U{
KRT 0,!
spojo!
ft
se
veya
pjsoi
edcol
morej
■ogs,
sses.
.'tiaract
he’s!
dai
arc
ty-D(
mt'oi
mai:
early,
Bush has right to campaign off Sept. 11
Itl Recently, there has been a lot of complaining by liberals and
v Democrats about the use of 9-11 footage in our commander in chiefs
6 1 campaign commercials. However, I believe that George Bush has a
moral duty to campaign aggressively, not only for his own re-election,
but for the lives of our soldiers and for the posterity of our nation.
We are at a critical juncture, when people will not only be electing a
s di(t president, but will be deciding whether they want the United States to
continue existing as a nation. Naturally, if Bush is re-elected, our coun
try will continue to be defended and loss of American life will be mini
mal. But should John Kerry be elected, our enemies will be emboldened,
and the lives of our citizens and soldiers will be endangered ten-fold.
Knowing the sheer gutlessness of the Democratic Party, terrorists will
strike at us relentlessly if Kerry is elected. By electing Kerry the United
tryilStates is acknowledging that their evil will go uncontested. The thought
iw|ofsiJch harm being wrought upon America is undoubtedly sickening to
President Bush, and he knows his re-election must be secured at any
cost, lest our nation fall to the terrorist onslaught.
By using any means necessary to ensure that our country will remain
:tres<i defended after the next election, Bush is acting with the utmost sense
Gov.
dy
4
I
EDITORIAL
Hearing them out
University denied PMC its
First Amendment rights
Students should be concerned with the hazing allegations that
have surfaced against Texas A&M’s Parsons Mounted Cavalry, but
they should be furious with the University’s immoral and unconstitu
tional handling of these allegations.
The University’s ineptitude in handling this case has been apparent
since the very beginning, when charge letters were issued to those
accused of hazing, stating they had violated University rules.
However, it was not specified in these letters when this supposed
conduct occurred, or even what the conduct was or who it had been
committed by. This is a sloppy, lazy and arrogant way to pursue a
serious matter and merits a firm denunciation from the entire A&M
community.
Incredibly, the University sought to deny the accused cadets their
First Amendment rights. Accused cadets were put under gag orders
not once, but twice by Col. Shady Groves and by the investigative
panel created to examine these allegations. This is outrageous. State
District Judge Richard Davis, a former member of the Corps of
Cadets, ruled that the University must rehear the case and called the
attempt to silence the accused cadets "the most amazing position
Texas A&M has taken in this case yet" and noted "prior restraints on
freedom of speech have long been disfavored in American Law."
These incidents are part of a disturbing pattern of University
administrators disregarding students' rights. No matter how damag
ing allegations might be to the University’s reputation, A&M officials
have absolutely no right to deny students due process.
The hazing incidents alleged with Parsons Mounted Cavalry are
embarrassing, but so is having a former cadet tell A&M that it must
always act with conduct becoming of a world-class University.
The Battalion
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
Metro Editor
Elizabeth Webb
Kendra Kingsley
George Deutsch
Melissa Sullivan
Opinion Asst.
Member
Member
Member
Matt Rigney
Dave Shoemaker
Chris Lively
Collins Ezeanyim
Ik 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
bemailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111. Texas A&M University. College
Slalion.TX77843-1 111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net
MAIL CALL
of rightness.
Every day in this country we pledge allegiance to our flag as one
ition, under God. I Corinthians 6:9 states very clearly; Do you not
know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not
tie deceived. Neither the fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
homosexuals... will inherit the kingdom of God. How can any state in
this country, which claims to be one nation under God, allow homosex
uals to join together in legal marriages and even be married in the house
of our Lord.
Please do not misinterpret the ideals behind this letter. It is not my
ial in life to go around making life difficult for homosexuals,
though, as you can tell, I firmly believe homosexual acts are wrong,
Ido not discriminate against a person for choosing to live his life this
ay. I do have a problem, though, when a state tells the world that
is OK to live your life this way and will support you in earning all
the rights of marriage.
Marriage is a very holy thing between a man and a woman, and
at needs to be protected. We as Americans need to support the
president on his new initiative to put a nationwide ban on gay mar
riages. I am a big advocate of states' rights as well, but it appears
some northern states have lost their way.
Katie Saalfeld
Class of 2007
Opinion
'he Battalion
Americans should support Bush initiative
Our great country once again has one highly controversial topic that
has liberals and conservative Americans battling it out: the topic of
same-sex marriages.
Massachusetts recently granted homosexuals all the rights of mar
riage, giving political idealists one more thing to fight about. When you
sit back and think about where our country is today in contrast to
where it was 50 years ago, it is alarming to see the direction we are
Page 11 • Monday, March 8, 2004
Kurt Branagan
Class of 1993
Beating Bush in 2004
Kerry should select Edwards as his running mate
I t was fun while it lasted, but the
Democratic presidential primary process is
essentially over. Massachusetts Sen. John
Kerry will be the Democratic nominee. Now
that the question of who will run against
President George W. Bush has been answered,
a new question has emerged: Who will Kerry
choose as his running mate? Although there
are reports that Kerry
and Sen. John
Edwards, D-N.C.,
have not gotten along, Kerry
should select Edwards as his run
ning mate, and Edwards should
accept, because a Kerry-Edwards ticket
can beat Bush.
Popular conservative columnist
George F. Will wrote in Newsweek,
“The political potency of vice presi
dential candidates usually is about as
minuscule as the formal duties of
a vice president.”
But a recent CBS poll shows
registered voters preferred a
Kerry-Edwards ticket to Bush and
Vice President Dick Cheney by a
margin of 50 percent to 42 percent,
according to USA Today. When Kerry is
polled alone, he falls into a tie with
Bush. Therefore, Kerry’s vice-presiden
tial choice will be important.
Furthermore, it is obvious that Edwards
would be the ideal running mate.
Democrats have been clamoring for a
Kerry-Edwards ticket since the New
Hampshire primary, but Kerry might be cool
to the idea. Specifically, The New York Times
reports that Kerry disapproves of Edwards’
lack of military and foreign policy experience
In addition. The Times also reports that
Edwards believes Kerry sometimes acts with
“snobbish behavior.”
Though the senators themselves might not
like the idea of becoming running mates, the
pairing could be perfect for several reasons.
Kerry’s top criteria for choosing a running mate
will be whether he trusts that person to run the
country, according to USA Today. This is a wise
way to select a vice president, but Kerry should
trust the Democratic faithful when they say Edwards
would make a good vice president and, if necessary,
a good president.
It is true Edwards’ main weakness is his lack of
experience in international and military affairs. But
serving under Kerry in a vice-presidential role is an
excellent way to gain experience.
In the same way that Kerry comple
ments Edwards in foreign policy,
Edwards can help Kerry on key domestic issues. Kerry strategists
have said a candidate’s ability to help Kerry gain votes will be his
third-highest priority when selecting a running mate, according to
USA Today.
But the most important swing state, Ohio, has been hemorrhag
ing jobs since Bush took office, and Edwards has proven himself
particularly adept at explaining his positions on the issues of jobs
and trade. As a senator, Edwards concentrated on being a con
sumer advocate, according to The Times. This can only be an
advantage in a presidential contest in which the economy will be
the key issue.
Fortunately for Democrats, Kerry aides told
USA Today the second-most important crite
ria — Kerry’s comfort level with the vice
president — is met by Edwards. It should
be noted that Kerry and Edwards were on
A1 Gore’s short list for possible running
mates in 2000. Kerry should take this into con
sideration when selecting his potential vice pres
ident. Since Edwards was good enough to be consid
ered by Gore, then he should be a suitable running
mate for Kerry.
Yes, Kerry has a wide array of potential run
ning mates to choose from. Names that have
popped up repeatedly in the media include
Florida Sen. Bob Graham, New Mexico
Gov. Bill Richardson and Missouri Rep.
Dick Gephardt. Kerry, a brave and proud
Vietnam veteran may also consider two other
> war heroes: retired Gen. Wesley Clark and for-
L mer Georgia Sen. Max Cleland. Some have even
^ suggested former President Bill Clinton. But he
^ is too much of a divisive figure to do much
A good and, besides, he has already had his turn in
B the White House.
What gives Edwards the advantage over all
the others in this fine list of potential vice
presidents is his campaign 2004 experience.
He is already a familiar and welcome face
to American voters. And while Kerry is
obviously the Democrats’ favorite,
Edwards was able to build a commend
able group of followers. Plus, it is esti
mated the Bush-Cheney re-election effort
will have a $200 million war chest with
which to wage its campaign.
It is important Kerry picks someone who
can slip comfortably into campaign mode.
That someone is Edwards who only dropped
out of the race last week. While Kerry is a
strong contender alone, the formula is clear:
He plus Edwards equals a return to a
Democratic White House.
Collins Ezeanyim is a senior
computer engineering major.
Graphic by Chris Griffin
SGA doing inadequate job
addressing student interests
T
uition increases. Bonfire. Diversity.
Poultry science and Journalism. Hotard
Hall.
At least one, if not all, of these issues stirs
up a well of emotions in most of the students
on campus, and all students will eventually
feel the blow of the decisions made regarding
these issues in some way.
Unfortunately, the thoughts and feelings of
most students on campus will never reach the
Texas A&M administration’s ears. Enter the
Student Government Association, an entire sect of students on
campus whose purpose is to effectively communicate student
interests through representation to the administration. How effec
tively they do this, however, is questionable, and the SGA must do
more to foster two-way communication with students.
While it has to be mentioned that SGA has made efforts to gain
student input through various methods such as suggestion boxes,
outreach days and mass e-mails to freshmen, the tangible results of
that input is unconfirmed.
One such attempt to gain student input is through Aggie Input
boxes, where students can submit suggestions or concerns that are
brought before the executive council of SGA on a weekly basis.
Andy Herreth, executive vice president of communications for
SGA, said no suggestions from the Aggie Input boxes have been
implemented, a statistic that is discouraging at best.
Through other methods such as continued involvement in other
activities outside of SGA, those on the Executive Council of SGA
attempt to stay in touch with the student body. However, they are
only getting feedback from those with like minds and those
involved in typical leadership organizations. Other students, who
don’t pursue an active role in staying informed on campus issues,
will most likely never know more than large-scale events unless
they are within the protective bubble of Student Government or the
Memorial Student Center programs. While they may not voice
their complaints because of their disconnection from many campus
events, their opinions matter as much as anyone else’s.
If student opinion isn’t readily available for SGA, it must be
sought proactively. SGA must be committed to actively promoting
and defending student interests. Large-scale student opposition to
any administrative decision needs to be openly and publicly
backed by SGA.
Much of SGA’s work remains “behind the scenes” and “noth
ing that would make the front page of The Battalion,” Student
Body President Matt Josefy said. While it is undoubtedly benefi
cial to have those who sacrifice their time to do the work unde
tected, it is imperative to have a strong and vehement voice
speaking for the students.
However, in past issues, grassroots activism has provided the
requisite decision-maker to ultimately make decisions, with SGA
support existent but unnoticeable.
The establishment and continuation of an off-campus Bonfire in
response to the discontinuation of the on-campus Bonfire occurred
without the public support of SGA; rather, it was fueled by unrec
ognized organizations. The closure of the poultry science program
and the journalism department was protested by students, while
SGA only confirmed student opinion on the issue to the adminis
tration. The closure of Hotard Hall was fought against by residents
and former residents of the dorm. SGA voiced student discontent
over the issue to Texas A&M University President Robert M.
Gates, but allowed residents to be the ones to organize, fight and
discuss plans for it.
When Gates announced plans to increase tuition by 21 percent,
the Tuition Policy Advisory Board, composed of various campus
leaders, including Josefy, was formed to influence future tuition
decisions. However, Josefy said increasing tuition is unavoidable
when looking at the rising cost of tuition across the country, but
other factors about tuition increases could be controlled. While
there is certainly truth to his argument, the lack of a firm, proac
tive opinion toward the administration essentially gives in to
administrator’s tuition demands before a fight. There are no stu
dents who want to pay more for their tuition. But without unified
student opposition coming from all forces, including the single
most influential student, the student body president, the likelihood
of the full increase is all the more certain.
Overall, SGA affirms these student opinions, but because of
their high-ranking positions on campus, they have the responsibili
ty and the power to mobilize students instead of affirming student
belief after the fact.
Students need to believe that SGA is on their side, fighting for
their rights instead of appeasing administrators. If students are out
spokenly against an issue on campus, SGA should be just as pub
licly united against it as it is privately working for it.
Sara Foley is a junior
journalism major.