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