Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 29, 2004)
/ANTED Went, n,; <1 time day' tJo appt 1815 Han; U- Peter *1 Specij’ Wbns, ligiiis Book earty Wockdj.co? IS lens for j fcts, tesi ialments. n One proven: to leonisr- Opinion IliSliii The Battalion Conflicts of interest erry’s abortion philosophies conflict political stance 7i/2btti, npus, $88i| 2bdrm/1btt ( 3s, Carlos a >0. 979-22J! s the Democratic National Conven tion comes to an end oston, some undecided, -time college voters may in to see what the party rs via its presidential ninee, Sen. John Kerry, a more accurate portrayal ;ht have already been icted while he was on the paign trail. ccording to published reports, ry recently stated, “I oppose rtion, personally. 1 don’t like ^^^_rtion. 1 believe life does begin lAltb conception.” In May, similar roommate corments were made by his wife, ne p ac J,': let tsa Heinz Kerry, who said tbortion “is stopping the process Jjife.” “i 0 understand the gravity of romo♦he Kerry’s comments, one might 361-648j<* e || t0 cons i ( j er the follow- Q/mo j n l jn-efutable facts. Pregnancies 189 or m B the result of conceptions and py believes “life does begins at ception.” Abortion ends a preg- icy. According to Kerry’s own io. includes:jhilosophy then, abortion ends a i93 ~ 711 -- y 1,111 I>f e - fDne might assume that this uld mean the Massachusetts ator is against abortion, es- cially since he is Catholic and itholicism openly rejects the a of abortion. According to his sidential campaign Web site, rry plans to protect “(women’s) JOSHUA DWYER duplex, t :ion, w/d. pring. 4W. is, $325/to i constitutional right to choose.” This point is confirmed by his 100 percent pro-choice voting record as assigned by Planned Par enthood and the National Abortion and Reproductive Action League. These incon sistencies stir up a question. Is Kerry supporting abortion to gain pro-choice votes despite his own views, or does he believe it is per missible to end the life of human beings? Since Roe v. Wade, the abor tion debate has centered around two issues: the time that a baby receives recogni tion as a human being, and what, if any, are the boundaries of the pregnant mother’s rights. Pro-life advo- cates have sought to define the legal status of the fetus as a person, beginning at the time of concep tion. This would entitle it to full protection under the law from any Is Kerry sup porting abortion to gain pro-choice votes despite his own views, or does he believe it is permissible to end the life of hu man beings? attempts by any person to abridge its rights, including its right to life. Pro-choice advocates have maintained that the fetus does not meet the legal status of per son, and therefore does not have any individual rights. While de bate continues in the pro-choice community regarding when the fetus does deserve the rights of personhood, the time frame for permissible abortions ranges from some time after conception up until birth, in some cases. A review of history provides two notable examples of the personhood debate. Up until the mid-nineteenth cen tury, the United States permitted the owner ship of slaves based on the assumption that they were property, not people deserving the rights of citizens. Fortunately, the er ror was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments. A more recent occurrence of the debate took place in Germany with the rise of the Nazi Party, which denied the personhood of certain classes of people in order to justify the inhumane treatment of them. This was only rectified by the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II. As president, Kerry claims he will only appoint federal judges who uphold the constitution ally protected status of abortion. That means not only will Kerry stand idly by as an estimated 1.3 million lives—in his view— are ended in the next year, but he will be a material accomplice in the act. Ending a human life is ho micide. In some cases, such as executing death row inmates or in self-defense, homicide is con sidered justifiable by the govern ment. The government does not consider the intentional, unpro voked ending of innocent human life to be justifiable. Kerry does. Kerry has committed himself to stand by his positions; he just doesn’t know what those positions mean or what conse quences they might have. Joshua Dwyer is a sophomore political science major. oalition-building necessary for sercurity 2 house, 979-690-8. 1 By Bryant Melton THE CRIMSON WHITE (U-WIRE) TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — This ek, the 2004 Democratic National Conven- n began in Boston. As the camera pans |e crowd during speeches, be sure to take te of the audience. The mocratic Party is one of traordinary diversity. You 11 see men and women, ck and white, Hispanic, ian and Native Ameri- jns. We are a family com- ised of individuals young d old, who come from 61-293-82® fferent cultures and social id economic backgrounds, short, when you glance toss the audience, you will see America. I Partisan politics has its i ace, but governance can jonly be done efficiently rough cooperation and alition building. It is immate ne« to, still * 787-2481. king roomfi lugainvilleai ill Jacob all S. , need se. $425' 979-693-3! 1 We must rede fine out concept of national secu rity, and our ap proach to home land security must be seamless. r 1bd/1ba W/D, 40511 n/2bth ble, on st.| r 3/2/2, 5/mo. +1® portant that we all be open to ideas, whether ey come from moderates, conservatives or erals. Taking the best of our different back- ounds and blending them together is what flakes this country so great. We must bring our bdrm/4btli '/d, cable, * O/mo. 972-5 ;bdrm houS pets ok. ! varied ideas together in order to progress. We must work to unite our country, not divide it. It’s a shame, but it seems in recent years the con cept of coalition-building has fallen awry. We must build alliances that will help bring about prosperous change. Only a broad-based coalition will be suc cessful in creating solutions to problems. Invading a country is not a prudent way to protect ourselves from terrorism. We need to focus on homeland security, meaning security in our “home land,” something I think we have lost sight of. When you live in an open society, there are great privileges, but there are also great risks. With a little attention to detail, we can lessen those risks and protect our open society. We must redefine our concept of national security, and our approach to homeland security must be seam less. Sept. 11 was sobering. We can no longer afford to think of security as the sole responsibility of our military and law enforcement. We should share information, as there is currently not enough sharing of intelligence within the federal government. It is clear that our government hasn’t invested enough in America’s home land security. Although some money has gone to pro tecting our homeland, it is a pittance com pared to the funds we have spent outside this country in the name of security. While we spend hundreds of billions of dollars abroad, our nation’s power grids and water supplies are vulnerable. Currently, 95 percent of our nation’s overseas trade moves by sea, yet there is very little being done to protect our ports. Public health continues to be under funded and ill-prepared for a bioter rorism attack. We must work to strengthen our police and fire departments. We must make every effort to protect our water and food supplies from possible attack. Our borders must be moni tored more closely. Domestic defense must be a top priority in the everyday work of government, not exclu sively in emergency situations. Federal, state and local agencies must work together to have a central clearinghouse and prepare a comprehensive plan and program for home land security. We must all work together, embrace our diversity and build coalitions that will protect all of America. Bryant Melton is a columnist at U. Alabama Fahrenheit’ twists meaning of simple facts By Tony Mckee EAST CAROLINIAN (U-WIRE) GREENVILLE, N.C. for 3bdrIii%H ave you noticed that some peo- . insoutiitiple have a different concept of re- 2>-82o-oiK|j t y, truth and j nte g rity 9 That they in take simple facts and twist their eaning or context so much that nrhead hurts just trying to follow dr illogic? Michael Moore is one of those icple and his newest “documen- ity,” Fahrenheit 9/11, is a prime xample of what can happen when »se, nicetj truth” becomes nothing more than ^$347^0 J political agenda. S70-2f7$ This movie is so far removed ■^T$25^ ^ om lh e truth that even liberal ommentators and critics are trash- ig it. Not all of them of course, but [nough to be noteworthy nonethe- ss. I won’t even try to counter the lies and misrepresentations the movie. I’ll just hit the most laring ones. First, Moore lays out the ongoing beral-whacko claim that President lush “stole” the election in 2000. Fact: Of the most respectable re- am-2'30® orts different groups and news 20yrs. inj rganizations such as CNN, ABC, issued af- adrm/lblli j 1st roof j rnet ii# □69. 4bdrm/!j; srd. Call ! ing. Lol f smissalfr 1 Inn, Sis/ ^/Valk-ins lajor newspapers, etc. rice by l! srthey did full recounts, and there \i. Sho» y ere q U ite a number, only perhaps three showed that Gore would have won the election. The only problem is that the criteria they used to sup port this claim could never have been met. Besides, if there was “credible” proof that Gore would have won don’t you think that the Democrats would still be screaming at the top of their lungs to the press and in court to this day? Next. Second, Moore implies that Pres ident Bush let some Saudis and bin Laden family members “skip out” while all planes were grounded and before the FBI could question them. Fact: Richard Clark, not Presi dent Bush, authorized the flights in question. The FBI had interviewed those they wanted to and deter mined they had no knowledge of interest. Next. Third, Moore insinuates that part of the reason for going into Af ghanistan was to make it easier for UNOCAL, supposedly connected to the Bushes, to get a pipeline across that country. Fact: The pipeline project did exist... under Bill Clinton’s watch. UNOCAL dropped the whole proj ect in 1998, two years before Bush was elected. Next. Fourth, and I love this one, Moore complains about the Patriot Act and “giving up/losing” some rights. This, after all the attacks on free speech through PC nonsense and gun ownership that have come up? Utter hypocrisy. Next. Fifth, Moore shows scenes of Iraqi insurgents after Saddam was thrown out dancing around de stroyed equipment and dead bodies and calls them proof that we were not wanted. He even had the temer ity to show pictures of the mutilated and burned victims hanging from that bridge. He does not show the planes slamming into the World Trade Center killing thousands of Americans but he does show that. He also does not mention the in nocent people brutally murdered by these insurgents, most of whom were over there trying to help the Iraqis. Typical. All these examples of Moore’s lies, innuendos and misstatements, as disgusting as they are, pale in comparison to the way he exploits an unfortunate family who lost their son in Iraq. His shameless use of those people, and the effect on the audience that he tries (and suc ceeds) to elicit is among the lowest things I have ever seen. The whole scene is poignant and heart-rend ing, but when put into the context of Moore using them to support what he knows are lies, the exploi tation is obvious. There are so many other things that I can say about this film, but I won’t. You need to see it for your-' self. Yep, I’m recommending that you go see the movie. If you are already a true believer of Moore’s lies it will let you keep your anger and hatred stoked. If you think Moore is a blithering idiot, your beliefs will be resoundingly confirmed. But it is really those of you who haven’t decided or don’t care that I recom mend going to see the movie. It will be an experience. Tony Mckee is a columnist at East Carolina U. Page 7 • Thursday, July 29, 2004 MAIL CALL A&M should not make deals with Napster In response to Mike Walters’ July 28 column: The deal that Napster has made with other universi ties is not something that A&M should enter into. What the Napster deals assume is that every college student is pirating music and so every college student should pay for music they’re assumed to be stealing anyway. Although music pirating is most definitely widespread among stu dents, it is unfair to punish every student (guilty or not) by forcing them to pay for a service that they may not want. It’s bad enough that I have to pay 17.50 per semester for a “software licensing fee” which gives me the right to buy Microsoft products I don’t want. This deal will make me pay something like a “music licensing fee” for the right to download music I don’t want. The deal also brings up some logistical questions. Do all students pay the fee, or just the ones living on campus (the ones with the very high speed connection which makes piracy so easy)? Will the software only work on windows? If so, what about students who don’t have win dows? Should they have to pay even though they can’t use the service? Will there be an “opt-out" option if you refuse to use (or cannot use) the service? Do you actually get to buy the music and burn it to a CD or just listen to it while you’re online? Students should demand answers to those questions before blindly accepting a deal with Napster or any other music service. These deals, while saving the people who want the service a little bit of money, are a bad deal for everyone else. Don’t make everyone pay for crimes they may not have committed. Also, for the record, Apple's iTunes service offers single tracks for 99 cents and whole albums for $9.99, and you can burn the tracks to a CD. Adam Kemp Class of 2005 MSC Visual Arts seeks both modern art and classic art In response to Mike Walters' July 27 column: I graduated in May 2004 with a bachelor’s in genet ics and am one of a long line of Aggies (Srd genera tion). I am also one of a long line of art lovers. I believe, that at Texas A&M University, I received a great education, and the “proper knowledge that Aggies seek in their education and growth at this Uni versity." Art played an enormous role in realizing this proper knowledge. Art promotes thought and philosophy, and de scribes visually the human condition. Abstract art is special, in that it gives the artist total freedom of ex pression, and its audience total freedom of interpre tation. The MSC Visual Arts Committee is a student organization that realizes this concept to its fullest. VAC hasn’t forgotten classic art and its principles. In fact, these organizations help cherish, promote and preserve it. The Visual Arts Committee takes a spe cial interest in promoting modern art because it is symbolic of and represents our ever-evolving culture and ideas. Art organizations are preserving old values and promoting new ones. It saddens me that some are scared of this vision, and of free expression and interpretation. It angers me that the column twists and contorts people's words to fit a restricting agenda. For Mr. Watlers’ sake, and for others sharing his opinions, I pray that he opens his eyes and finally appreciates the beauty that surrounds him every day. Addie Embry Class of 2003 Former Chair of the MSC Visual Arts Committee Aggies can appreciate abstract art In Response to Mike Walters' July 27 column: Never before in my experience at this school have I come across an article with less intellect than the one I read on July 27th entitled, “Too Abstract for Aggieland". I sincerely hope that every single per son that read this article took personal offense. Mr. Walters’ article painted a picture of the students of A&M being aesthetically incompetent, opposed to di versity, and ignorant enough to be against abstract art. This art is in no way offensive and takes nothing away from the artwork that is already displayed on campus. It is very apparent that Mr. Walter's is not an artist of any kind, as no person with any aes thetic values would refer to another persons work as "twisted guesswork” as he did in his article. It disgusts me that The Battalion would allow personal attacks on Liz Jurewicz, the chair of the Visual Arts Committee. I happen to know Liz very well and think very highly of her and her organizations commitment to bring art and beauty to this campus. She works incredibly hard to make this campus a better place for not only those who enjoy art, but everyone who attends the university. I love this school and what it stands for, but I can’t help but be disappointed when I see people such as Mr. Walters creating a crisis over something like abstract art. Johnathon Cramer Class of 2005
