4
ild
etein
ips
women's ^
n brought
inish from ;
NCAA
rday night
as A&M’s
^ipionship
ry.
5r its first |
years, for j
champion :
ersity of
and the :
ok fourth. '
Gulli got
Aggies on
h a fifth.
10,000- :
es scored
points on
women’s
y Doyle's
'elin com-
a sixth-
)phomore
id up the
e Aggies'
rack and
i a tie for
total of
Senior ;
■place fin-
Saturday
a sixth- I
discus by :
made up
t total.
Tie 4
or a title,
)k care of
akers lost
dy in the
ig it the
repelling
r ally, the
:tory clos-
ionship in
ncing 88-
night in
nals.
etroit has
il clear: It
two bas-
g without
- and the
ith them.
of the
fans will
ups mak-
Rasheed
g down-
left after
t capped
playoffs;
ily knock-
snapshots
t scream-
ricking up
Shaquille
me in the
st likely
t him the
ig parked
ire fourth
in.
or these
possibly
ik.
ight, and
ome the
title back
ice since
3go Bulls
t
(AP) -
Is might
i each ot
id build-
Cardinals
winning
i Sunday
here, in
where,"
Molina,
s. “Let's
ame we
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5 • Monday, June 14, 2004
Inflated issue
Nationwide gasoline problem is overblown, but Democrats doing little to help
Y ears divisible by four
always bring people a
degree of certainty
because some things during
these years are a safe bet —
like the month of February
having 29 days and the
Summer Olympics taking
place somewhere in the world.
And, coming with the arrival
of the “first Tuesday after the
first Monday in November,” is
the election of the leader of the free world.
In this particular year, however, there are
some other certainties. One is that the price of
gasoline is certainly going to remain an abrasive
election issue and another is that the Democrats
and Bush-haters will try to make it out to be one
of the worst travesties to ever befall this nation.
As usual, liberals, Democrats, the John Kerry
campaign and much of the media are in cahoots.
Seeing that some simple distortions could paint
President Bush as fiscally inept with regard to
the oil industry and environmentally unconscien-
tious, they intend to punish the president with a
one-two punch in hopes that it will knock the
wind out of his campaign.
But before Aggies swear off petroleum, here
are some facts concerning gasoline in this coun
try that are good for separating liberal science
fiction from the truth. This is the state of gasoline
and oil and of the country right now. As the evi
dence shows, there is no Bush-made crisis.
The most basic and shocking fact is that gaso
line prices are actually below where they should
be historically. According to the Department of
Energy, the historical median price of gasoline
after inflation adjustment is $2.05 per gallon. The
current national average, without adjustment, is
$1.94 per gallon.
While political drama queens are busy whining
about “exorbitant” gasoline prices, smart
Americans are doing some simple research and
math to understand the true situation. Gasoline
prices are high — this fact is understood by most
without the research or math — but, looking at
history, they could be higher. Look at the
Department of Energy statistics. Real gasoline
prices, adjusted for inflation, consistently stayed
above that average of $2.05 per gallon until the
mid-1950s, when they only averaged a few cents
below $2 per gallon. They jumped back up to
record highs in the late 1970s. By 1980, the nom
inal cost per gallon was about $1.10, which has a
real price of about $2.75 after adjustment, or
roughly 25 percent more than gasoline’s 85-year
median price. Citizens should realize that despite
these “exorbitant” prices, the cost is still less than
what it should be when adjusted for inflation.
To liberals, however, prices are not only still
outlandishly high, but the supplies of oil are out-
landishly low. They say that “oil production is
about to peak.” Is there truth to this? Possibly.
Yet, true or not, it is the Republicans in office
who seem to be trying to alleviate this problem,
whether current, potential or nonexistent.
The recent defeat of the Energy Policy bill is a
good case in point. The bill, which would have
provided for environmentally safe drilling in
Alaska, increased energy efficiency and improved
air quality, was killed by the filibustering of thick
headed Democratic senators and the support of
Senator “Flip-flop” Kerry, who despite casting his
vote to kill it, has ironically attempted to hurl a few
darts at the president on the topic of fuel irrespon
sibility. Unfortunately for the senator, high talk
about fuel prices coming from the man who voted
to raise the tax on gasoline, or about the impor
tance of hugging trees coming from the ringleader
behind the death of the Energy Policy bill, is
vaguely reminiscent of-Queen Gertrude’s ironic
line from Hamlet, perhaps with a slight alteration:
“Methinks the senator doth protest too much.”
America’s consumption of gasoline is often
rumored to be at “dangerously high" levels. It is
true that consumption is high, but the only thing
dangerous is that the fuel cannot be refined as
quickly as it is demanded, which could potential
ly create a shortage. Simple reason tells one that
to have a product available, it must exist in
greater quantities than it is used. For gasoline,
this means refining the oil. But this creates a
problem: America built its last refinery almost 30
years ago and, according to former Delaware
Gov. Pete du Pont, this is the true problem that
needs solving. He cites gasoline regulations as the
creator of this predicament — regulations passed
by the Democrat-controlled 101st Congress and
supported by leading men such as Kerry.
But liberals have regulation all wrong.
Regulations should make things such as cat-
emissions cleaner, not allow the amount of avail
able gasoline dwindle. Interestingly, the years of
the Bush administration have seen some of the
cleanest air ever. There are fewer pollutants in
the air now than ever before. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency, the toxic or
hazardous lead emissions from the use of gaso
line in cars, factories and other motors have
almost vanished; carbon monoxide and sulfur
dioxide are down by more than half and the ever-
menacing “smog” is down by 18 percent.
Technology has further decreased pollution
through alternate fuel sources for automobiles.
Altogether, oil reserve estimates are up, gaso
line prices are completely average over their 85-
year history, technology has increased gas mileage
and made alternate fuels a reality and pollution is
down. The country's only problems seem to be that
Democrats do not vote for legislation that would
help and do vote along partisan lines for legislation
that will ultimately hurt the environment.
Together, these facts seem to suggest that
America and its most important fuel source are
doing alright, and not in the state of “crisis” that
is purported by the left.
Ironically enough, liberals have spent years
espousing theories that higher gasoline prices are
good because they mean greater conscientiousness
about the environment and economy. But now that
they are high, no one’s celebrating. Why?
It’s because the liberals realize that, using sim-^
pie research and math, Americans have found an
equation: A Democrat in office plus another
Democrat in office equals more self-contradiction
and hypocrisy. So, maybe instead of cutting back
on gasoline consumption, Americans should focus
on cutting back on the number of Democrats in
office. Anyone interested in this can start on the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Clint Rainey is a sophomore
general studies major.
Graphic by Rylie Deyoe
CLINT
RAINEY
MAIL CALL
Column misrepresented
actions, beliefs of YCT
In response to Nicholas Davis' June 10
column:
By reading Mr. Davis’ recent column, it
is obvious that he has done little (if any)
research into the Young Conservatives of
Texas. Our chapter at t.u. has indeed
voiced opposition to a proposal that
would impose a “multicultural” class
requirement. Unlike Mr. Davis states,
however, YCT has no problem at all with
classes on other cultures and we certain
ly encourage students to take these class
es and participate in programs such as
study abroad.
What we do have a problem with,
though, is when a university imposes
such a requirement using a popular
buzzword (such as “multicultural”) and
uses this requirement to promote a polit
ical agenda. This is exactly what is hap
pening at t.u.
Additionally, Mr. Davis’ misrepresenta
tions of YCT activities last year are too
numerous to explain in great detail. Our
protest of Ted Kennedy was based upon
our belief that he has been a poor public
servant during his time in office, not due
to his opposition to the war in Iraq. In fact,
one of YCT’s favorite elected officials,
Congressman Ron Paul, has been very
critical of the war.
As for claiming that YCT’s activities
focus solely on race and politics, he is
only partially correct. As a political
organization, the activities of YCT will
focus on political issues. Concerning
race, all Mr. Davis needs to do is re-read
his column and see several examples of
YCT activities not related to race that he
has listed.
We realize that as a vocal organiza
tion, there will always be people who dis
agree with our viewpoints or our meth
ods. We encourage anybody, regardless
of their political ideology, to stop by a
YCT meeting or event to see what we are
really about.
Mark McCaig
Class of 2005
student adviser,
Young Conservatives of Texas A&M
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 opin
ion editor reserves the right to edit letters lor 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,
11 i I TAML), College Station, TX 77843-1 111. Fax:
(970) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebaltalion.net
Health Science Center’s
use of race discriminatory
I n a landmark 2003 Supreme Court decision,
race officially became an acceptable playing
card for collegiate admissions policies.
Although Texas A&M President Robert M. Gates
chose to discount race as a determinant in admis
sions policies, the Health Science Center within
the A&M System recently announced it will
implement a race-based admissions policy, aiming
to boost the low minority enrollment. Although
this decision doesn’t apply to A&M, movements
to diversify the student population through other
methods are nevertheless in full force.
The term "diversity” is so overused on college campuses
that its original intended meaning has been diluted to a
catchphrase. This slogan has been drilled into college stu
dents’ minds across the country, conditioning them to
believe that above all else, diversity on college campuses
must be achieved.
There is a myth that diversity is about
more than just race. Some organizations,
even the promoters of diversity, concede
that there are many aspects in which a
population can be diverse other than race.
They are even listed on A&M’s Web site
— ethnicity, national origin, gender, age,
socioeconomic background, religion, sex
ual orientation and disabilities.
But don’t believe it for a second.
When university administrators say they
are promoting “diversity,” they are only
giving a politically correct name to racial
profiling. No college bases admission on
economic status, gender or religion. In
fact, nothing that would constitute a
measurement for diversity is used in admission procedures
with the exception of race.
The reason behind race being selected as the ultimate
trump card has never been explained and obviously isn’t of
concern to these administrators. While it is an admirable
goal to achieve a community in which people from all
walks of life learn from each other, implementing a forced
racial diversity will not necessarily translate into an open
and understanding student body, but instead one bitterly
divided by race-based lines that the administrators drew
themselves when they gave some students unfair advan
tages over others.
It’s not only the practice of affirmative action within the
actual application process, as is the case with the Health
Science Center, but the relentless bending-over-backward of
the regents and administrators who court minorities specifi
cally for their skin color instead of academic ben
efits they may contribute to a learning environ
ment. True diversity of not only socioeconomic
status, religious beliefs and background, but also
majors, cultures and political beliefs does superfi
cially benefit the learning community. However,
racial diversity should be the result of efforts to
reach out to all interested applicants and not the
other way around. Students who are singled out
solely based on the color of their skin as desirable
candidates for admission will not be blind to the
obvious and concentrated effort that goes into
recruiting them for nothing besides their race.
To get a clear perspective of how it is actually the
administrators who are being discriminatory and not right-
wing conservatives, imagine if the Health Science Center
had decided that they would grant additional weight in the
admissions policies toward those who
practiced any religion other than
Christianity, or anyone who was homosex
ual or from a foreign country. No matter
what the category is, the act of the Health
Science Center granting favor to one stu
dent over another for anything other than
pure talent and academic capability in the
aim of achieving nothing but better demo
graphic figures is not only irrational, but
an unfortunate reality.
If universities questioned applicants in
all areas that one could possibly be
diverse in, not only would the applica
tions themselves be too long to read, but
the administrators might be forced to face
the certainty that each applicant is differ
ent from the other. While something as
simple as skin color may guarantee that, racial diversity
may come at the price of refusing to admit candidates who
qualify on academics alone but happen to be part of the
racial majority.
There is little chance of administrators and regents
across the country and on this campus shifting their focus
from the numbers of minorities enrolled to the quality of
educational environment provided. The consequences of
their actions will be shown in years to come, as a genera
tion of students emulate universities’ examples of race-tar
geting recruiting and admission policies, which only serve
to deepen racial barriers.
Sara Foley is a senior
journalism major.
SARA
FOLEY
When university
administrators say
they are promoting
'diversity/ they are
only giving a politically
correct name to racial
profiling.