Page 5 • Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Opinion
The Battalion
essions
;ell,
S
roommaig
ivillea,
:ob at9?|
size mistake
Don King's criminal history makes him a bad choice for being Bush’s frontman
n/3btl). Cii
'd, n®
luded, if
more info
' (979)5?f
^2, shutij
3 +1/31*
1-5btlisb
7/10 for
il. ■
!bth hoes
I, on tu
!blh hoes
3, avafc
(972|43- r
reeded
, S290fe
9255
2004/2K;
K)m. hr: |
o +utlitK.: j:
. Lolso
iissal/ins.
9pm), H
(6pm-8f-
o-2:30fr
rrs. In#,
n, Slefl
ilk-ins «•:
ce bylai
Slxw-i
Lisa (lit
\thleticir
usde, te
outs'wee
I native--
onth. Of
ident, 97
iail.com.
CH
H e killed a man who
was robbing one of
his businesses in
1954, but it was ruled to be
an act of self-defense. He
was convicted of beating a
man to death in 1967 and
consequently spent about
four years in prison. He
was investigated by the
FBI for tax fraud and rack
eteering and has undergone
three grand jury investigations. His
trademark Afro is large beyond
belief, and many credit him with
coining the phrase “Only in
America.’' And now he’s the new
face of the Republican National
Committee’s campaign to re-elect
President Bush.
He is of course acclaimed boxing
promoter Don King. According to an
Associated Press story, King will
join Republican National Committee
Chairman Ed Gillespie in a country
wide tour to promote Bush’s re-elec
tion campaign.
Gillespie had this to say about
King: “1 know the man, he is a
friend of mine, and I'm proud to
stand with him today,” according to
the AP.
Well that associates Gillespie with
an interesting circle of people: King
has gone on the record lauding con
victed rapist Mike Tyson as his
“friend” and a “good human being.”
Given his less-than-stellar back
ground and the ever-shifting sands of
his political affiliation (King is a
self-declared “Republicrat,”), it
seems clear that the national com
mittee chose King as one of its pri
mary frontmen due to the fact that he
is black, infamous if not famous and
willing to campaign for Bush, all at
the same time.
Admittedly, a person who embod
ies all three of these traits seems to
be quite a scarcity today. However,
choosing King to court the favor of
the sought-after demographic, voting
blacks, is ultimately an insult to their
intelligence. This line of reasoning
assumes that King will sway black
people to vote for Bush
based solely on King’s
race, and ignores his
integrity as a political fig
ure, much less as a respon
sible member of society.
Telegraph.co.uk cites
Gillespie as saying, “"As
the chairman of the
lindsye Republican party, it is not
forson in my interest that 90 per
cent of the African-
American electorate vote for the
Democratic candidate in election
after election."
He certainly has the right idea. In
2000, Bush won just nine percent of
the black vote, a number that is rather
low, even for a Republican candidate.
Bishop R. T. Jones of the
u
... it is insulting to
assume that race will
trump values in the
minds of black voters.
Christian Tabernacle Church in
Philadelphia said many black people
vote Democratic due to social norms
within the black community rather
than underlying disagreements with
Republican philosophy.
"Our family values are Republican,
our social values are Republican. We
think Republican, but only a few of us
have the nerve to vote Republican,"
Bishop told the Telegraph.
So it is ironic that by attempting
to appeal to black voters, the com
mittee is almost certainly alienating
them. Bishop expressed a sentiment
that has long been noted: Black com
munities traditionally hold strong
values that many would call conser
vative, yet fail to vote for conserva
tive candidates. To best appeal to this
group of voters, it seems reasonable
that the committee’s mouthpiece
should at least be someone noted for
having strong values, which King
certainly is not.
In addition to this, King lacks
even a nominal dedication to the
Republican Party, a quality consid
ered by many to be a prerequisite
to campaign for said party.
When King recently appeared
on CNN’s “Crossfire,” co-host
Robert Novak called King a politi
cal “switch-hitter,” citing his vocal
support for former President
Clinton.
In response to this, King said,
“You ain't going to do too much
unless you have access to power. If
you have no access to power, you
can't help the loser, if you ain't got
the winner.”
Herein lies the crux of the mat
ter. King is most likely primarily
interested in helping himself and,
in turn, his pet causes. He is proba
bly supporting Bush not because
he believes in the man, his plat
form or his party, but because he
thinks Bush will win in
November and will thus be most
useful to him. But, then again,
this can be said about nearly all
career politicians, and unlike
many of King’s other offenses,
self-interest is not a crime.
The Republican National
Committee is ultimately the
guilty party. Enticed by the
prospect of an untapped
resource, a huge number of voters
seemingly on the brink of voting
for Bush, the committee failed to
look before it leaped and accepted
help from Don King. But it is
insulting to assume that race will
trump values in the minds of black
voters, and unreasonable for the
national committee to expect vot
ers to pick a political ideology if
even its own front man cannot.
?!
Lindsye Forson is a senior
journalism major.
Graphic by Ruben DeLuna
at.)
)n
an
A
I
.com
MAIL CALL
Reagan and 9-11 were mourned by A&M
In response to a June 10 mail call:
I would like to comment on a previous mail call article about A&M
mourning for 9-11 vs. former President Ronald Reagan, and how the infor
mation stated is incorrect. The order for us to have Friday off came from
Governor Rick Perry, not President Gates, and surely wasn’t limited only
to Texas A&M. I'm sure many other states, if not all of them, followed suit.
Now I understand the loss our country felt on 9-11, and the impact it
had, but A&M DID do something for that day. One, we all got out of class
early that day to be with friends and family. And two, the RED, WHITE and
BLUE out occurred at Kyle field, which was an incredible event.
That alone shows our patriotism, so how dare someone say that 9-11
meant nothing to Aggieland. Reagan had nothing of this nature so people
could pay their respect, so it was taken upon by our governor to give such
an opportunity. Texas A&M has always shown its respect in times of
tragedy, no matter how minute, and will continue to do so for generations
to come.This is the definition of an Aggie. Gig'em.
Zach Greenwade
Class of 2005
Give the Corps of Cadets some credit
Former President Bush's birthday celebration provided a unique oppor
tunity for Texas A&M students to honor their country and their school. I
was thrilled when I saw the Battalion article covering the various student
groups that were privileged to serve at this exciting event. It is a wonder
ful piece of memorabilia that reminds us of our unique student opportu
nities here at Texas A&M.
However, one of the largest student groups was somehow overlooked.
The Corps of Cadets was not mentioned in the article, yet they comprised
nearly half of the volunteer force. These cadets turned out in full uniform
to serve a former commander-in-chief, and as a fellow student volunteer,
I can say that they did a wonderful job. 01’ Ags brightened as they saw
these uniformed cadets on the buses to and from the train. Also, the
Corps introduced many guests that day to timeless Aggie traditions and
practiced courtesy and respect, qualities that are very often refreshing to
those outside of Aggieland.
I was proud to serve with all Aggie students that day, and I believe that
every participant is grateful to gain such an experience.
Sarah Rapp
Class of 2006
Student Senator
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 77843-1 111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email:
mailcall@thebattalion.net
Globalization must not be
simply Americanization
For outsourcing to work, job training is necessary
T wo of the biggest sur
prises to hit the New
York Times Editorial
Page this year have been
Thomas Friedman’s support
for invading Iraq and out
sourcing American jobs over
seas. The core of his argument
for the war with Iraq was the
need “to oust Saddam's regime
and partner with the Iraqi peo
ple to try to implement the
Arab Human Development reports pre
scriptions in the heart of the Arab world.
“... the Arab world is falling off the
globe because of a lack of freedom,
women's empowerment and modern edu
cation.” The core of his argument for
outsourcing is “there is more to out
sourcing than just economics. There's
also geopolitics. It is inevitable in a net
worked world that our economy is going
to shed certain low-wage, low-prestige
jobs. To the extent that they go to places
like India or Pakistan — where they are
viewed as high-wage, high-prestige jobs
— we make not only a more prosperous
world, but a safer world for our own 20-
year-olds.”
Friedman’s comments merit a closer
look.
When Friedman placed his stamp of
approval on the Iraq War, he should have
listed a few conditions for the Bush
administration. For example, hearing the
truth about the human and financial costs
of such an undertaking. The recent
implementation of “stop-loss orders”
which extend the deployment of many of
the troops already in the war zone,
accompanied by continuing descriptions
of the military force in Iraq as being
“stretched thin,” does not match up with
the president’s unwavering positive view
of the situation.
In a similar fashion, Friedman has
thrown his support behind out
sourcing, drawn in by its overall
long-run appeal, but has failed to
demand the necessary conditions
needed to lighten the short-run
burden at home and abroad.
America must soften the blow to
American workers who are losing
jobs. For the traditionally-
Republican goal of free trade to
succeed, many traditionally-
Democratic goals have to be
implemented. Friedman is correct to
assert that when America lets down its
protective barriers and continues to glob
alize, innovation will be the key to
American economic success. But contin
uing sources of innovation require better
education quality and opportunity. People
are the source of innovation, and all
potential sources must be given the same
opening to seize economic prosperity and
contribute to American ideas.
Job training is of course the most
immediate and palpable solution. Yet,
while the Bush administration touts its
support for a proposal to increase federal
job-training funds by $250 million, fed
eral support for job training has dropped
by an inflation-adjusted total of $972
million since Bush took office in 2001
said Sen. John Edwards. This ploy
reminds one of how the administration
brags about new jobs created while hav
ing the worst percent employment growth
(annual average) compared to the last
four presidents, according to MSNBC.
Republicans have to concede to the
House Democrats’ efforts to extend
unemployment benefits when finding a
job has become harder. Workers must
have stable health care benefits for them
selves and their families as they move in
and out of work.
Friedman did get it right when he con
ceded that “globalization is in so many
ways Americanization: globalization
wears Mickey Mouse ears, it drinks Pepsi
and Coke, eats Big Macs, does its com
puting on an IBM laptop with Windows
98. Many societies around the world can't
get enough of it, but others see it as a
fundamental threat.”
If America could encourage globaliza
tion that wasn’t merely Americanization,
it would do much in the way of preserving
other cultures while at the same time heal
ing rifts in the international community
created by things such as the Iraq War.
The real incentive of accepting the
natural occurrence of globalization
could be a better understanding of one
another, a chance for countries to proud
ly share their customs and successes and
from each other, improve ourselves.
America could give India the technology
to compete in the world market and, in
exchange, India could show Americans
the value of family, and why it is not
right to send our mothers and fathers to
nursing homes when they become too
inconvenient to care for. For such an
exchange to occur, globalization cannot
be a one way street where countries are
bombarded by a new American culture.
If this happens, there will only be more
global hatred of the United States.
America must start to discourage nations
from divorcing themselves from their
rich reserves of cultural identity.
With these conditions in mind, out
sourcing, globalization’s inevitability and
this year’s political hot topic, can be
accepted. But without these terms and
despite even the best intentions, no one,
including Friedman, should be so quick
to acquiesce.
John David Blakley is a sophomore
political science major.
JOHN DAVID
BLAKLEY