Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 8, 2004)
e3 lew soc the >ciis iew be )ah; Jivef ■adei^ dis- ies," da :o ke; nilai the ing amzi lines. caitt tebe, olor iram len last w stt )nd irgiz; stu- Igot ale. ig on are is, fe,aii aght onfei- i sittii ques- ‘This lore y ma! kno» g perso it on pi sup- 1 nna 'ong indet nber > n riant i el- assiitt : tO m res t to bf •l of ny, it on- such its. lent e cof i OflS- irt o' . but i: r saitf ing rsit) A/hob ning Opinion lain The Battalion ! 5 • Tuesday, June 8, 2004 Reagan remembered Regardless of political affiliation, Americans will remember Reagan fondly S unday, June 6, marked 20 years since — speaking from the over cast backdrop of the Pointe du Hoc Monument in Normandy, France — a man praised the efforts of those to whom he felt indebted. “Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their valor and borne by their memory,” he concluded, “let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.” These words ring with the irony of bittersweet reality. The country has witnessed the end of an era, and the man who brought morning back to America has seen the end of a journey, the sunset of his life. Ronald Wilson Reagan, America’s 40th President, is dead, passing away in the company of those who loved him and surrounded by the prayers of a country. The strength of this man who spoke 20 years ago on the beaches of Normandy has encouraged a genera tion, and his courage continues to strengthen a nation. Now Americans stand together to recognize their indebtedness to him. The valor of that man’s impassioned heart brightened the weary face of a dispirited country and ushered in a new era — a realign ment from coast to coast — and the “Reagan Revolution” laid the founda tion for the building blocks of conser vatism. Now, his memories ensure that there will always be those who stand for the ideals for which he lived and by which he died. Those memories are of a life driven by conviction and built on genuineness of integrity and character, and of the charm that comes from possessing the wit of a politician, the humor of a comedian, the smile of an actor and the resolve only the Gipper himself could hold. These memories are the life of the president — a life that deserves celebration. But a man such as Reagan should not be spoken of in terms of mere accom plishments, as the man who completed a checklist. Though the effects of what he did will echo forever, it is the intangible things in his life — his faith, his opti mism, his decency — that ended oppressive regimes, tore down walls and rejuvenated a nation. He believed in himself and that his ideas could change the world. And so did America. His confidence and optimism ably shrugged off losses in the Republican presidential primary twice before win ning nomination on the third try, even tually carrying the electoral votes of 44 of the 50 states in the general elec tion. When he won reelection in 1984, he swept every state but one. By the time of his departure from the White House in 1989, Reagan's approval rat ing was among the highest ever. Seventeen years ago, Reagan's con fidence again stunned the world when he stood before the Brandenburg Gate, challenged the leader of the Soviet Union, and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” The reverberations of that shocking statement disturbed the very foundation of the Iron Curtain, culminating in 1989 when the afteref fects finally felled the Berlin Wall and reunited families separated by that instrument of totalitarianism. Peacetime military buildup helped realize the demise of the Red Menace and eventually to end the Cold War, but Reagan’s confidence in the United States itself and his willingness to com mit it to defend liberty ultimately freed people worldwide from “that force” of Communism that would seek to “put the human soul itself in bondage.” During the eight years of the Reagan Administration, optimism, hope and patriotism were reborn in America. He told Americans that the best days were still ahead, that they were “masters of destiny, not victims of fate.” He brought direction to a nation that felt directionless and hope to a land that was rapidly filling with despondency. Following the dark times of American doubt that trou bled the late 1970s, Reagan’s belief in the American people made the people believe in themselves. His economic policy of “Reaganomics,” which began with an unprecedented slash in taxes, curbed inflation, created 19 million new jobs and pinned the discipline of personal fiscal and moral respon sibility as the key to individual eco nomic growth and prosperity. Reagan’s courage put him at America’s helm, and he steered well. “I am not frightened by what lies ahead,” said the man who would one day triumph over an assassination attempt and cancer and who would fight a heroic decade-long battle with Alzheimer’s disease. The death of Ronald Reagan — a man of morality and decency, a man of courage, a man who rallied a country from the doldrums of defeat to a swelling of enthusiastic pride and a man who preserved the dignity and upheld the duties of the office of the president — cuts across every strata of human existence. It is mourned by men and women, by young and old. It is felt by all ethnici ties, all races, and by those of all eco nomic statuses. It severs party lines. It is understood by the people of nations circling the globe. In 1992, at the Republican National Convention, in what became one of his last public appearances, Reagan told gathered members of the GOP, “Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts.” You did, Mr. President, and history will. So, as the flags around Texas A&M fly low in honor of the “Great Communicator,” Aggies from all walks of life should celebrate the life of the man who was an era, who brought stability to their decade of birth and whose memory will never be forgotten. Clint Rainey is a sophomore general studies major. Graphic by Ruben DeLuna CLINT RAINEY MAIL CALL More dining options are needed from Food Services 1 have been a student at Texas A&M University for more than seven years. I have been an on-campus resident who takes advantage of Food Services Dining Options for nearly as long. I have spent several sum mers here at Texas A&M, and I have dined on campus at those times. I have not always had the best of experiences with the Department of Food Services, but I have felt that the department has generally made a sincere effort in the past to accommodate students’ needs for cheap, convenient and healthy din ing options. Therefore, it is with great sadness and frus tration that I write to you now. The dining options offered to the on-cam pus student body this summer are horrible. The only dining hall open, the Commons, is completely on the opposite side of campus from the majority of those students who live on campus; and it closes.after lunch has been served, offering no dining option to care for the general masses at dinner. I could go down the entire list of facilities that are open during the summer, but I believe that you know your own schedule. The point is that closing so many facilities before dinner, reducing one of the more heavily traf ficked meals of the day to only a handful of facilities, and making students who want to grab a quick meal before returning to their studies, trudge across campus or wait in increasingly long lines because your facilities are overloaded, is unacceptable. These things do not sound like they have been put forth by a department that cares about its customers. It feels as if the Department of Food Services has decided that we who live on campus have little choice but to eat when and where you tell us, our convenience, health, and other needs be damned. I have generally been satisfied with the Department of Food Services in the past, and I understand that some of these measures are for cost-saving reasons. But if this situa tion does not rectify soon, I will ask for a refund on my meal plans and take my busi ness elsewhere. You might consider this an idle threat from a disgruntled individual, but I assure you that the number of students expressing their displeasure at this situation will very likely continue to rise. It saddens me to see a department in this fine institution so flagrantly taking advantage of the student body in this way, though I fear that such is becoming the case more and more often these days. The student body is your customer, Food Services. Please treat us as such, or we will take our business elsewhere. Christian D. Clem Class of 2001 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: 015 Reed McDonald, 1111 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattaIion.net British should turn over al-Masri unconditionally Actions contradict their war effort in Iraq T here are certain phrases that are tossed around so much in the media and in everyday speech that one may forget the full weight of their meaning. It’s for this reason everyone should take a moment to recognize the full weight of these words and phrases. “War on Terror” is one such phrase. It’s currently used to describe the campaign against ene mies of America and the values this great country stands for. Every time someone mentions that the United States is engaged in a war against terror ism, what they’re saying is that U.S. leaders, soldiers and citizens have recognized a threat in the world and labeled those who commit their lives to the destruttion of the United States. By declaring a war against these men, America is declaring to the world with its foreign policy and to U.S. soldiers with their lives that it has made the moral decision to kill terrorists and to call it an act of justice. However, in the current issue of radical Muslim cler ic Abu Hamza al-Masri, the British are contradicting this principle by putting their soldiers’ lives at risk in Iraq while taking great care to preserve the life of al- Masri. Al-Masri is currently facing extradition to the United States for his support of al-Qaida, yet the British refuse to allow him to face charges in the United States unless they are assured that the death penalty will not be used. Ironically, America is not the only country that wants him to face death if indicted — since 1999 Yemen has requested that he be extradited there for his crimes but, according to the Yemen Times, British Home Secretary David Blunket has refused the request because he may possibly face the death penal ty there. So what are Americans to make of the fact that they have refused Yemen’s requests for five years yet the British are willing to agree to ours? It seems obvious that they are counting on America to share in their moral contradiction — to betray the principles which American men and women fight and die for in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Americans are to claim any integrity whatsoever, such an insulting request should be refused and it must be demanded that al-Masri be brought to justice. He faces 11 counts of aiding terrorists in the Taliban and al-Qaida, including involvement in a 1998 hostage crisis during which four people were killed, as well as for attempting to establish an al-Qaida training camp in Bly, Ore. in 1999. Though he presently denies any involvement with terrorism, al- Masri is famous for his public praise of Osama bin Laden and his calling for jihad, or Islamic holy war, in sermons at a mosque in London. Certainly America as well as Britain is known for many freedoms, including speech, but when an individ ual attempts to motivate others to engage in acts of ter rorism and publicly supports bin Laden’s attacks on Americans, he goes beyond freedom of speech and labels himself as an enemy of the state. He’s not calling for lower taxes or gun control—he’s demanding nothing less than our blood. For that alone al-Masri makes him self our enemy, and the American government has a duty to secure the protection of its citizens by making us safe from him. Attorney General John Ashcroft rightly recognizes this when he calls the War on Terror “a war where inno cent lives are endangered, not only by the terrorist who carries the bomb, but by those who recruit and equip terrorists." If a court of law convicts al-Masri of practic ing what he’s been preaching and helping terrorists, he goes beyond needing to be secured in a prison. If he is indeed choosing to be counted among terrorists, he must meet the same fate as his comrades. “They say the world has become too complex for simple answers,” former president Ronald Reagan once said. “They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” The United States has correctly told the world that it is moral to bring terrorists to justice at the point of our sword — if al-Masri is proven to be a terrorist, Americans must preserve their moral integrity and refuse to make an exception to justice. Britain, having made the same moral assertion, should follow through with it and hand him over — on the terms both coun tries agreed upon when the United States chose to fight this war. Anything less is treason to the honor and integrity of both great nations. MikeWalters is a senior psychology major. MIKE WALTERS
