The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, September 03, 2003, Image 13

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    NATION
K BATTALION
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5B • Wednesday, September 3, 2003
ig
I the Purchasing
x, which tracks
ness activity of
industrial
F M a m j j a
2003
i Supoty Nty* AP
ekend
o. At the samt
ispcctors discot
inc in 15 btmdih
i 2(KH) Chevrolf!
Julio Ceu;
seizure occura:
e Americas cari:
n anomaly in ik
Is of a trailer dir
and 1.083 pound
No arrests vw:
nvestigating.
Bryan
775-CICI
(2424)
EDITORIAL
Meet The Bait
Newspaper promotes change
The Battalion has been a vital institution to the Texas A&M
community since 1893, dating it as one of the oldest Aggie tra
ditions. But like any tradition, in order to thrive this newspaper
must be willing, ready and able to change. As the Fall 2003
semester commences, closing the gap in October on 110 years
of service, the duty of The Battalion to its campus readers has
only become clearer, necessitating a new mission forged from
the old.
This semester, we seek to connect with the student body by
using new methods to engage the reader. We have invited six
student leaders to submit issue-oriented opinion columns to The
Battalion every Friday for a new Forum page. This will grant
student leaders a space to discuss the pros and cons of issues in
the news and issues of importance to the student body they
serve, which will provide student leaders with a direct link to
their constituents. The Forum page will also have more space
for mail call, creating more room for reader feedback.
The newspaper must also become more accessible to the
campus in order to uncover the student body’s needs and
expectations. To address that. The Battalion will host two
Meet the Batt sessions in the Memorial Student Center’s
Forsyth Center Galleries. The first session will be held today
from 2 to 4 p.m., and again on Wednesday, Nov. 5.
If you can’t make it to Meet the Batt, please contact us with
your suggestions and hopes for changes within the newspaper.
The only way this newspaper can respond to student needs is
if we are aware of them. Please call us at 845-3313, drop by
and see us at 014 Reed McDonald Building or e-mail edi-
tor(a>thebattalion.net with suggestions. To submit mail call,
please send your 200-word letter to mailcall@thebattalion.net.
THE BATTALION
EDITORIAL BOARD
Kditor in Chief
Managing Kditor
Opinion Kditor
Metro Kditor
Sommer Hamilton
Elizabeth Webb
Jenelle Wilson
Sarah Szuminski
Metro Asst.
Member
Member
Member
C.E. Walters
Matt Rigney
Collins Ezeanyim
Matt Maddox
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
reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be sub
mitted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may
be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111. Texas A&M University. College
Station, TX 77843-1 III. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email; mailcall@thebattalion.net
MAIL CALL
Constitutional
abuse of power
In response to John David
I Blakley’s Sept. 1 column:
The United States
I Constitution has been misin-
| terpreted for years, most
I recently by the state of
Alabama and again by Blakley
I in his Sept. 1 column. He
| states that the decision to
X move the statue was appropri-
| ately made by the 11th U.S.
" Circuit Court of Appeals on
the basis of separation of
I church and state. The
k Constitution says nothing
; about separation of church
I and state. The First
Amendment states:
^ “Congress shall make no law
| respecting an establishment
V of religion...”
Liberal judges, such as the
ones in Alabama abuse their
^ power, misinterpreting the
I Constitution and the intent of
our founding fathers. Another
; interesting note: take a trip to
p the Supreme Court of the
United States’ building and
[ you will find a painting of
Moses holding none other
than the Ten Commandments.
Mark Wood
Class of 2003
Bus Ops changes
hurt students
I am a former student who is
a little upset about some of the
things that Transit Services is
doing now. I worked at Bus
Ops for three years and
helped pass the $50
Transportation Fee to ensure
that the service would be good
for students and faculty. At the
time, we promised more serv
ice, better buses and more fre
quency. Yet now that they
are in a budget short-fall, they
are taking it out on the
employees and its customers
— students — by cutting back
service on Friday and cancel
ing all weekend service, citing
budget problems. However,
they are able to install bike
racks to run on the Fish Camp
route. They can cut back serv
ice and driver’s pay, but can
add bike racks?
This is just an illusion of
trying to “help” students get
to campus. Transit Services
needs a reality check and go
back and make due on
promises it made two years
ago to get the initial
Transportation Fee passed.
Eric Webb
Class of 2002
Democracy at work
California recall process is not the circus it appears
B y now the edi
torial cartoon
featuring the
Disney character Goofy
on the state seal of
California has spread
around the country
faster than the Sobig.f
hug. To many it must
epitomize the circus -
er, recall process - that
is currently underway in the Golden state.
However, let us not look at California as a
fool’s utopia, rather let us watch real,
modern democracy happen and let us learn
from it.
Perhaps one finds humor in the fact that
the gubernatorial candidates in California
range from an aging quasi-funny comedi
an to a pom star (and. necessarily, a porn
hustler) to a former child actor. While the
serious candidates are the ones rightly
receiving the most coverage, the oddities,
by their very presence, have colored the
recall process plaid. Thus, California
involuntarily presents a
lecture on the foibles of
modem democracy. A P2
According to the California
Secretary of State, in order to get one’s
name on the ballot one of two things must
happen. A potential candidate can either
obtain 65 signatures and pay $3,500 or
obtain 10,000 signatures and pay no fee.
These numbers pale in comparison to the
fact that, to put the governor up for recall,
one needed 900,000 signatures.
Clearly, Californians erred when they
allowed the state constitution to establish
such paltry standards for recall candidates.
If they had just done away with the first
provision, the 65 signatures and $3,500
and stuck with the second, the book-length
ballot that will appear in October and
much of the subsequent criticism from the
nation would have been avoided. It was an
understandable mistake but one which
hardly discredits the entire recall process.
But it is not the logistics of recalling a
governor or obtaining a spot on the ballot
that has stirred the political elite. Instead,
it is the very notion that the masses -
average Californians - hold at their whim
the power to unseat a governor. The
haughty perch from which they sit, be
it Sacramento or Washington, D.C.,
has suddenly become less stable -
something they both fear and
cannot fathom.
Ordinary citizens have sud-
denly realized that politicians
serve at their pleasure;
JKyJ they do not serve at the
dm politicians’. A recall is not
on ly reasonable but vital to
democratic government. If
900,000 people think removing
Davis is a good idea, then it
ihould be put it to a vote across
the entire state. Such a transfer of
power from the oligarchic regime -
hat representative government has
largely become - to full-fledged
„ jl democracy is far too vulgar for
JL y rnany elites. This political
snobbery is an epidemic from
which California, fortunately,
has been quarantined - at
least for a while.
Ironically, this snobbery
has com$ from the right. The
small-framed conservative
giant, George Will, called the
process “plebiscitary cyni
cism” in a recent Washington
Post column while a San Diego
Union Tribune Op-Ed piece suc
cinctly summed up the bipartisan
opposition: “Davis has committed
* no crime, has not been accused
by any law enforcement agency
of committing any crime, is phys
ically and mentally capable of
serving out his term, and just eight
months ago was re-elected in a free and
open election.”
A recall brings the power back to the
most local entity - the people themselves.
In the same way that a grand jury does not
judge one’s guilt or innocence but rather it
determines the necessity of a trial, 900,000
Californians have decided not to judge
Gov. Davis’s guilt but rather allow the
nearly seven million other Californians
who voted in the 2002 election to judge
Davis’s guilt or innocence for themselves.
Granted, the San Diego Union Tribune
piece accurately points out that Gov. Davis
has indeed committed no criminal act. If
he’s guilty of commanding little respect
from the majority of Californians in
October, then he rightly should be removed.
The process is far from a
joke and even
farther
from
being a
circus.
Tony Piedra • THE BATTALION
Given a vast array of candidates,
Californians have whittled down the
choices, according to the most recent L.A.
Times poll, to just a handful -
Bustamante, Schwarzenegger, McClintock,
Ueberroth and Simon. Gary Coleman and
Company failed to place.
Choice and freedom breeds power,
something which Californians have shown
themselves to be Mery capable of handling
even in front to upturned noses of many
politicians and talking-heads.
California gets picked on enough as it
is. Granted, given its unabashed liberal
leanings, most of it is justified. However,
this time the state should be exemplified
rather than mocked. One supposes that
few of the critics of the recall outside of
California could say whether their state
had a recall process at all. The recall is not
“plebiscitary cynicism;” it is not about
Gov. Davis or California. It’s about
democracy, and it’s about bringing back
power to the people.
Michael Ward is a senior
history major.
An obligation to a former ally
I n mid August,
the United
States decided
to take military
action in war-torn
Liberia, and the
results were signifi
cant. By the time the
last 150 of approxi
mately 250 U.S.
troops in and out of
Liberia departed, the infa
mous former President of
Liberia, Charles Taylor had
met the terms of his exile, a
peace accord had been signed
and a new potential leader,
Charles Gyude Bryant, had
been selected.
This is good progess, but
during the time the United
States spent in thinking over
its level of intervention, hun
dreds of thousands of
Liberians lost their lives.
Fourteen years of civil war
were declared over after I I
days of U.S. ground troop
presence. Since the United
States had the power to put a
check on the conflict all
along, the delay to act was
illogical and unacceptable.
Moreover, if Liberia’s situa
tion didn’t command priority,
its history as a U.S. ally
should have.
Liberia has a long history
with the United States. The
country was founded by freed
slaves in 1821. Liberia
declared war on Germany in
World War I upon United
States’ appeal when they had
no intention of step
ping in on their own
accord, and during
World War II Liberia
hosted a major military
base. The United
States used Liberia as
an outpost to monitor
communist activity in
Africa during the Cold
War. The deciding vote
to form the state of Israel was
cast by Liberia,«again because
of U.S. importunity.
But the United States did
not prove to be a reciprocal
partner. Near the end of the
Cold War the United States
became a factor in the events
leading to Liberia’s destabi
lization. In the mid-1980s, the
Reagan administration pro
moted Samuel Doe, Charles
Taylor’s predecessor, who is
described as “an illiterate
thug” in an Aug. 18 The New
Republic article. By favoring
certain tribes over others. Doe
stirred up ethnic differences
that would escalate into civil
conflict. The stage was set for
Charles Taylor and his rebel
forces, who in 1989 tore a
bloody trail toward Liberia’s
capital of Monrovia.
The future was bleak for the
old U.S. ally and the United
States was partly to blame for
helping Taylor gain power.
Aware of the advancing
threat, neighboring countries
assembled a peacekeeping
force in 1990 under the United
Nations to maintain a cease
fire and ensure democratic
elections. More than half of
the force was made up of
underpaid Nigerian soldiers,
who began looting and selling
drugs and munitions to rebel
factions. As their stay contin
ued, they committed human
rights violations escalating to
murder and torture.
a
The future was
bleak for the old U.S.
ally and the United
States stood partly to
blame for helping
Taylor gain power.
A U.S. effort to send mili
tary advisors could have, at the
least, prevented much of the
violence and corruption, but
Washington kept its distance.
Now, under a similar U.N.
policy, a predominantly
Nigerian peacekeeping force
is present in Liberia once
again. Naturally, there is little
confidence among the people
that this second round of West
African presence will see
more benefit than detriment.
The international commu
nity lobbied for U.S. military
assistance. The Bush adminis
tration answered with a slim
$10 million and several ships
anchored just off Liberia’s
coast. Similar to 1990s policy,
the Bush administration sat
on its hands and refused to
commit troops or advisers.
In addition, the United
States once again worked
against the United Nations.
After the United Nations
indicted Charles Taylor for
war crimes, the administration
ordered his exile instead of
supporting his delivery before
a U.N. Special Court in Sierra
Leone. The administration
said the United States would
not step up militarily or mone
tarily until Taylor left Liberia.
This decree made no sense.
Instead of hastening his
exile, the United States gave
Taylor more reason to stay.
In July, Bush was quoted
by The New York Times as
saying, “We’re deeply con
cerned that the condition of
the Liberian people is getting
worse and worse and worse.”
Though compassionate, these
words would not have been
needed if the United States
had not taken years to provide
vital help to a country that
deserved it. The United States
should embrace its role as
Liberia’s defender.
David Shackelford is a senior
journalism major.
DAVID
SHACKELFORD