'TAlloj
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5B • Thursday, November 6, 2003
on
^ area or
gris Rivet
Hussein's
ilel->
v,.
^PalaceJ
) join its
Iraq. Tk
strongly
t because
nation by
jmed tk
pesidency
year wai
States,
id peace-
\ withoul
m tbe
EDITORIAL
Student bonfire
Deciding for one's self
Four years after the tragic 1999 Aggie Bonfire collapse that
killed 12 students and injured 27 others, Bonfire still has not
completely faded from the Aggie consciousness. This year, the
Student Bonfire will burn off campus and without University
sanction. This organization and its efforts were the subject of a
letter from the Department of Residence Life sent to students on
[campus last month.
The letter stated that the University bears no liability for stu
dents who participate in Student Bonfire or any off campus bon
fire. The University does have a right to absolve itself from
legal liability for an activity that it does not administer. But stu-
[dents should remember that their time off campus is theirs to
use as they please.
Students’ freedom to do what they wish off campus is a
matter the administration should avoid interfering with.
[Students should not let fellow students or administrators pres
sure their decision to be involved, opposed or indifferent to the
efforts of Student Bonfire. The fact that many students have
never seen a Bonfire makes it hard for students to have an
opinion on the issue.
The student body should take advantage of the information
available to them about the efforts of groups such as Student
Bonfire. Students should also consider attending the Student
Bonfire on Nov. 22. That way, each person can decide whether
he wishes to support attempting to preserve some form of the
Bonfire tradition.
An off-campus bonfire is not the same as what existed before
the collapse, but it is what is here now, and students have the
choice to support or disavow off-campus efforts. But for stu
dents to have an opinion on the matter, they must learn as much
as they can about the issue first.
THE BATTALION
icil’sref
people);
nation of
network
for car
le blasts
i fighters
irganiza-
Ltisar d-
We have
nsar al-
lida, and
it rep/e-
d adver-
wfaq-
writer
luted W
d.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
Metro Editor
Sommer Hamilton
Elizabeth Webb
Jenelle Wilson
Sarah Szuminski
Metro Asst.
Member
Member
Member
C.E. Walters
Collins Ezeanyim
Matt Rigney
David Shoemaker
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-
mitled 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
Slation, TX 77843-1 111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net
MAIL CALL
:r
-/its,
Fox not distorting
the news
In response to Collins
Ezeanyim Nov. 5 column:
Fox News is not the source
of so-called “misperceptions”
about the Iraq War. It simply
reported the facts regarding
the perpetual insubordinate
behavior of the Iraqi govern
ment, voiced by the CIA,
presidential Cabinet .mem
bers, congressman, British
intelligence and Australian
Intelligence.
Iraq was a threat, though,
perhaps not as imminent as
suspected. Obviously there
have been intelligence prob
lems, but who do you wish to
give the benefit of the doubt to-
allied intelligence or Saddam?
Fox may slightly slant to the
ideological right, but you men
tion nothing about the extreme
left ideologues that own or run
networks such as PBS, CNN
or BBC. Most notably is Bill
Moyer, president of PBS, a
staunch supporter of the
Democratic party. Perhaps Fox
seemed extremely biased
because it reported all the
underling evidence.
Nicholas Davis
Class 2004
^ \
Missing Silver
Taps disgraceful
Silver Taps, the final tribute to
a student who passes away
while at Texas A&M, is one of
the most honored Aggie tradi
tions. It shows the highest
amount of respect that we
Aggies have for each other,
something that no other uni
versity even tries to show. As
Aggies, we are bonded to each
other. I find it appalling that
there are individuals here who
have no respect for the Silver
Taps tradition.
I spoke to about seven peo
ple just before Silver Taps, to
make sure they were going to
respect the Aggie who had
fallen, but I received respons
es like “I have been once, so I
have been to them all” or
“Sorry, but I am doing home
work right now.” It may be just
me, but I find that an insult to
every Aggie, to Aggie tradi
tions and to this University as
a whole.
It is disgusting to know that
people look for excuses like
homework to not spend 20
minutes per month to
respect someone who has
died as a student.
Patrick Paschall
Class of 2007
'r y
W//
f
¥ ■
Rewriting history
Reagan miniseries inaccurately portrays presidency
*
MATT
MADDOX
T his fail, there were two hatchet jobs made
into movies. The first is the “Texas
Chainsaw Massacre,” the gory remake of
the classic horror movie. The second film of the
fall is the gruesome remake of the legacy of
President Ronald Reagan, a pitiful attempt to
duplicate the presidency, and one that is not worth
viewers’ time or money to see. CBS was right to
cancel the made-for-TV movie about the
Reagans, but Showtime will have to make numer
ous fundamental changes to the film before it
does justice to one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.
“The Reagans,” which has been in the making for four years,
was scheduled to air on CBS Nov. 18. Much to the displeasure
of its producers, there has been a public outcry in the wake of the
release of its script. The Media Research Center called on adver
tisers to boycott the film, while the Republican National
Committee asked that CBS submit the film
to historians for review prior to
release. Critics of the film
are not just coming
from the political
right, though.
Merv Griffin, a
Hollywood icon
and friend of the
Reagan family,
said of the film,
“It’s a cowardly
act. Is that what
the ‘C’ stands for
in CBS?” Leslie
Moonves, the chair
man of CBS, 1
acknowledged that
the biopic, “did not
present a balanced
portrayal of the
Reagans.” In a Pyrrhic
victory for conserva
tives and historians
alike, CBS canceled
its release of the film,
but shifted it to air
Showtime.
The faults of the movie are almost too many to count. The
largest fault is the film’s complete lack of historical accuracy
that portrays Reagan as a man of such small intellectual and
moral fiber that only former President Clinton could compare. In
one scene, Reagan tells the first lady that AIDS patients deserve
to die. Not only did Reagan never say such a thing, as admitted
to by the producers of the movie, but Reagan greatly expanded
funding for AIDS research during his presidency. Other scenes
portray Reagan as foul-mouthed and blasphemous. Michael
Reagan, President Reagan’s son, told Fox News, “They also
have my dad ... calling another person in anger an S.O.B. I’ve
never seen my Dad that angry, and I’ve never heard him use the
‘G-D’ word in my life.” Meanwhile, at age 92, President Reagan
is too stricken by Alzheimer’s to defend himself. This kind of
indecency has not been perpetrated on the presidency since
Monica Lewinsky became a household name.
The lies in the film don’t stop there.
According to critics who have seen its previews, the biopic
libelously portrays Nancy Reagan as the true leader in the White
House while Reagan is afflicted with Alzheimer’s. There is no
evidence that Nancy made any executive decisions or that
Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s during his presidency. It also
falsely shows Nancy as an abusive mother addicted to prescrip
tion drugs. This level of smear dan only be motivated by one
thing: Hate.
After this list of lies, it is little wonder that the undisputable
positive events of the Reagan presidency are conspicuously
absent from the film. Reagan was the leader of the free world
who overcame an assassination attempt, brought the Evil Empire
to its knees, led a revival of pride in America and induced the
longest period of economic prosperity that the country had ever
witnessed through tax cuts. But, according to
the script obtained by The New York
Times, these facts are not
mentioned in the
movie. It is one
thing to destroy the
reputation of a
political figure, but
re-writing history
to suit a political
agenda is a tactic
borrowed straight
from the communist
re-education camps
that Reagan helped
defeat.
Perhaps the great
est testament to the
slanderous intentions
of the film’s producers
is the cast. According to
The Washington Post,
those making the film
are ideological enemies
of the Reagan. James
Brolin, the actor who
portrays President Reagan, is
married to Democratic activist Barbra
Streisand. Actress Judy Davis, who plays Nancy Reagan in the
film, and Craig Zadan and Neil Meronis, the film’s producers,
are all self-described liberals. Avowed communists must be
kicking themselves for not making this kind of propaganda
themselves during the Cold War.
CBS was right to stop its airing of “The Reagans.” Presenting
such grossly fictional material as historical fact does a great dis
service to the education of the generation of people now living
who do not know what life was like with Reagan as president.
Matt Maddox is a senior
management major.
Seth Freeman • THE BATTALION
Boykin must be removed from post
R elations between
the United States
and Islamic coun
tries throughout the
world are at a cross
roads. President George
W. Bush and his advis
ers have spent a long
time trying to mend
relations with the inter
national community
after the Iraq war, but a U.S. general has
taken a step in the opposite direction by
making contentious remarks about
Muslims and their religion.
Lt. Gen. William Boykin should step
down or be removed from his current
position in the defense department in
response to his divisive religious com
ments. The remarks, which he has made
in multiple churches during the last two
years, do not reflect the attitude the
nation or any of its leaders should have at
this time.
The controversy began in the middle
of October when some of the comments
Boykin has made in different churches
around the country were revealed. Boykin
was recently appointed to his current
position as Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense for Intelligence. His comments
alluded to the fact that the war on terror
is occurring “because we’re a Christian
nation, because our foundation and our
roots are Judeo-Christian ... and the
enemy is a guy named Satan.” Since then,
various civil groups, including the
Council on American-Islamic Relations
and the Interfaith Alliance, have called
for Boykin’s resignation. Some conserva
tive leaders are saying the opposite and
claim his comments do not warrant pun
ishment. The Pentagon says the general
will either not be reassigned or be asked
to resign.
Boykin has been described as an out
standing military leader by Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to
a Reuters report. Another BBC News
story says he “enjoys a glittering military
record as an officer and commando.”
Both of these descriptions may be true,
but Boykin does not seem to be as skilled
as an official in the Pentagon. Leaders
need to be open-minded to the views of
many people, but Boykin does not seem
to be open to any beliefs
but his own.
Some conservatives
have said Boykin was
just using his right to
free speech when he told
various church congrega
tions the war on terror
ism is “a battle with
Satan.” He may have
been stating his beliefs,
but he should have real
ized how closed-minded
his remarks were.
Bush has had to
backpedal as quickly as
possible and reaffirm his own beliefs that
the war on terror is not a war on Islam.
According to an Associated Press story, a
Ramadan dinner held shortly after the
comments made the news was “mired in
an Islam controversy.” In the same story.
Bush said Boykin’s view “doesn’t reflect
my point of view or the view of this
administration.” The president needs to
back this statement by calling for Boykin’s
resignation or at least his reassignment.
The comments may have been meant
as innocent, and they were delivered to
conservative Christians throughout the
country. But, no federal official should be
allowed to make such insensitive remarks
and allowed to keep his job.
a
The Bush
administration needs to
show how important
U.S.-Islamic ties are at
this moment by
removing Gen. Boykin
from his current position
in the Pentagon.
not have come at a worse time.
Americans are losing their lives in Iraq
and many more are still occupying
Afghanistan, both are Muslim countries.
The country is also still interested in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict where anti-
American sentiment is already high.
Boykin is a shining example of just what
America does not need.
His views may be shared by a majority
of the American population, but the com-
ments were still
uncalled-for.
The Bush administra
tion has said over and over
that the war on terror is
not a war against Islam. If
they want to show that
they will stand behind
their own statements. Bush
and his advisers need to
get Boykin out of his
Pentagon office. Boykin
has stated that he is “not
anti-Islam or any other
religion,” but his remarks
were still offensive and
cannot be tolerated. He may have thought
his remarks would inspire his listeners, but
he was inadvertently using some of the
same rhetoric Islamic extremists use to pro
voke terrorists.
The Bush administration needs to
show how important U.S.-Islamic ties are
at this moment by removing Gen. Boykin
from his current position in the
Pentagon. It needs to take a stand and
show these type of comments will not be
allowed, and that the United States is
open to the beliefs of all religions.
Hayden Migl is a freshman