Page 11 • Monday, February 2, 2004
m\
UIO
Opinion
The Battalion
Pack up and move out
Wermont town should not be forced to make up the tax-burden of other cities
onsider a scenario in which a newly-
founded town has established itself as a
prosperous, efficient member of a state, in
/hich the citizens of this town are forced to pay
nore than their share of taxes. Now imagine that
his town receives only 10 percent of the taxes it
ays back because the state considers it too
oung to handle money on its own. What right
iocs this state have to steal this town’s hard-
amed money?
The answer is, “by no right.” While this sce-
ario might seem fictitious and beyond the realm of possibility, the
itizens of Killington, Vt„ are asking themselves the same questions,
or a population of 1,(KK), they pay $10 million to the state in taxes
very year and see only $1 million of it in state aid, according to
SA Today.
"We have no justice, no representation,” said City Manager
'avid Lewis. “We’re being used as a cash cow to support others.”
Lewis has the correct grasp of what taxation amounts to — the
eizure of one’s property so that it may go to support another. The
ifth Amendment guarantees that no American will “be deprived of
life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private
roperty be taken tor public use, without just compensation.” This
peaks ot justice, which is giving a person that which he has earned,
ncome taxes serve to take away what someone hits earned and
iven to someone who hasn’t earned it.
Some may argue that the seemingly innocent concept of wage
withholding a euphemism for theft — for things such as social
^fcecurity, do get returned to you. However, this should be an insult to
| everyone, directly implying that you are not intelligent enough to
save for your own retirement, and the money that the government
withholds from you is being taken until you reach their subjectively-
hosen age.
meantime, you are deprived of the opportunity to invest the
'(Apfconey you might save and lose out any potential earnings on it.
^tVhile it is true that someone could squander their retirement sav
ings, this is no one's fault but their own. To assume all American
workers are like that is to presume we are all irresponsible with our
money during the entire duration of our working lives.
For years, Americans have been content to hand over their money
to those who have no right to it, but the injustice of the situation
should not be ignored anymore. The citizens of Killington are tired
of all the money taken by force each year and will vote this March
ed
lay i
:ers f
eat!
resse:
to secede from Vermont
to become part of New
Hampshire. They want
to live in a place with
out state income or sales
tax, where they keep the
money they earn.
The entirety of
America was supposed
to be that place. When
the Founding Fathers
could no longer stand
having their money
stolen from them and
used for another’s sole
benefit, they created a
place where justice
existed in courtrooms
and checkbooks.
The idea of elimi
nating taxes that have
stood for decades may
sound radical.
Sweeping change is
radical, but that doesn't
make it wrong. What is
wrong is enduring
injustice, in accepting
less than the free coun
try our ancestors
fought and died for.
New Hampshire, the
state Killington wishes
to join, has the state
motto of “Live free or
die.” The choice of
death over slavery a is
choice the early
Americans made in two
of our wars, enslaved to other men in different fomis of the same
evil. In accepting any tax or code that allows the state to seize
what we’ve earned to give it to those who haven’t earned it, we
violate justice and surrender freedom. If we call ourselves the
heirs to the country the founders created, we must recognize evil
Chris Griffin • THE BATTALION
for what it is, regardless of the excuse it is committed in, and how
difficult it would be to renounce it. Americans must look to
Killington and stand with them against unjust taxation and reaf-
firm our right to our own lives, freedom and property.
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.
itratf
mate.
latet*
les a
rolma
iCIait
Kerry'
junto
K)
1
Icome:
lissour.
^arolini
i,
Mexic
)1
Friend or foe?
Nof every Pakistani leader can be trusted
t
NICHOLAS
DAVIS
As the war on terror press
es forward, the United States
aces the critical task of iden-
ifying international allies,
or most nations this is sim-
)ie, but when it comes to
Islamic nations, peering
hrough the facades and rec
ognizing those states truly
opposed to terrorism is an
trduous task. Pakistan is one
of these suspicious nations, and recent events
tave levied more reason to question the coun
ty’s true intentions.
On Jan. 17, in an address to Pakistani parlia-
ent and the Pakistani nation, President Pervez
Uusharraf vowed to crack down on religious
xtremism, strive for peace with India and
irove to the world that
Pakistan is a responsible
luclear power. Musharraf fur
her stated that a negative
mage looms over Pakistan
nd it must be changed.
\ccording to Musharraf, this
legative image is the conse-
juence of several elements.
According to The New
fork Times, Pakistan has, for
'ears, promoted Islamic
nsurgence in Kashmir, an
ndian-controlled area, which remains the pri-
nary source of conflict between Pakistan and
\0 ndia. Furthermore, Pakistan has been accused of
ailing to crack down on Taliban supporters
long the Afghan border, spreading nuclear
YJ weapons technology to countries such as Iran,
' nd being an intolerant society.
Musharraf stressed that Pakistan could no
'0 onger tolerate a small number of extremists
lamaging the country internally.
3 Obviously, such an address must have
eceived a positive response from the Pakistani
arliament, right? Wrong. On the contrary, the
resident’s vow received a chorus of jeers and
ven compelled many Islamic lawmakers to
valk out.
2 What in the world is going on over there?
"'here is absolutely no reason for any member
- g|f the Pakistani parliament to oppose the call
19 lor aggressive reform. Any reasonable person,
.ffvho truly abhors the practice of terrorism and
longs for peace, would have met the remarks
/ith applause.
Though some controversy resides over the
tshion in which Musharraf took office in 1999,
lis behavior, nearly five years ago bears no rel-
vancy to the need of ridding Pakistan from
slamic extremists, facilitating peace talks with
ndia and abstaining from the distribution of
“"uclear technology.
Days after Musharraf’s address, Pakistan’s
There is absolutely no
reason for any member
of the Pakistani parlia
ment to oppose the call
for aggressive reform.
8
i At:
co/E
nuclear scientists were restricted from traveling
abroad, and several underwent strenuous ques
tioning regarding U.S. allegations of leaking
technology to Iran. Similarly, this matter
received criticism from parliament members and
Pakistani citizens. The Times reported, “Qazi
Hussain Ahmad, the acting head of the religious
alliance, which holds the third-largest number of
seats in parliament, called the inquiry the worst
kind of victimization of national heroes to
please the Bush administration.”
Understandably, Pakistanis may be wary of
the United States since two Islamic countries
have already been attacked. Nevertheless,
given Pakistan’s dubious reputation and the
fact that almost all acts of international terror
ism are perpetrated by members of the Islamic
faith, the Pakistani people should be more than
willing to go the extra mile
in clarifying to the interna
tional community their true
stance on terrorism.
No rationalization or jus
tification exists for con
demning Musharraf’s refor
mative plan. If members of
parliament oppose these pos
itive measures, they are not
serious about combating ter
rorism. In fact, they must
support it or at least sympa
thize with the perpetrators. Why else would
they be opposed?
Where are the moderate Muslims at and
why have they not vehemently spoken out in
support for Musharraf’s actions? If they are
waiting for the opportune moment to speak up,
it is upon them.
No one knows if Musharraf’s actions are the
byproduct of succumbing to pressure from
Washington or if he truly desires to change
Pakistan’s reputation. Either way, his motivation
is not of great concern, his political future is.
Time magazine reported, “However dedicated
Musharraf may now be to weeding out
Pakistan’s extremists, the task will be long and
dangerous.” Already, he has narrowly survived
two assassination attempts, and more are likely.
The United States must take advantage of
the positive steps initiated by the Pakistani
president and encourage more. However,
under no circumstances should Americans
beguile themselves into believing Pakistan is
their friend and ally. In fact, the country is far
from it. As for now, the United States must
keep a watchful eye on Pakistan and remain
optimistic that Musharraf’s reformative meas
ures will continue.
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.
MAIL CALL
Network didn't
ignore the issue
In response to Collins
Ezeanyim's Jan. 30 column:
The CBS executives decide
what advertisements are
worth of airing, so while Mr.
Ezeanyim may think everyone
should hear and listen to
arguments he supports, CBS
has the right to not want to lis
ten to or air certain views.
The other commercials he
cites as political are not
designed to attack a politician
or be as divisive as the
MoveOn.org commercial, so
£BS’s policy of not airing
politically-geared commer
cials during the Super Bowl
makes sense and is in line
with the decisions they made
on what to air. Just because
CBS doesn’t air an ad does
not mean at all that it is stifling
debate on an issue.
Brandon Green
Class of 2005
Liberal ad would
make CBS biased
A few months ago all the
conservatives were tearing
CBS apart for their supposed
liberal bias demonstrated by a
made-for-tv movie about
Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
Then, about a month ago,
they were about to air a whole
special on Michael Jackson
before he got arrested on
child molestation charges.
Now put yourself in their
shoes. If they air the ads that
people are complaining about
(a PETA ad and a negative ad
about Bush, both definitively
liberal ads) during the most-
watched TV slot of the entire
year, then everyone will once
again complain about how lib
eral CBS is. They were trying
to avoid controversy.
Obviously it didn’t work, but I
don’t think anyone who’s pay
ing attention can claim that
CBS is suddenly a conserva
tive network.
Adam Kemp
Class of 2005
Reverend is just
as able as others
In response to Holly
Coneway’s Jan 30. column:
Throughout the article,
Robinson is accused of not
being able to preach
Christianity properly because
he is not leading by both
explanation and example.
This is a fundamental flaw in
which the article is based.
The assumption that there is
only one valid interpretation
of the Bible is blatantly igno
rant. The Christian religion is
splintered into hundreds of
different denominations, all
taking a look at the Bible
from a different angle.
The article goes on to con
demn him for living with
another man for 13 years out
of wedlock. If a pillar of the
Christian faith is helping
save others, then it is your
duty to support gay mar
riages. That way, they will be
able to live with their signifi
cant other, without the sin of
not being married.
Furthermore, a sentence
fragment from the Old
Testament is used , I only
assume, in an attempt to jus
tify the intolerance of homo
sexuals. Unfortunately, the
Bible has been historically
misinterpreted to justify evil
discriminatory actions, and I
see no difference in this case.
I applaud the Episcopal
Church for their dedication to
what is right and just.
Kevin Reilly
Class of 2006
Edwards is a
bipartisan Aggie
In response to a Jan. 20
mail call
Over the last month, I have
had the opportunity and priv
ilege of getting to know
Congressman Chet Edwards
well, both personally and leg
islatively. The letter published
last Thursday, though,
demonstrated neither of
these familiarities.
First, Chet Edwards was
attacked as “nothing more
than a liberal.” If you look at
his legislative record, you
would see a different story.
Chet Edwards is a fiscal con
servative, placing the United
States’ fiscal responsibility as
one of the main points of his
platform. He even sponsored
a balanced budget amend
ment to the U.S. Constitution.
Chet Edwards has been a
major proponent of national
defense and security in his
13 years in Congress. He has
worked tirelessly to support
military personnel and their
families at Fort Hood, while
others have tried to take
away their education and
health care funding.
Chet Edwards was also
attacked as just “trying to
pander to Aggies.” Nothing
could be further from the
truth. Chet Edwards is an
Aggie who shares Aggie val
ues and is very excited about
having the opportunity to rep
resent Aggies in Congress.
The same cannot be said for
his competition. One of his
likely challengers, as a state
representative, voted for
tuition deregulation, which is
costing Aggies money they
don’t have.
Texas A&M is lucky to have
the opportunity to support
such a dedicated and proven
leader. In the past, Chet
Edwards has had the support
of democrats, independents
and republicans, due to his
bipartisan leadership.
Nick A nth is
President, Aggie
Democrats
Class of 2005
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
submitted 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
77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647
Emai I: mailcall@thcbattalion.net