fED
M-F. t
3® majoti
)ns ope;
•S. Giao
ays. ft
iy! Cu s
+• Coie
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5 • Wednesday, July 21, 2004
T-shirt turbulence
slew York Sub has right to produce T-shirts offensive to Kerry supporters
'Peciafe.
ligitt
; early!!
dj.com
enaissance thinker Michel de Montaigne once said, “There is no conver
sation more boring than the one where everybody agrees." If there’s any
truth to that, the dialogue between New York Sub and local liberals can
be considered anything but boring.
Recently, employees of New York Sub designed a T-shirt that
features, on the breast pocket, an elephant mounting a donkey,
and “F#@k John Kerry” written on the back. The public
commotion started when former Aggie Democrats presi
dent Nick Anthis wrote a mail call to The Battalion
claiming that the shirt depicted rape and made light
of the crime, and that promoting this shirt at a
restaurant “alienated progressives.”
But the truth is this is an act of refreshingly candid free speech by
Jew York Sub owner Austin Harkness in an honest attempt to share
a iugh with and attract like-minded people to his establishment.
Harkness strongly rejected the notion that the shirt design
I picted rape. “Let me get one thing straight for Mr. Anthis and
yone else who wants to take this too far: Pulling the “rape” card
a cheap shot, and insinuating that we would endorse such a
lespicable act represents mental weakness,” he wrote to The Bat-
ta ion. “Don’t claim we promote rape, whether it’s a donkey or a
^Residential candidate. It’s absurd, and I would imagine embar-
81 "wing to your fellow progressives ... there IS NOTHING
imorous about rape.”
It’s ridiculous for Anthis or any liberal to presume a
j staurant owner and his employees would all think
along those lines. Perhaps what liberals are actually
glared of is that Kerry will be “raped” in the polls
this November when the American pub
SSJjects an unpatriotic, flip-flop politi-
: ci i) in favor of one who will continue
wBfight evil within and outside of
=s i
unateriM,
ome. vljr
o +bills Is
drmarl
iveor J
79-77M
25/m.
Imerican borders.
-jjjjj The second accusation Anthis made
1406 Ras that “New York Sub has hurt the
ci nmunity by alienating (Democrats)”
om caBrough the creation of the shirt. “It’s
lexcusable," he believes. Of course,
nthis acknowledged that the establish-
lent has the right to free speech, but
lid New York Sub needs “to exercise
me more control.”
Harkness explained that he
new exactly what he was doing
id understood the consequences.
iherte
todmi/t
JedMii
i,485H
Brand
a snw
“I understand each time you take a side in a hotly contested
subject such as politics or religion, you automatically anger
or offend those people who aren’t of the same opinion,” he
wrote to The Battalion.
The claim that free speech should involve the exercise of con
trol is a good idea if one is attempting to change someone’s mind.
Persuasion requires a certain amount of tact so as not to offend the
person whose mind one is trying to change. However, it’s clear that
Harkness didn’t believe he’d change a card-carrying Democrat’s vote
from Kerry to Bush this November with humor and swearing. “Con
trol” was unnecessary given his intentions.
The truth is, Harkness should be applauded for taking such a
strong stand for his beliefs and encouraging a laugh and a whoop
by those who believe as he does.
His T-shirt harms no one and offends only those whose
ideas are offensive to his own. Besides that, the shirt idea
was a shrewd marketing idea — few establishments in town
have received so much attention as to be discussed in two
Battalion articles and multiple mail calls, and
likely there are
Aggies who have visited New York Sub for the
first time just to see “what the fuss is about.” In
fact, Harkness confirmed that “there has been a sharp
increase in sales since this started.”
The T-shirt controversy highlights many of the
reasons we should be proud to live in America. Entrepre
neurs like Harkness are free to set up and profit from private
businesses, and he and the rest of
Americans have the freedom to
say what they wish, wear what
they like and eat wherever
they want. In the end, those
who are offended may wish to
take the advice of a mail call
by Michael Hart and “grow
thicker skin.”
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.
Graphic by Rylie Deyoe
Preserving the PATRIOT Act
ssential to national security
ITT' 1
W 1
MAIL CALL
CRAIG
BOWEN
a lio® :
hile lawmakers were still
thinking clearly, when vi
sions of burning buildings
nd scorched bodies hadn’t yet left
television screens and when the
248i' 'tizens of America were still stead-
-2-Jtst in their resolve to combat terror,
invito' Re USA PATRIOT Act was created,
icobail he PATRIOT Act extends the laws
—Jsed to fight organized crime and
ed $42T ru § trafficking to the war against
693^Btror. Incongruity has now led some
^/ibawrmer supporters of this bill to challenge it as uncon-
4C fitutional and offer “amendments” to it that basically
tdlify its existence.
The proposed amendments to the act were defeated in
ongress by a ridiculously narrow margin on July 8. Ameri-
pns aren’t safe yet, though. The opposition says there will
°' +ll, l e Ntore proposed amendments until the
review period in September 2005,
'hen a vote will be taken to decide on the
ATRIOT Act’s reinstatement.
The PATRIOT Act allows the use of
wing wiretaps, pen registers, tap and
pee devices, delayed search notification
Pd the gathering of potentially eviden-
I ar y records and receipts from banks,
hraries and airlines. These were all exist-
Provisions law enforcement agencies
|heady used to fight crime long before
e PT 11. The PATRIOT Act made these
1,0 ^ethods available for use, among others,
| v ailable for use against terrorists.
For example, in the 1970s the Supreme Court ruled
at the Constitution does not require law enforcement
jgencies to immediately notify an individual whose
ptne or office has been searched if that notification
Paid result in destruction of evidence, harm to witnesses
r the fleeing of a suspect. Section 213 of the Patriot Act
pPly extends this provision to terrorism. If the FBI
i arches a suspected terrorist’s residence, it doesn t have
.p notify the suspect right away. This ensures that the
t can’t burn any instruction manuals on “How
’ J° Operate A 767” or decide to leave the country before
Planned search. That makes sense to most freedom-lov-
§ Americans.
A handful of critics, however, call this the “sneak and
ee k section of the Act, saying it violates the Fourth
nie ndment, which secures a person and their pos-
• • tt J ess * 0ris a gainst unreasonable searches and seizures.
S I eaic h warrants still must be obtained under the Patriot
(<K | C T however, and the investigative body still must have
frs 2 * r ? able cause. How is that an unreasonable search?
Actions 214 and 216 are two other so-called “problem
F eas °f the act. They introduce the use of pen registers
' n trap and trace devices, which are “...investigative
} ° s used to obtain information about the source and
es tination - but not the content — of telephone calls and
jnclo*
301" j"
3,
e-mail messages.” Authorities can tell who the suspect
called or e-mailed, and from what telephone or computer
they corresponded, but nothing about the content of the
correspondence is revealed. The opposition to the PA
TRIOT Act skews these sections to make them look like
spying or intercepting devices used to eavesdrop on cor
respondence between innocent civilians.
The vast majority of the opposition to this law comes
from Section 215, the so-called angry librarians provision.
With a judge’s order and a grand jury subpoena, law of
ficers can obtain library, business and international banking
records, airline manifests and a number of different receipts
for use in their case.
The fact that library records are included here is
considered by some to be the most ludicrous thing the
government has ever done according to the U.S. De
partment of Justice Web site. However, a brief over
view of the cases library records have helped solve
might enlighten and surprise some: the
Gianni Versace murder case in 1997,
the nationwide Unibomber hunt and
the 1990 Zodiac gunman case, just
to name a few. To keep libraries out
of this list of potentially evidentiary
records would be ludicrous, especially
now that most public libraries of
fer high-speed Internet connections.
Public places of study would become
a safe haven for terrorists to commu
nicate and research their catastrophic
causes.
The U.S. government’s duty
is multi-faceted, but the protection of
its citizens and the ability to research,
combat and ideally prevent acts of terror on U.S. soil is
quickly becoming an undeniable necessity. The citizen
ship of our nation has an important duty: to cooperate
with governing authorities, aiding them in any way
unless our Constitutional rights are being violated. That
is absolutely not the case with the PATRIOT Act. To
strip powerful tools out of our leaders’ hands because of
falsities provided by a hysterical few is not cooperation,
it is treason, “providing support and comfort to the en
emies of one’s nation.” We must battle to save laws like
the PATRIOT Act that in turn protect us from heinous
crimes like those committed on that forgotten September
day three short years ago.
The protection
of (U.S.) citizens.Js
quickly becoming an
undeniable necessity.
Marriage should be
religious institution
In response to Nicholas Davis’ July 20
column:
I would like to support Mr. Davis’
defense of traditional marriage. Even
though I am a liberal homosexual, I
agree with Mr. Davis that religious mar
riage is a sacred union between one
man and one woman. Government does
not have a right to meddle with the ba
sic definition of this holy union. Religious
people in this country have a constitu
tional right to believe, define and prac
tice these unions within their respective
religions. How, then, can we deal with
men and women who seek legal recog
nition of their same-sex relationships?
Mr. Davis and many who share his po
litical views are quick to offer Civil Unions
as a concession. Separate but equal in
stitutions have already been declared un
constitutional. Incidentally, the court who
decided that case could be described as
activist. I would like to propose a solution
agreeable to the largest amount of people
on both sides of the political spectrum. Let
religious institutions administer marriages
(just like they do now) and let everyone get
civil unions for government recognition of
their union. No more marriage for straight
people and civil unions for gay people,
just give everyone civil unions. That way,
the government stays out of religious insti
tutions, an idea this country was founded
on, and every union is equal before the
law without separate definitions.
Matthew McDougall
Class of 200
Headline showed
reporting bias
In response to a July 19 article:
Recently, The Battalion featured a
news article on the front page featuring
a headline that read “Controversy esca
lates over offensive T-shirts.” I am left
to ask who exactly determines what is
and what is not “offensive?” While I cer
tainly understand how and why some
people are offended by shirts that say
“F— Kerry,” many (myself included) are
not. By using the word "offensive” in
the headline, The Battalion is making a
value judgment instead of simply report
ing the facts regarding the news story.
The editors of the Battalion should not
allow this type of bias to appear and I
encourage them to take more care in
leaving opinions and value judgments
out of their news reporting.
Mark McCaig
Class of 2005
Wall ruled against
due to land claims
In response to Clint Rainey’s July 20
column:
The ICJ ruled against the wall be
cause Israel violated international law
by building it on illegally annexed land.
If Israel had built the wall on the inter
nationally recognized border between
itself and the Occupied Territories, no
one would have the right to object. Isra
el has every right to defend its people,
but if this were about defense rather
than a land grab, the wall wouldn't be
deep inside Palestinian territory.
Ahmed Gamal
Ph.D Student
Craig Bowen is a junior
wildlife ecology major.