Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5 • Monday, June 28, 2004
by and
’an of
wned as
Running Limbaugh off the air
Liberal attempts at removing Rush from Armed Forces Radio unreasonable
T
here’s a golden rule that
governs the rules of
engagement for the eter-
kedtiled ia | American media battle: Do
that fie
I my po»t
ireationol
d DickZij
:ba
led bym
lison
shadowd
orwackj 1
aid.
3d
>) - If
/vas crw
3ite r be
owtune
iewswitf
m cron
sion vie*-
as produ:
' weeks
intest.
ng five
on-tfiK
their
unto others so that they cannot
get up and do it again.
As to which side is offi-
:ially responsible for adding
t to the rulebook, no one can
onclusively say. But, if one
CLINT
RAINEY
everal |» s curious as to which side
16 i n ^ las taken it to new lows, the answer is found to
hearse.lithe left.
Liberal outcries about talk radio bias have
found a curious new home: U.S. senator Tom
Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa. He is trying to
amend the 2005 Defense Appropriations Bill,
clone rl which, among other things, determines military
i year or! funding to the Armed Forces Radio and Television
isumiwi Services for the next fiscal year, to make the bill a
oy Ward: i 0 w blow to conservative radio.
Sen. Harkin believes that since the Armed
wentietb Forces Radio is “funded by taxpayers of all
political persuasions,” it should “make a
greater effort to provide balanced representa
tion of political viewpoints on its airwaves to
American service members around the world.”
Right now it does not, he says, and he thinks
this is a problem. '
And he would be right if he had stopped
there, but Sen. Harkin is a partisan man, there
fore the issue quickly scored liberals a shot way
below the belt.
Where did it turn? It turns with his “answer” to
the problem he just created: Give Rush Limbaugh,
a political commentator and ring-wing crusader
featured on AFR, the boot.
It’s difficult to follow the thought patterns of
men like Sen. Harkin, A1 Franken, David Brock
and the other liberal supporters of this amend
ment; they seem contradictory and illogical, lit
tered with half-truths and distortion. Hopefully,
the average American sees through this and can
put this simple two-piece puzzle together: It’s
been the lifelong fantasy of these men to see Rush
Limbaugh off the radio. They’re desperate and
..-they see a chance to make it happen if they play by
’ ijBthe new golden rule.
But — bad for them, good for the nation —
fBthere is a litany of logistical problems with this
Iplan, not the least of which is that such an
"amendment would require a complete abroga-
Ition of First Amendment rights by the federal
’dearer I
1
he said f J
fj! 01 ! ^government. Fortunately, this issue is an
L' f|i m P re g na ble barrier that isn’t going to give
Kingn*B wa y j' or suc | 1 an amen dm e nt, but it is certainly
3 P:!! ^noteworthy to anyone interested in freedom
and rights that the liberals tried anyway. Their
thoughts are frightening: “Hey guys, it’s OK.
We tried to play unfair. It’s just free speech
and those horribly unfair unalienable rights.
Curse them!”
So take comfort in the fact that the plan will be
foiled, but be concerned about the underlying fool
ishness of it, which, for the sake of this country,
needs to be exposed.
The attempt to entice the federal government
to censor its citizens poses a serious misunder
standing, or blatant disregard, for the laws and
freedoms of America, but it’s just the first bend
in this labyrinth that maps these liberals’ thought
patterns. For it is likely Sen. Harkin knows the
unconstitutionality of his amendment; the
uneasiness should come in listening to the justi
fications offered by the liberals who support it.
It’s not difficult to see where one could get
off putting the moniker of “unbalanced” on
Rush Limbaugh, but to then pass that branding
iron right over individuals such as Diane Rehm
and Dan Rather is rather disturbing. It’s even
more disturbing to see someone accuse the AFR
as a whole of being biased.
There is no factuality to attest to this at all.
Consulting the weekly master schedule for AFR,
available on their Web site, one sees that the
notoriously liberal National Public Radio alone
occupies ten hours per week, which is five more
hours than Rush Limbaugh. Now, throw in other
liberal notables like Dave Ross, Diane Rehm,
Bill Schneider and Dan Rather and the total
grows horribly disproportionate. Even combin
ing the short segments of conservatives like Paul
Harvey or Dave Ramsey yields numbers that are
immaterial; no matter how the hours are added,
the liberals come out ahead.
This whole premise of counting time by ideo
logical lean becomes ridiculous when one con
siders that AFR has over 1,100 different radio
programs. This is why Sen. Harkin is not really
serious about making AFR “balanced.” If he
were, he’d have to identify the political ideology
of over 1,100 hosts and commentators! What
about Jim Rome? He gets 54 minutes per day;
maybe Sen. Harkin should ask him if he is pro
life or pro-choice so he can be added to the
appropriate list.
When both the “liberal” and the “conservative”
programming are combined, they are only a small
fraction of the available programming, which fea
tures sports, cooking and car shows in the array.
This is because the intention of AFR was never
political in nature. It is meant to be a representa
tion of what Americans are listening to — a broad
swath of everything. The Rush Limbaugh Show is
the most popular of its kind on the radio; for the
AFR to have talk radio without it would be like
having a sports show without covering the NBA
Finals or the Super Bowl.
Honestly, this broad-swath nature of AFR
probably explains what NPR and the rest of the
liberal gamut are even doing on there in the first
place, since the military shows a greater conserva
tive lean collectively than the country as a whole.
One thing is clear: The liberals in the realm
of radio feel threatened. Why? Because people
want to hear Rush Limbaugh. He supports the
troops. He tells the soldiers overseas what the
liberals want hidden in a dusty closet some
where. Liberals don’t do these things, and it’s
their tactics that put freedom in jeopardy. They
say that it is fairness and balance that they real
ly want, but inside they still yearn for a chance
to play by the golden rule of the American
media.
Clint Rainey is a sophomore
general studies major.
Graphic by Will Lloyd
Heisf
luniorU
said fie
sed
d "tjulit 1
Bush supporters should
see Fahrenheit 9/11, too
MAIL CALL
go
Michael Moore is an extremist who will go to
any length, including telling lies, to further his
cause.
ier
IS
urvivof
illion at
Survival
he woie
ervw
a $50' I feel I must offer up some type of explana
tion why I, a staunch conservative and
Republican, would go and pay money to see
“Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore's latest
piece of garbage targeted at President Bush.
The reason is simply this. If we, the God-fear-
ng, morally bound component of the United
States, don’t want to wake up November 3 and
here the words “President Elect John F. Kerry,”
led at' we have got to WAKE UP NOW and realize what
Vs fire! we are up against!
Having said that let me get to the film. First
of all, calling this thing a documentary is an
jabsolute sham. By definition, a documentary
is a film which “presents facts objectively with-
ut editorializing or inserting fictional matter.”
Moore’s work is one fallacious attempt after
nother to discredit what President Bush has
one for this country. One of Moore’s main
ccusations is President Bush's relationship
ith the Saudis led to the evacuation of approx
imately twenty-four Saudis including relatives
irvealtf of Osama bin Laden only days after September
do." 111. Another avid Bush critic, Richard Clarke,
Iflhas proven this accusation false.
Moore’s repeated attempts to bring discredit
to the U.S. military were also unrealistic. He
interviewed a few of the not so bright, junior
troops in an effort to make all seem like blood
thirsty, war-mongering buffoons. The film also
lakes the notion that the majority of the
troops are against President Bush. In reality,
this is the exact opposite of the truth. A recent
)oll taken by the Military Times shows an over
whelming majority of members of the United
States’ armed forces support President Bush
■and believe in his leadership.
:aver
Andy Thaxton
Class of 2006
John Kerry nothing more
than an opportunist
In response to Jeff Lack’s June 24 Mail call:
Mr. Lack, it is very disturbing how anyone
with a military background would support
Sen. John Kerry; a politician who stands for
everything that is wrong with America today.
I respect your service to our country and
respect all of our soldiers fighting today. At
the same time I think it is appropriate to look
at John Kerry’s “service” to America.
Though Kerry was in the Vietnam War, he
did nothing but hinder its efforts. Many
American POWs were tortured and died in
the Hanoi prison camps while Kerry sat back
and watched them and chose the opportunist
path of least resistance.
John Kerry has continued to change his
views on many other issues since then. His
“flip-flopping” on issues and his disgusting
voting record is more than just a slander on
his character; it is a tremendous factor in
any presidency. Many Americans will vote
for him for where he stands on certain
issues today only to see him change his
mind in the future. Inconsistency such as
that is very dangerous to our country.
Josh Haynes
Class of 2005
The Battalion encour
ages 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 for length,
style and accuracy. Letters
may be submitted in person
at 014 Reed McDonald with
a valid student ID. Fax:
(979) 845-2647 Email:
maiIcall@thebattalion.net
Universities should
use direct-loan plan
T hough many
Aggies look for
ward to their gradu
ations, often their antici
pation is overshadowed
by the student loan pay
ments that will be due
soon afterwards. The
financial burden of loan
payments will be difficult
to handle for many stu
dents, and unfortunately neither
the government nor the multi
billion dollar privatized student
loan industry are going to make
it any easier. There is corruption
in the student loan system and it
needs to be changed.
The most common way of
borrowing money for higher edu
cation is from federal programs
like the Stafford loan program.
Because of major flaws in feder
al law, universities are able to
choose whether to get federally
guaranteed loans from the
Federal Family Education Loan
Program or from the govern
ment’s direct-loan plan. Against
students’ best interests, universi
ties across the country have cho
sen the profits of privatized loans
over the more beneficial direct-
loan loan plan.
The direct loan plan began in
1998 when Congress reformed
the Higher Education Act and
allowed the government to cut
out private lenders from the flow
of money from government to
student. With the government
doing the lending, the middle
man is eliminated, and the gov
ernment prevents itself from
paying the lenders subsidies that
are normally paid for with tax
payer money. Unfortunately for
students, universities aren’t tak
ing advantage of the
opportunity.
Federal government
figures show that for
every $100 the govern
ment directly lends to
the student, it earns 22
cents, but FFEL costs
$12.80 for every $100
borrowed. The num
bers speak for them
selves, but universities ignore
common sense and blindly pur
sue the more expensive of the
two options.
Although some public officials
push the direct-loan plan, the pri
vatized industry has worked very
hard to keep its supporters.
Private lenders, most
notably Sallie Mae who is the
giant of the private student loan
industry, have gone to great
lengths to regain ground lost to
the direct-loan plan, and they
have used some very dirty
tricks to do it.
Private lenders use the pror
ceeds from federal loans to
wine and dine financial loan
officers from universities as
well as offer millions of dollars
in profits from federally guar
anteed loans to universities by
setting up the schools as banks.
Although it is legal, that doesn’t
reduce the immorality of it,
especially at a time when
tuition is skyrocketing across
the country.
According to a special report
in October from U.S. News &
World Report, private lenders
spend millions to keep key legis
lators on the House and Senate
education committees in office
and then spend more money to
lobby to them. Apparently, their
profits make the effort well
worth it. This lobbying and
political game playing comes at
a great cost to students, who
are left without anyone lobbying
for them.
Private lenders have also
found a loophole in federal law
that requires the government to
pay a premium on top of the
interest the students are paying,
costing the taxpayer over $432
billion dollars a year. In
essence, they are charging the
government money to do some
thing that would cost the gov
ernment less to do itself. Private
lenders have gone untouched for
too long, and must be subject to
stricter standards.
Another issue regarding stu
dent loans needs to be
addressed. Federal law pre
vents those deep in debt to con
solidate their student loan bills
more than once, and with very
few exceptions. Students at
A&M can accrue significant
debt while enrolled as an
undergraduate, but for those
who attend graduate school as
well the debt becomes almost
unmanageable. The bills that
start pouring in and from dif
ferent lenders can be over
whelming once graduation has
passed.
Kristina Butler is a senior
journalism major.
KRISTINA
BUTLER