VANTED
for full-time, k
benefits. Grej
pplying to
egree and ow
id. Fax resy
ply in persona!
ite 15mo. Mot
ie care, Relan
06 West 23rd
pay, plus tips.
iCYCLE
ir. 3kmi, sei
SIC
)J- Peter Blod,
id. Speciafe'
ictions, lights/s
Book early!!
iyblockd].com
TS
irn 5/5/04, first
& black, $250.
Opinion
The Battalion
Moore than
Page 7 • Thursday, July 8, 2004
propaganda
‘Fahrenheit 9/IT deserves attention from both conservatives and lib /
vo
ired English 0
Parents on*
19-1744.
STATE
'drm/4bth com
some loan, reul
264.
MTES
ichael Moore, the man who confront
ed General Motors in “Roger and Me !
and duked it out with the National
ifle Association in “Bowling for Columbine,”
w turns his wrath on, as he sees it, a corrupt
[ministration and an illegitimate president
ho stole the 2000 election in his newest film
'ahrenheit 9/11”: a film about greed, decep-
§bn, murder, power and vengeance.
Sounds exciting, and if one had no idea
to who the director was, they would won-
rwhat Hollywood stars would grace the
|ig screen of this twisted tale.
However, the film is touted as a documentary.
144.
i/mo. and $2
I except lx
297.
w/2 other
16 Antelope.
■1/3util. (!
for Ashley.
'2.5bth towi
om. Carissa
6.
ASAP. Ne»
n/3utiies.
j/internet ir
832-692-
Not surprisingly, though, the ideological right perceives it as a
aiAor J | )m pl ete misrepresentation of facts and blatant lies about
lee paid, president Bush, while the left views it, according to Richard
(orliss of Time Magazine, as the equivalent of, “a secular The
lassion of the Christ.’”
arage tail Nevertheless, regardless of what spectrum of the political field
ed. Available C|ie subscribes to, this film surprisingly merits attention. Don’t lis
ten to the conservative hype. It’s not simply “a pack of lies” like
FspnngTir ^■ us * 1 Limbaugh stated or “a sinister exercise in moral frivolity,
Mis, 1406 s crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness” as Christopher
itchens believes.
It’s more than just propaganda; it is a film that
^ises some valid points. The film points out the
ush family’s disturbing business connections
ith the Saudi government and even Osama bin
.aden’s family through the Carlyle Group,
core also brings attention to the large amount
if Saudi capital investment in the United States,
tevious talks of the Unocal company, which has
ties to Bush associates, with the Taliban regard-
ng constructing a gas pipeline across
Afghanistan, is seen in the film.
J Moore also criticizes Bush for sending too
2w troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, suggesting
nat the war in Iraq was an attempt to divert
ttention from the people really responsible for
a
Many of these
assertions are a bit
farfetched but
some... must be
analyzed and taken
seriously.
3/2 house.
1.979-69Mii
>drm/3bthta
oom
0-6411
m lush’s military record which contains the name of a Bush
Bougaiwita
Ball Jacob a!
'76.
needed, «
es include!
$340/mo, -
on, call (97!
(979)5783!
, and unjustified because Saddam wasn’t a threat and never
ied to harm Americans. Moore presents the original copy of
cquaintance with connections to the Saudis to indicate that the
loking ror; lush administration doctored up his military records. The film
ndicates that the Coalition of the Willing is compiled of countries
vith negligible power, thus it is really the United States fighting
done and American soldiers are dying in vain.
Clearly many of these assertions are a bit farfetched but some,
specially the Saudi connections and the tremendous influence
hat Middle Eastern business has on upper class Americans and
loliticians, must be analyzed and taken seriously.
Here’s the truth: Moore’s film is indeed slanted to the left and
for ibd/ibaflhrough sophisticated editing, Bush, is portrayed as nothing
w/d, 405 gore than a d urn b cowboy from Texas, with big ties to the oil
industry, especially the Saudis, and who has his
daddy’s money, power and influence to thank
for his success.
But honestly, if this offends anyone in the
audience, it only illuminates one thing: the
individual is simply a partisan unwilling to
look at the film objectively and evaluate it
without his biases and political ideology
clouding the issue. His mind was made up
before entering the theater.
Clearly, Moore makes some weak
points, and often never offers the other
side of the story, but this is why people
who see the film should reevaluate
many of the events leading up to the war
in Iraq prior to seeing it. Don’t simply
walk into the film ignorant about the
subject matter.
One thing Moore fails to specifically
state, yet his presentation of the material
clearly displays it, is that America’s main
problem today is the lack of statesmen rep
resenting the public.
Unfortunately, the representatives in office,
both Republicans and Democrats, are
self-interested, power-hungry, busi
ness-savvy, uninformed people con
cerned about two things: their own suc
cess, and appealing to their constituents
just enough to be reelected.
. Moore chides representatives, as he
should, since almost none of
them have a child in the mili
tary and also hammers
home the point that
the only people real
ly defending our
country are those
of the lower middle
class, and the disenfranchised
underclass who often have no
where else to turn other than
the military for a career.
These elements are not just
a pack of lies. Truthfully, big
business controls politics, not the
needs of the majority of Americans
and anyone who believes differently is
living in Oz.
Already this film is doing well, projected
to gross more than $100 million in three weeks, and it should
because people need to see it.
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.
Graphic by Grade Arenas
SAP! 2bdiir.!
shuttle, S3£' I
MAIL CALL
bd/2ba tas
es included.
rm/2bth
cable, DSLi
lenefits of private loans
response to Kristina Butler's June 29
\otumn:
: urnished
5ba,
7
i.net
Ts~3/2/2I
Call Jack!
for Bbdtn 1
ills, cul-
t. 979-8204|
:ountry
3. 774-7991
mmate e
/2util,
Butler is entitled to her opinion, but
pinions should be based on facts. The stu-
ent loan program is providing loans at the
west interest rates ever. The program
hich she condemns as corrupt - the
deral Family Education Loan Program
FELP) - last year provided more than 5
illion students and families - including
ose from Texas A&M - with $50 billion in
laranteed student loans at no net cost to
e federal government.
Meanwhile, the the program she touts as
tore efficient - the government's Direct
loan program - has lost nearly $11 billion
pince its inception in 1994, according to the
eneral Accounting Office. She cites a statis-
[c that shows direct loans are cheaper for
e taxpayer. Ms. Butler fails to mention two
critical points. But this statistic is a projec-
[on, and not the program's actual perform-
jnce. Also, this projection is from 1994!
irect Lending has had 10 years of experi-
ce, and its record is clear.
Regardless of Direct Lending's woeful
nancial performance, we believe schools
should have a choice for their lending
eeds. Competition between the govern-
lent-run and private programs has made
oth more responsive to the needs of stu-
ents and schools. Competition has lowered
loan costs and allowed schools to obtain
better student loan service without compro
mising quality. Texas A&M is able to
demand and receive better loan services
and product choices for its students and
families because of this competition.
Finally, Ms. Butler implies that Sallie Mae
uses “dirty tricks” to win the business of
financial aid officers. This is not only untrue,
but impugns the reputation and professional
ism of financial aid professionals, who are
often the unsung champions of finding the
financing that allows students to attend and
graduate great universities like Texas A&M.
She owes them an apology.
Tom Joyce
Vice President
Corporate Communications
Sallie Mae
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 let
ters 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
Legislative deadlines ruined
tuition forum’s potential
T uition
increas
es have
been a major
matter over
shadowing
the events of
the past year
at Texas
A&M
University,
and the
specter of possible future increas
es has made the amount current
and future students will have to
pay uncertain.
But recently, there was a forum
held on campus to solicit opinions
from students, faculty and staff on
matters related to tuition and how
the University is run.
The forum, run by consulting
firm MGT America, allowed par
ticipants to write their comments
on two-by-three foot pads placed
on the Weills around the room,
each related to a particular area of
the study.
The information collected by
the forum will be used in a larger
audit of A&M, conducted by
MGT, which will be given to the
Legislative Budget Board, and
eventually presented to the
Legislature at its regular session
next year.
A similar audit is being con
ducted at the University of Texas.
It seems as though members of
the state government have awak
ened to the strains put upon Texas
families by tuition deregulation,
and the fact that Boards of
Regents do not have to justify
increases to anyone.
But the timing of this forum
suggests those who commissioned
it may be more interested in
meeting arbitrary deadlines and
DAVID
SHOEMAKER
appearances than ensuring the
most thorough data gathering
process is used. For the forum to
have its fullest potential, it
should have occurred during the
spring or fall semesters instead
of the summer.
According to a news article and
sources at the Legislative Budget
Board, the goal is to get the audit
finished by this fall, so it will be
ready to be presented by the time
the Legislature convenes for their
next special session.
This explains why the part of
the audit that
sought input from
the student body as
well as the faculty
and staff here at
Texas A&M was
conducted in the
summer.
Unfortunately,
the result is that
most students and
quite a few employ
ees are not around
to participate.
Although their
'opinion was solicit
ed by e-mail, it is
very easy for one
e-mail from the
University to get lost in some
one’s inbox.
The Office of the Provost said
that there will not be any more
forums scheduled on campus to
solicit input from students or staff.
The problem here rests not with
A&M, but the time table agreed to
by the LBB.
The LBB was bound to con
duct this audit by legislation
passed in the last regular session.
They issued a proposal for con
sulting firms to evaluate the uni
versities over a broad spectrum of
issues, which related to almost all
aspects of university governance
and tuition.
But as part of that process,
which was eventually won by
MGT, the LBB agreed to a time
line for the audit. This is where
the error occurred. If the LBB was
committed to getting the best,
most relevant data, they would
have made sure the audit included
extensive surveying of students,
staff and faculty when they would
all be on campus.
But the LBB was apparently
more concerned
about making a dead
line than getting the
best information.
This might not be so
upsetting if this
report was not going
to be presented to the
Legislature.
So now the whole
Legislature will have
what could be termed
incomplete informa
tion on the opinions
of students, staff and
faculty and the status
of how things are
being run at A&M.
The LBB should be
ashamed of itself for such haphaz
ard planning and should remedy
this by conducting more forums
during the fall.
If the LBB wanted to make
sure they received the best infor
mation, they should have made
sure that surveys where done in
the spring or fall. Unfortunately,
the quality of their information
does not seem to have been their
top priority.
David Shoemaker is a senior
management major.
If the LBB was
committed to get
ting the best, most
relevant data, they
would have made
sure the audit in
cluded extensive
surveying of stu
dents ...