stne et:
1 or 9?tj
8 "Poor representation
Athletes need to take responsibility
mr-i
175 de,
AP.
wd ne»
utilities, s
'o eat*.
)-525®
looimj
iinvillea,i
tcobat}
ome, Ca
irk. Pus
bills pail:
'ch 1st d
r hoese
ills indw
2bdm'^
route, ac
for sum
lall Ct«s
0-B747
EDITORIAL
g. l«h
Tiissaftsy
i-Spiii).
im-2:30(r
lyrs. N
nn, Stel
lalk-insi
rice byk
St»»
Pregrai
5193, fire
Counsel
rablelli
ntity StM
est gw
95/mo.
ping ii
and W
. Reasa
979«
'or- thtr'rt
ill 25^7*
;om.
it! U»
aos,
lla, SI*
ar Tor*
Texas A&M’s reputation has taken some painful blows, as
several regional newspapers have capitalized on recent con
duct issues within the Athletic Department. In particular, the
football team has suffered the loss of several players due to
legal indictments and is having to discipline others who have
liad run-ins with the law. This situation has left the Athletic
Department and, in turn, the University, vulnerable to criticism,
as is exemplified by The Dallas Morning News headline
'Arrested development: Losses, trouble with law handcuff
A&M.”This is not good publicity, and the athletes themselves
must discontinue the unruly behavior.
The problem goes beyond the loss or suspension of a few
players or the athletic program being somewhat stigmatized.
The entire school is affected, and no one Aggie can put his head
iuthesand and ignore it. Whether they like it or not, athletes are
front-line representatives of the universities they play for. Just as
atany other school, University representatives are in the public
eye and are subject to this double standard. A&M is a presti
gious institution and, by whatever means necessary, it should
prevent illegal conduct. Curbing this behavior starts with individ
ual athletes. While measures should be taken to deter indecent
or illegal acts, athletes and other student leaders must meet the
axpectations that come with being ambassadors for such a great
. The responsibility of representing the student body
on their shoulders.
)st students enroll in this University to experience first-
fan unparalleled sense of tradition and belonging. They
foentify with it in such a personal way that when it comes to
reputation, their well-being suffers as well. At a
where football is so revered, A&M players’ conduct
must be marked by nothing short of pride and honor. While
the vast majority of athletes fill this role with utmost perfec-
ta.it's up to the Aggie family to establish what it expects
from its student leaders. Anyone with the potential to tarnish
lie reputation of this University should realize there is no
place for him at A&M.
The Battalion
EDITORIAL BOARD
Elizabeth Webb Opinion Asst.
Kendra Kingsley Member
George Deutsch Member
Meussa Sullivan Member
Uiloin Chief
r
Hanaginj Editor
Opinion Editor
Metro Editor
Matt Rigney
Dave Shoemaker
Coluns Ezeanyim
Chris Lively
TlifBaiialion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or
Itssand include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor
Btrves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be sub-
iled in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may
temailed to: 014 Reed McDonald. MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College
Station,TX 77843-1 1 1 1. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall(frthebattali»n.net
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7 • Friday, February 20, 2004
Rebuilding Iraq
For true growth to occur, tusk must be left to Iraqis
S etting aside the whole Weapons of Mass
Destruction debate regarding the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, a big reason for the liber
ation was to make Iraq a beacon of democracy
in the Middle East, enjoying both the freedom
and the economic prosperity that follow. But
economic prosperity is not truly being encour
aged by the reconstruction authority.
It’s ironic that the U.S. government is
known to make large and often paranoid efforts
to discourage monopolies, as in the case
against Microsoft, but it seems that when it comes to Iraq, such
rules fly out the window. On Feb. 7, Iraq began offering cell
phone service in Baghdad, according to The Associated Press,
but Iraqis were rather disgruntled by the high prices caused by
the cell phone monopoly. Because the American reconstruction
authority awards contracts to businesses that wish to open up
shop in Iraq, it has the power to form and protect a monopoly.
The result, of course, is the high price the Iraqis are seeing now.
Paris al-Helli, a grain store operator in Baghdad, told USA
Today that he had to pay a startup fee of $69 while his brother
in Jordan only paid $22.
A major problem facing America today has spilled over into
Iraq: America is oblivious to the conditions for economic pros
perity. These days the answer seems to be “more government,”
but the stranglehold that U.S. government power has on the Iraqi
economy by controlling who may and who may not start a busi
ness has led to monopoly-inflated prices.
The precondition for a country’s economic prosperity has
been and must be free enterprise,
where the government takes a
“hands off” approach to the
economy. Had anybody been
allowed to start his own cell
phone service — as many
were clamoring to do as soon
as Saddam Hussein’s regime top
pled — Iraqis would have had
their service sooner.
Companies would have
been racing to be
up and running
first, and the
choices
would be
numerous.
Since the
same compa
nies would be in com
petition, prices would have been
much lower.
Government tyranny in the Iraqi economy hurts
not only the Iraqi consumer, but the Iraqi producer as well.
The American reconstruction authority has been granting the vast
majority of contracts to corporations based in other countries.
This leaves many Iraqis who want to seek their own fortune by
starting a business on a long waiting list or left out altogether.
Currently, unemployment in Iraq is conservatively estimated
to be greater than 50 percent. This problem would be largely
solved if the economy were left free to capitalism, as Iraqis
would be free to start their own businesses or seek employment
in newly-created businesses.
Besides creating jobs, the visible proof that the freedom
America has brought Iraq also brings prosperity would certainly
quell some resentment over the occupation, and some even think
it would decrease the amount of terrorism there.
“Jobs for Iraqis will create stability and peace in Iraq instead
of terrorism. This correlation is absolutely certain,” Rend Rahim
Francke, the Iraqi governing council's top diplomat, told Reuters.
The length of the Iraqi occupation is largely dependent on
when Iraq can “get back on its feet.” Surely if the economy was
allowed to boom under laissez-faire capitalism, the Iraqis would
not only get on their feet faster, but they might come to realize
that freedom has its luxuries.
America didn’t become a prosperous country because of the
grace of some deity and a large religious population — theocra
cies such as those in the Middle East are far more religious but
dirt-poor. Nor did America prosper because of fantastic leader
ship — we’ve had our share of bad presidents and scandals.
America became the wealthy nation that it is often hated for
as a result of keeping government out of its economy. When
ambitious young men and women are free to seek their fortunes,
it brings prosperity to the entire country. Once new businesses
and products have been established, companies .strive to be lead
ers in the newest and the best
products, resulting in constant
quality improvement. Workers
also enjoy the choice of who
to work for. Simply put, free
dom and capitalism go hand
in hand. If freedom is our
desire for Iraq, capitalism
must be as well.
Americans must realize that the
United States is not a wealthy, pros
perous nation because of chance or
pragmatic doctrines, but
because it values capital
ism as a moral system
based on justice, in seeing
that a person is paid what
he is owed. Though
America has strayed from
this ideal, for Iraq to succeed
as a free nation with the
opportunity to thrive, the United
States must give them the same
chance it had. The reconstruction
authority must take its hands off the
Iraqi economy and let capitalism lead
the way to prosperity.
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.
Graphic by Josh Darwin
with
MAIL CALL
la. w
tions
n
SkiThps
lASEtrt
^Column misrepresented tuition issue
In response to Sara Foley's Feb 16 column:
es & dr'
foSee.
m Do*
Ms. Foley’s opinion piece attempts to delineate key problems
rounding the recent tuition increases. However, two serious
oconsistencies need to be corrected.
le title of the column reads, "Many problems with proposed
increase,” yet nothing is mentioned at all about fees. Ms.
foleyand all Texas A&M students need to be aware that “tuition”
ndlees" are entirely separate entities. Tuition is collected and
Bed for direct educational purposes only, such as faculty
L^falaries, library enhancements and student financial aid. Fees
(he other hand, may not necessarily relate directly to educa-
but serve the student community in other ways. Typical fees
ide the transportation, student services and recreational
fees.
ynwsiiTlie second inaccuracy is within the following statement,
eW® ‘Had it not been for the students on the Tuition Advisory
e Council requests, the increase would have been more drastic.”
Bry afl! Muition Policy Advisory Committee was created as a result
of tlie necessary decision to increase only the University
^ ttorized Tuition (UAT). Various student leaders independ-
voiced their concerns prior to the increase, which result-
the increase not being implemented sooner than it was.
JAT increase is in partial response to reductions in fund-
that the University has experienced from the Texas
A legislature.
I le strongly encourage all A&M students to become educated
lutthese topics and to provide feedback and solutions to the
Ion Policy Advisory Committee student members by going to
eWeb site (http://sga.tamu.edu/tpac).
Katie Cleaveland
President, Panhellenic Council
Elizabeth Dacus
President, Memorial Student Center Council
pm
Matt Josefy
Student Body President
Chris Mahaffey
President, Residence Hall Association
Will McAdams
Commander, Corps of Cadets
Josh Peschel
President, Graduate Student Council
Matthew Wilkins
Speaker, Student Senate
Significant contributions
As candidates fade from limelight, each one leaves his mark
A lthough the
Democratic pri
maries are far
from over, many politi
cal analysts are ready to
name Sen. John Kerry,
D-Mass., the party’s
nominee. After winning
big in Nevada and all
but two of the decided
states, it appears the
pundits may be right.
With Kerry alone in the limelight,
receiving endorsements from labor
unions, members of Congress and former
rivals who have since dropped out of the
primary, it is likely the remaining
Democratic candidates will continue to
fade from the headlines, some faster than
others. But in a sense, a little piece of
each candidate will carry through the race
and into the presidential contest. Each of
the men and women has contributed in
some way, whether large or small, to the
direction in which the once wayward
Democratic party is now moving.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut’s
lack of success in the primaries showed
the party does not desire a Republican
pretending to be a Democrat, while the
measly numbers received by his philo
sophical antithesis. Rep. Dennis
Kucinich, D-Ohio, has shown that
Democrats do not want their party to go
too far left. The Rev. A1 Sharpton has
proven to be a calming voice throughout
the debates, reminding the candidates that
their principal target should be President
Bush and not each other. Gen. Wesley
Clark’s decision to leave the race last
week revealed that perhaps the War in
Iraq is not the only issue on the minds of
Democratic voters. As the field’s outspo
ken populist, Sen. John Edwards, D-S.C.,
has coined the apt motto about the export
of American jobs: “Twenty years ago, we
talked about ‘Buy American;’ how about
‘Hire American?’"
However, it has been Vermont’s Gov.
Howard Dean, now sadly sinking in sin
gle digits in most states, who has most
influenced the party’s newfound direc
tion.
After the New Hampshire primary, it
became apparent that Dean would no
longer wear the crown of frontrunner, a
label which has been much more favor
able to Kerry than Dean. Shortly after this
primary, The New York Times quoted
Dean as declaring the rest of the field
“have now embraced my message. They
talk about change. They all talk about
bringing people into the party. The truth
is, I stood up for that message when
nobody else would.”
He was indeed giving credit where
credit has proven to be due. Dean was the
first candidate to voice the concerns of
countless Americans — concerns about
jobs lost across the nation, seniors with
out prescription drugs, children without
health care and a steady flow of lies from
a government meant to be by and for the
people, not adversarial to them.
Our president misled us about a deci
sion of the most dire and fundamental
importance — the decision to send our
men and women in uniform to certain
danger in a foreign land. Bush continues
to mislead, as recently as last week on
“Meet the Press,” when asked by Tim
Russert about the intelligence which per
suaded the Bush administration to invade
Iraq. He responded, “I made a decision
based upon that intelligence in the con
text of the war against terror. In other
words, we were attacked, and therefore
every threat had to be re-analyzed.”
However, in Ron Suskind’s highly con
troversial book “The Price of Loyalty,”
former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill
reveals that Bush had assigned Donald
Rumsfeld to examine military options
against Iraq 10 days after his inaugura
tion, more than a year before the attacks
on the World Trade Center. With the press
virtually silent on many of Bush’s ques
tionable decisions, partly due to the
administration’s surreptitious manner and
unprecedented ability to avoid a straight
answer, the Democrats have been left
with the responsibility of pointing out
Bush’s blunders. Dean was the first to
step up to the plate.
No other candidate has energized the
progressive base as Dean succeeded in
doing at the beginning of the primary sea
son. He brought grassroots politics to the
Internet with an exuberance which will
affect politics far into the future. Dean’s
notable fund-raising efforts, consisting
mostly of contributions less than $200
according to The Progressive, have shown
that the people can compete financially
with the corporations. Kerry’s new mes- >
sage to special interest groups — “We’re
coming, you’re going” — is resonant of
Dean’s early “them against us” attitude,
which was at the heart of his small-con
tribution fundraising style.
Kerry has also given the correct
response to criticism about his vote on the
resolution to give the president the power
to go to war. After winning the Tennessee
and Virginia primaries, Kerry appeared on
the “Larry King Show,” stating that he had
trusted Bush to keep his word on going to
war only after all other means to end dis
pute had been exhausted. He has recog
nized his misplacement of trust.
There is no doubt Kerry will make a
better presidential candidate than Dean
would have. He is polished, experienced
and focused on his goal. But let us hope
he does not forget the lesson of his fellow
Democratic candidates. The people want
a calm, but assertive, voice of hope to
counter the Bush administration’s policy
of fear. In 2004, it will be only a
Democratic candidate, not Bush, who will
bring hope to children without health
care, seniors without prescription drugs
and a middle class without work.
John David Blakley is a sophomore
political science major.
JOHN DAVID
BLAKLEY