SPOUTS
'TTALid,
!ues
n • KRT CAMPli
cond baseman
ipril 12.
kind of kid-
lars ceitainh
y his big con-
table nnm
here's evtai
that nevti
ial stmcture.
not have bis
track recod
;>n the World
and Dellucc
ear with the
heim's chani-
irdan reached
ents in leu'
i explain it to
icner in
is moment for
id the line that
the face,”
as the 200
,tronger-th
hing around'
)04!
ling
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5B • Friday, May 7, 2004
Clearing the air
Recent study underscores need to prohibit smoking in Texas’ public buildingi
I s going places that reek of smoke the least
harmful effect of the bar scene? A study
recently published in the British Medical
journal confirms what people have really known
all along: secondhand smoke has immediate and
significantly detrimental effects on health. In
simpler tenns, smoking should be banned in
public buildings in Texas.
Going out may leave the hundreds of stu
dents at Northgate, the Tap or Hurricane Harry's
any given weekend with a condition much
worse than a hangover.
Within five minutes of walking into a smoky bar or
restaurant, a person begins to be affected by second-
I smoke. The aorta begins to stiffen after only five
minutes of exposure and. in a mere 30 minutes, the
d becomes more clotted, causing damage to artery
gs. according Can West News
Service.
After only two hours around
moke, less blood is able to reach the
kart as blood vessels constrict
snough to disturb the heart’s rhythm,
according to Dr. Stanley Glantz, a car
diologist at the University of
Califomia-San Francisco and lead
investigator of a team of doctors who
studied the effects of a smoking ban
inpublic places and workplaces in
Helena. Mont.
This particular study focused on sec-
mdhand smoke as a risk factor for heart
macks, and the findings present stag-
sring evidence for a ban. As Glantz
told Cam West News Sendee, a ban “not
r makes life more pleasant; it imme
diately starts saving lives."
In fact, a ban may reduce heart attacks by as much as
0percent. Of the 65.000 people in the Helena region.
'Siaverage of 40 people a month consistently suffered
iicart attacks during the six-month period studied in the
lour years before and one year after the ban. However,
iarthesix months the ban was implemented, the number
jfheart attacks per month dropped to 24. No correspon-
MAIL CALL
LINDSAY
ORMAN
44 ,
Going out may
leave the hundreds of
students at
Northgate, the Tap or
Hurricane Harry's on
any given weekend
with a condition
worse than a
hangover.
ding drop was seen for that period in the sur
rounding area, where there was no ban, as
reported by The New York Times.
The conclusion: Bans on smoking in public
places save lives.
One of the main opponents to public
smoking bans is the coalition of restaurant
and bar owners; ironic, as restaurant and
bar employees are probably among the
most harmed by secondhand smoke.
In New York City, many vehemently
protested the decision last year to ban public
smoking, fearing negative effects on busi
ness. However, a report issued in late
March disclosed that in the 10 months
since the ban, tax receipts from bars and
restaurants had actually jumped 8.7 per
cent, according The
Associated Press. "The
city's bar and restaurant
industry is thriving and its
workers are breathing ✓
cleaner, safer air," the Economic
Development Corporation and the
Departments of Finance, Health and
Mental Hygiene and Small Business
Services reported to the AP.
While courts in Helena continue to
debate whether the smoking ban
should be re-enacted, all study results
seem to answer with a resounding
“yes!” New York and California have
been leaders among states in banning
public smoking, and it is clear that the
benefits of doing so are tremendous
and should be extended to Texans. If
a statewide ban is unlikely, the city of College Station
should seriously consider one of its own. How about a
smoke-free Northgate?
Lindsay Orman is a senior
English major.
Graphic by Ivan Flores
fCT ‘Hall of Dishonor’
tats academic freedom
In response to a May 4 news article:
In the guise of trying to promote aca-
tanic freedom, the YCT has demonstrated
it may be the biggest enemy to aca-
jemic freedom on campus. With their new
of Dishonor," the YCT is trying to
ntimidate professors into not exercising
Wr right to academic freedom and not
Widing their students with a comprehen
sive education (not just the white-washed
wion of history that the YCT promotes).
One professor made the list for teaching
fe students about racism. I imagine the
lOT would not want a professor teaching
tout racism, since they still do not
knowledge its existence.
Another was scapegoated for displaying
^personal artwork on his Web site, which
to nothing to do with teaching a class.
Another made the list for teaching the his-
toty of black Americans, rather than just
Upping over their history. The YCT also
Pomplained that this professor once
Marked that "President Bush has failed to
Promote racial equality." The truth hurts.
^ are lucky that A&M students and
Professors are not taking this list serious-
^ If they did, we would attend a school
*torefree speech is punished, professors
Jre censored, students are only taught
8116 perspective and our educations are
'"complete.
Nick Anthis
president, Texas Aggie Democrats
Criticism of President
Bush is unwarranted
The opinions that demean our nation's
leaders are greatly unfounded. Do people
think that President Bush makes every
decision for our nation alone?
Better yet, how did these people get
accepted into this University? Obviously,
they would've had to satisfy a certain num
ber of credits for government/economics
classes prior to admittance. That knowl
edge must've flown right out the window,
along with tax dollars spent paying the
salary of a former Democratic president
who chose to commit immoral, sexual per
jury while in office.
Wow, slap a man on the wrists for com
mitting a crime against the American peo
ple, but slander those soldiers (and the
pride of their families) who fight and honor
a decision enforced to protect our nation.
The current president spends a major
percentage of his time "cleaning up" the
former office holder's mess — that's a fact
evident throughout economic history.
Stop blaming Bush for your lack of knowl
edge. Let's see you successfully make
decisions that accommodate billions of
people. Sadly, the 2 percent of those who
ill-represent the turnaround of intelligence
at TAMU never fail to lower the standard of
excellence. The human brain generates
information much faster than the mouth ...
perhaps there's a reason for that.
Kellie Scamardo
production editor,
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program
Assassination of Arafat
not a peaceful solution
If killed, Arafat would be viewed as a martyr
P alestinian terrorist leaders better watch out.
Recent comments made by Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon suggest that he is no
longer bound to the promise he made to President
Bush three years ago that Palestinian leader Yasser
Arafat would not be physically harmed. Is it possi
ble that Israel is polishing up yet another missile
for an assassination? Perhaps, or maybe Sharon
was just spewing out threats to quiet Arafat’s vocal
condemnation of the evacuation plan, claiming that
the Road Map to peace would fail if Sharon tried
to keep “key” sections of the West Bank.
The question remains, however: Would assassinating
Arafat mark a positive step toward securing Israel’s safety
and fighting the War on Terror? Yes, it would. But even
though this sounds contradictory, Israel should hold off.
Any attack on Arafat would cause
such an uproar in the Palestinian popula
tion that it is doubtful any peaceful settle
ment could ever be obtained. It’s doubtful
now even while Arafat is alive. Killing
him would only make matters worse, in
the short-run at least.
Arafat began his career in terror in
1956, founding the underground terrorist
organization Al Fatah. At first, he wield-
e;d little clout in the international commu
nity, but by 1968 he received a bit of a
promotion, no doubt for his “good work,”
and became the leader of the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO).
Thereafter, according to ABC News, “for
two decades, the PLO launched bloody
attacks on Israel, and Arafat gained a
reputation as a ruthless terrorist.”
Perhaps Arafat’s biggest claims to fame or debauchery
were the ordering of the Black September faction of Al
Fatah to murder 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich
Olympics and the 1973 attack on the Saudi embassy in
the Sudan.
Surely some are curious as to why this murder has
received a pass to engage in terror with impunity. The
answer revolves around the controversial conflict between
Israelis and Palestinians.
Arafat has emerged as a hero to the Palestinians, while
being regarded as a terrorist to the western world. Thus he
has been allowed to live simply because western leaders
desire to keep the Palestinians “sedated” in a sense.
Israel, on the other hand, has dreamt of annihilating
Arafat for some time now, but the biggest ally to Israel is
also one of the biggest protectorates of Arafat: the United
NICHOLAS
DAVIS
Any attack on Arafat
would cause such
uproar in the
Palestinian population
that it is doubtful any
peaceful settlement
could ever be obtained.
States. With all that this man has done and all the
horrific deeds he still promotes, the United States
still remains complacent in letting him live. Even
after Sharon’s threatening statements, the White
House remained, unwavering in opposition.
Thus far, such White House opposition may
be enough to keep Israel from acting. Israeli
Ceremonial President Moshe Katsav stated, “If
the U.S. asks us not to liquidate Yasser Arafat, I
assume that the government will honor that
request.”
In the end, this is a wise move for several reasons.
First, Israel has already received strenuous opposition
regarding the assassinations of two Hamas leaders and the
killing of another will only turn more international leaders
off to supporting subsequent Israeli policies. Secondly,
eliminating Arafat will most likely
solicit a fire storm of unprecedented
terrorist attacks. Though in the long run
the terrorist leader would no longer be
able to support terrorism or voice
descent in the Peace Plan, Israel citi
zens, however, may not be ready to
withstand the retaliatory attacks that
will come.
In truth, assassinating Arafat would
only do him a favor. He would achieve
his ultimate goal: martyrdom. Consider
the words he spoke to supporters gath
ered outside of his headquarters, “Our
destiny is to be martyrs in this holy
land.” This is the only reason these
fanatics engage in terror in the first
place. Well, correction, perhaps the
belief of obtaining lots of virgins in the afterlife provides
some incentive: “Work hard, play harder.”
Some voice the argument that assassinating world lead
ers is wrong, immoral and so on. They make a fair point.
It’s terrible to even consider such an option, but if assassi
nating a rogue world leader means countries can avoid war
or further bloodshed, it’s well worth it. The main problem
in this case is that the Israelis waited far too long to do it.
The cost of making this man a martyr and inspiring
more Palestinians to engage in suicide-bombings, or their
favorite terrorist/jihad method of choice, will be too devas
tating. The best move is to leave the man where he has
been for two years: confined to his headquarters.
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.