®miaut«j
on Sepn
ated.lsi
niauloffljt
azinean',
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 11 • Wednesday, March 3, 2004
Don't run, Ralph
f Nader runs in presidential election, it could split the liberal vote and help Bush
COLLINS
EZEANYIM
al govern
inneces
s of mid-February, the U.S. death toll in
Iraq was 545 Americans. Make no mis
take about it; those solely responsible for
these murders are the cowardly terrorists who
continue to fight against the ideals of a
democratic Iraq. But it should not be
forgotten that it was President
George W. Bush who put U.S. troops
in their current predicament. It
should also not be forgotten that it
was Ralph Nader who gave Bush
|hepower to launch an expensive and unjust war.
Much to the chagrin of Democrats, progressives and
to, on Feb. 22 Nader announced he was run
ning for president. this time as an independent.
Merprobably will not have as much impact on
t unde™ lie presidential race as he did in 2(X)0. Still, he
iliouldheed the advice of just about everyone
diowants to see Bush evicted from the White
[louse; Get out of the race now.
During the 2()()() presidential election, many
jogressive voters were torn between the decision
ovote for Nader, a third-party candidate who was
t the 6 nore reflective of their values, or Gore, who was considered
Dasdilf obethe lesser of two evils. Essentially, it boiled down to
fArkats »|iether their pro-Nader sentiments were stronger than their anti-
lush feelings.
Four years later, no such consideration is necessary. Many
tericans are appalled at the irresponsible policies enacted by
Not the least of which is the current war in Iraq, launched
necessarily while using faulty evidence as justification. If A1
Gore had been president, a preemptive attack on Iraq may have
never occurred. America would also be absent of the Patriot Act
and the projected trillions of dollars in deficit largely due to
sh's tax cuts.
Despite this, Nader still had the temerity to refer the Democrats
onNBC News’ Meet the Press as one-half of a “two-party duopoly
that is converging more and more, where the towering similarities
dwarf the dwindling real differences that the Democrats are
willing to fight over.”
Thenumbers that made the difference between a Bush
presidency and a Gore White House were close. In fact, so close
thatthereisno doubt a Nader candidacy tipped the scales in
Bush'sfavor. This is most apparent in Florida where Bush won
lepublii
linovicl
hard Li
berman
rkansas.
to save i
imtbest
imeavti
Wayne 1
as an els
ongreffl
lupsasu
jy ista
ealaw;
by an almost negligible 537 votes, according to The New York
Times. Considering Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida and
surveys showing 45 percent of Nader voters would have voted for
Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot, it is easy to see that
Gore would have carried Florida and won the presidency. The
a presidential candidate who is not an incumbent, he is starting
incredibly late. He is no longer running as a Green Party candi
date, which means less access to automatic resources such as bal
lot access and campaign organization. Still, he has the poten
tial to do major damage to a Democratic candidacy. He
could still steal crucial votes from states such as New
Mexico, Oregon, Washington, New Hampshire and, yes,
even Florida.
Nader’s candidacy could not come at a worse possible
time. The Democratic Party is finally energized and united.
Democratic primary voters have a decision between two appeal
ing candidates, the two Johns: Kerry and Edwards. Plus, polls
show Bush is vulnerable on major issues. For example, in Ohio,
perhaps the biggest possible swing state for the 2004 elec
tion, a University of Cincinnati poll found 58 percent of
Ohioans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the economy,
according to The Houston Chronicle.
Now Democrats must deal with a Nader candidacy that
could either prove a minor distraction or a truly destructive force.
They will have to divert resources meant to wage a campaign
against Bush toward convincing Nader-inclined voters that they
should stick with their party.
So what is making Nader run, despite the protests
of so many, including many former supporters?
Nader has a super-sized ego that cannot allow him
to fairly assess the political situation around him.
Therefore, he believes he is the solution to a mythical
two-party duopoly” that exists only in his head.
What makes the Nader candidacy particularly tragic
is its potential to erase the many positive contribu
tions he has made to American society. As an
incredibly effective consumer advocate, he is
essentially responsible for airbags in vehicles, the
Freedom of Information Act and dozens of other
invaluable contributions too long to list. How sad it
would be if this legacy was erased and he would simply be
known as the man who gave America eight years of President
George W. Bush.
Collins Ezeanyim is a senior
computer engineering major.
Graphic by Chris Griffin
Jed*
irities
3'04
illlon;
uptcy.
‘fair-®
enceio
:rs,
mo:
ice
itaterafll
case
tosei
iOca
movie
and use 1
:vicl
t of
moved
Right to fair use must
be nationally protected
T e
:
MAIL CALL
echnology is a driv
ing force in this age,
and it is especially
0*1 impressive in the field of
CiJ fersonal computing. Faster
processors, more compact
and better media
invented every day and
quickly become affordable
, for most consumers.
I^y 0 However, the U.S. govern-
■ ment is treating this technology
a not as a thing to increase citizens'
1 | pleasure and productivity, but as a
runaway train bent on spreading
lawlessness. Unable to deal with
’iiilj|dianging technology and pres-
iured by special interest groups,
government uses its
ibers mfuonopoly to halt these advance-
1,110 ttents without considering individ
manipd ial rights.
Sadly, this is exactly what’s
ing on in the case of current
egal proceedings involving the
nakers of DVD X Copy. The gov-
j imment is intentionally violating
nj heproperty rights of its citizens,
j n this case, it is the consumer’s
ighttocopy DVDs.
U.S. District Judge Susan
iton has ruled that 321 Studios
sin violation of the Digital
j co#lillennium Copyright Act and
:ym^ lavethe company a deadline to
making a backup copy for
one’s own private use, yet
Illston doesn't seem to
care. 321 Studios com
plied with the court order
last Friday because it had
no choice, but the fight
isn’t over yet. Nor should
mike it be.
WALTERS “We are so firm in our
belief in the principle of
fair use that we will appeal this
ruling immediately,” Robert
Moore, founder and president of
321 Studios, told NewsFactor.
“And we will take our fight all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if
that's what it takes to win.”
mke its product, DVD X Copy,
. iM the ability to descramble
dississl lopy.pcotected DVDs. In the
ealm of business, no company
pay use force to destroy competi-
and ruin a company, yet the
vernment has this power and is
g it. Other companies make
|nilar devices with descrambling
lilies, and their future, too, is
question.
A legally purchased DVD
:omes the property of its owner,
liomay do anything he wishes
it so long as his uses are
;al.This harks back to the land-
tok 1984 Supreme Court deci-
On declaring personal use of the
CRtobe legal. Making second-
copies of home movies and, as
ic Supreme Court put it, “time
^ lifting” TV programs for later
^ ise is perfectly acceptable. By the
ime rationale, there is nothing
about buying a DVD and
What a criminal
can twist to become a
tool for his crimes is
irrelevant—property
rights cannot be
tossed aside by whim,
and Americans should
not let it happen.
The purpose of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act was to
eliminate piracy, but Illston clear
ly steps beyond that purpose in
this case. DVD X Copy gives con
sumers the ability to make a mas
ter copy of their purchased DVDs,
because, face it, accidents happen.
Leaving a DVD sitting out on the
television, extensive use, spills
and scratches can render a $20
DVD useless. Having a backup
copy can prevent that loss. 321
Studios, recognizing that need,
created a product which The
Associated Press reports has sold
more than one million copies. But
the government has turned what
should be a “supply-and-demand”
success story into an ordeal that
may instead leave 321 Studios
bankrupt.
“We haven't made any profits
yet,” Moore said, “because we've
been giving it to the lawyers.”
Supporters of Illston’s ruling
may argue that while the program
may save anyone prone to scratch
ing their DVDs a few bucks, it is
also a tool used to commit crimes.
But to follow that logic, the gov
ernment would consider the thou
sands of deaths caused by stab
wounds and in response order
Americans to all eat their steaks
with sporks. Though considering
the government’s lack of empathy
for the businessman, it probably
wouldn’t care about Outback
Steakhouse going out of business.
What a criminal can twist to
become a tool for his crimes is
irrelevant — property rights cannot
be tossed aside by whim, and
Americans should not let it happen.
“The price of freedom,”
Thomas Jefferson said, “is eternal
vigilance.” If Americans want to
keep the country away from the
fate of a starving communist
country such as exists in Cuba or
the rule-by-thugs horror in Haiti,
citizens must always be on guard
when the government infringes on
people’s rights, however small
that infraction.
March 1 began the “Five Days
of Protest,” during which con
sumers through 321-sponsored
www.protectfairuse.org will be
asked to write, call, e-mail or fax
newspaper editors, Hollywood stu
dios and federal lawmakers on the
company's behalf. Anybody who
cares about his own rights being
cast away by freedom-hating
Californian judges should visit
that Web site, which allows you to
email the senators and representa
tives in our area. By clicking on
only a few buttons they will send
a pre-written e-mail to those offi
cials, urging them to protect the
rights the founders fought and
died for.
Given the stakes, it’s worth a
minute of your time. After all,
they’re your rights they’re trying to
take away.
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.
Scholarship is not just
for white students
In response to a March 2 mail call:
A mail call yesterday demonstrated that
there is much misunderstanding surround
ing the Young Conservatives of Texas A&M
$10,000 essay scholarship contest.
Misguided detractors and even some sup
porters miss the point of the scholarship: It
is a race-neutral protest to racial prefer
ences. Unlike yesterday’s mail call sug
gests, the scholarship is not “whites-only.”
We encourage students of all backgrounds
to apply and to tell us why they oppose
affirmative action.
All too often, people on both the left and
the right wrongly assume that all minorities
benefit and appreciate racial preference
programs. The “soft bigotry of low expecta
tions,” as racial preference programs are
called by President Bush, do more to
divide America and curb the possibilities of
this generation than is justifiable. Race
preferences in college admissions slap a
band-aid on the problems of failing K-12
education, allowing legislators to avoid fix
ing the root problem. Race preference
programs in scholarships force racial
minorities to make the decision between
the moral high-road of declining a scholar
ship based on race or being able to more
easily finance their education. Racial pref
erence policies, justifiably or not, lead to
speculation on the merit of applicants
admitted to programs by that individual
and their peers. To top it off, not all racial
minorities are valued equally by such pref
erence programs.
It is this discrimination along with that
against majority students that we are
seeking to end and hope to read about in
the applications for the scholarship.
Brannon Kroll
Weston Batch
Affirmative Action Co-Chairs
Young Conservative of Texas A&M
Dr. Gates made right
decision on Hotard Hall
In response to a March 2 news article:
By deciding to keep Hotard Hall open for
the upcoming school year, Dr. Gates has
shown yet again a strong commitment to
the student body and an understanding
that progress need not cost us the tradi
tions that make Texas A&M unique. His
willingness to work with student leaders
when it matters most is to be commended.
Matthew Wilkins
Class of 2005
Corps cannot continue to
force beliefs on others
It seems that a few Aggies need an
obvious lesson in social poise: Not every
one shares the same belief.
As I was sitting on the bus Monday
afternoon, three sophomore Corps mem
bers came to stand in front of me.
Standing behind them was a series of
girls, all of whom were standing and
ignoring the open seats between two
people.
One of these corps members asked me
if I would mind standing up, and I replied,
"Why?" He retorted with, "So the lady can
sit down," referring to a girl standing near
by. I glanced at the girl, then at the open
seats nearby, and calmly refused.
Another member of the Corps leaned
over to tap my shoulder: "Did you hear
what he said?" "Of course I did,” I respond
ed. He again questioned why I wouldn’t
stand up. I explained to him there were
plenty of open seats around and that I did
n't see the need, nor the reason, I should
stand up simply because she was of the
opposite sex. The third Corps boy then
had the audacity to actually make a scene,
yelling out in a loud voice for me to do the
right thing.
The right thing?
I explained to him I believed differently
and should not have to stand simply to
meet their beliefs. Needless to say, the
entire bus was staring at this point. Had
the girl needed to sit (e.g. on crutches,
sick, pregnant, etc.), I would have gladly
given up my seat. However, gender alone
is not a valid enough basis given the fact
that a woman is no less fit to stand than a
man, both physically and socially. And
until these Corps members’ beliefs
become some sort of law, they need to
learn to tolerate other beliefs.
Jason Ford
Class of 2004
Every student on campus
represents the University
In response to Matt Ftigney’s March 2
mail call:
Everyone on campus should consider
themselves "representatives" of the
University and act accordingly. The
Rigney piece should get lots of mail call
responses, pro and con. Think Vision
2020!
George Engelbretson
System Software Specialist
College of Geosciences