be subject to same regulations as others
T he Associated
Press reported
last week that
Sultaana Freeman has
gone to court alleging
that the state of Florida
is thwarting her reli
gious freedoms by requiring
Freeman, a Muslim woman, to
unveil for her driver’s license photo
graph. Previously, the state had
allowed Freeman to keep her veil
on, so that a three-inch-wide open
ing revealed her eyes and a vague
idea of her skin color, nothing more.
Freeman claimed that before
Sept. 11, the state a’.lowed her to
remain veiled in the picture, but
now a new photograph must be
taken and the state it: no longer will
ing to accommodate Freeman’s reli
gious practice. Given the circum
stances, the state of Florida is justi
fied in its actions.
Freeman’s lawyer, Howard Marks
of the American Civil Liberties
Union, presented one expert who
suggested that the
Koran is unwavering in
its doctrine and that
Freeman must remain
veiled. Not surprising
ly, the state of Florida
presented its own
Islamic leader who testified to the
contrary. However, it is apparent
that both sides have fallen into the
trap of making this a First
Amendment issue when clearly it is
not. The concern in this case is
whether Freeman’s desire to remain
veiled is a detriment to the security
of the state and the nation.
Marks wisely alluded to the
semi-legal status of peyote among
Native American populations in the
United States. Peyote, a substance
derived from cactus native to the
Southwest and similar to mescaline,
is illegal to all due to its hallucino
genic properties except to those who
use it for religious ceremonies. In
the early 1990s, the Supreme
Court’s decision to bar all use of
peyote prompted the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act
Amendments of 1994. Passed by
Congress, this act gave special con
sideration to the ritual use of peyote
among certain religions. Justifiably,
this act has been interpreted as the
state granting special concessions to
certain groups in the name of reli
gion.
Naturally, it would seem that
Freeman’s desire to remain veiled is
a harmless and crucial aspect of her
religion. She is not petitioning the
state for some strange or otherwise
illegal concession. But as previously
mentioned, this case is not about
religion versus the state. If Freeman
were to remain veiled in her photo
graph, that would present a safety
issue.
As Jason Vail, assistant attorney
general for the state of Florida, said,
“(a driver’s license is) the primary
method of identification in Florida
and the nation ...I don’t think there
can be any doubt there is a public
safety interest.” He is correct.
The driver’s license is used for
things from admission into a movie
theater or bar, to employment appli
cation and identity verification. A
three-inch-wide opening in
Freeman’s veil does not allow for
adequate identification. In fact, a
veiled picture is worthless. Facial
features, hair color, skin tone and any
other defining characteristics of the
person are hidden behind the veil.
Her refusal to remove her veil
presents far more issues than just her
inability to obtain a valid driver’s
license. For instance, if she were
pulled over by a police officer would
she then be required to take off her
veil? If not, the officer would be
unable to tell whether the person
with whom he was dealing was
Freeman, or even a woman at all.
Interestingly, lawyers for the state
of Florida asked how Freeman would
reconcile the Islamic command that
she must make a pilgrimage to
Mecca, which would require her to
unveil for her passport photograph,
with the contention that Islamic law
will not allow her to unveil.
Fortunately, while Freeman’s
lawsuit is not frivolous, it is erro
neously conceived and reasoned.
Her religious freedom would clearly
be impeded - for the 15 seconds
that it would take to unveil and take
the picture - but it is an impediment
necessary to the safety of the state
and nation.
Freeman is a recent convert to
Islam and while it is commendable
that she is willing to practice her
faith in such an open way, it would
seem that she is oblivious to the fact
that in most Islamic countries, she
would not even be allowed to drive,
much less voice her grievance in
court. And it is with this in mind
that Freeman should happily unveil
for her picture.
Michael Ward is a senior
history major.
.im, “As Real as it
r the category of
Ibum full of minti
ng some dignity,
n-muted guitar is
t the first track is
on Sept. 11. You
at are screeched,
e Center tragedy,
othing’s left? Aid
ed thoughts that
miniscent of the
inside this mold,
e to the heartfelt
niel Chapmen
World
(U-WIRE) LUBBOCK,
Texas — Why do they hate us?
Since 9/11, no question has so
desperately sought an answer as
why so many people could so
loathe us that they would make
our destruction their unifying
purpose in life. And more baf
fling still, how could such
active hatred make us its focus
Without our realizing it until
planes started crashing into
buildings? How couldn’t we
have known?
The media’s coverage of the
attacks, and our consequent
actions, have given occasion to
a contentious recurring theme:
anti-Americanism. What is anti-
Americanism, and what does it
mean?
The term covers a broad
rooted
scope of sentiment and manifes
tations, from mild protest to
violent terrorism. Anti-
Americanism can be as harm
less as an Austrian university
student casually suggesting over
coffee that America is too big
for its breeches, or as hateful as
an Iranian mob screaming for
death unto the Great Satan. By
and large, within the American
media, anti-Americanism is
understood to explain away
anything even mildly negative
that is done or said in opposi
tion to our nation or any of its
policies. Oftentimes, anything
less than beaming adoration and
unflinching support is deemed
anti-American.
As for how our great country
has fallen into disrepute, theo-
in anti-American sentiment
ries abound. Some say it's pure
envy that evokes resentment.
We have the
coolest cars and
the most cable
channels, and
we’re hated for
it. Some see a
struggle between
freedom-haters
and freedom-
lovers.
We can do
and say what we
please, and some
people find that
threatening.
Others allege
that the
immodesty of our women is to
blame, or our culture’s unem
barrassed love of money. And
still, others suggest that through
our influence-peddling among
the Arab states
and Israel, we
have painted
ourselves with a
big, red bull’s-
eye. And of
course there’s
Iraq, a topic for
another column.
Since I am
not a disenfran
chised third-
world
Ameriphobe, I
can’t say with
any authority
which it is. I
believe that, as with most
things, the roots of anti-
Americanism are complex and
interwoven. Religious fervor,
justifiable anger and politics, as
well as ignorance and raw envy,
all add to the stew of anti-
Americanism.
I chose to address this topic
because of what I see as chronic
over-simplification going on at
a certain popular news network.
I realize that a large swath of
the American public simply
does not want meaningful
analysis of complex events. To
many, the arena of world affairs
is just more entertainment, and
as with any action movie, it’s
fun to root for the invincible,
bullet-dodging hero taking out
faceless enemies for the cause
of freedom and democracy.
Hence, the incredible popularity
of Fox News, which even its
most loyal fans faintly realize is
not a “news” source in the
truest sense.
So yes, we are hated because
of our freedoms, our prosperity,
and our unfathomable power.
As I said, anti-Americanism
is a complex phenomenon, too
complicated for simple, jingois
tic explanations.
Though our country doesn’t
deserve one-tenth of the con
demnation that comes its way,
we must recognize that the
world is no longer willing to
give us the benefit of the doubt
for even minor hypocrisies.
Brian Carpenter is a columnist
at Texas Tech University.
u
Some say it’s
pure envy that
evokes
resentment. We have
the coolest cars and
the most cable
channels, and we’re
hated for it.