The Rice Thresher, Vol. 95, No. 12, Ed. 1 Friday, November 16, 2007 Page: 4 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE RICE THRESHER OPINION FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16,2007
Guest Column
Make a public commitment to end the occupation of Iraq
The war in Iraq is over. It ended,
as journalist Thom Hartmann
wrote in 2006, when "George W.
Bush stood below a 'Mission Ac-
complished' sign aboard
the USS Abraham Lincoln
and correctly declared
that we had 'victoriously'
defeated the Iraqi army
and overthrown their
government."
With that job accom-
plished, what the United
States is doing now in
Iraq is no longer a war. It
is an occupation, a deadly
one for both sides. The
year 2007 has been the
deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq,
with the death toll reaching 3,860
soldiers and an additional 28,451
more wounded.
The deaths on the American
side are just a drop in the bucket
compared to the violence suffered
by the Iraqis. New figures show that
the number of displaced Iraqis has
quadrupled under the so-called U.S.
troop surge that began earlier this
year. According to the Iraqi Red
Sarah
Tavlor
Crescent, 2.3 million people have
been forced to flee their homes.
What is more, the Iraqi Health
Ministry estimates 100,000-150,000
deaths of Iraqi civilians,
but according to opinion-
based research of Iraqi
families, the toll could be
as high as 1.2 million.
In light of these num-
bers, we have to wonder
why. Weapons of mass
destruction? That excuse
has become a joke to all
of us. The real reason for
these long-term occupa-
tions has nothing to do
with the fear-mongering
threat of terrorism, the establish-
ment of democracy in other coun-
tries or supposed humanitarian aid.
If that were so, why are women are
better educated and have more
rights in the enemy states of Iran
and Syria than in most Gulf Arab
states? There is more democracy in
the Palestinian territories, Lebanon
and Iran than in the Bush-friendly
countries of Saudi Arabia, Egypt
and Kuwait.
The real cause of our continued
presence in these countries is the
military-industrial complex.
There are so many
ways for students,
faculty and staff to
take a stand.
The phrase military-industrial
complex was first used by President
Dwight D. Eisenhower in his fare-
well address to the nation. A military
-industrial complex is formed when
the government contracts industries
to build weapons. These industries
then sell their weapons to military
organizations both at home and
abroad. The government and weap-
ons industries become caught in a
self-perpetuating cycle or complex
of the industry and become depen-
dent on each other for success. On
Jan. 17,1961, Eisenhower said: "The
potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will per-
sist ... Only an alert and knowledge-
able citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and
military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals,
so that security and liberty may
prosper together."
Looking back, almost 47 years
later, Eisenhower's words now seem
forebodingly prophetic. We have
seen direct evidence of the "disas-
trous rise of misplaced power." But
where is our "alert and knowledge-
able citizenry"?
Did you know that a new study
shows that a quarter of the homeless
are veterans, 400 of whom fought in
Afghanistan or Iraq? Or that the war
and occupation have thus far cost
about half a trillion dollars to the
federal government, equivalent to
almost half the total defense budget?
Bush has requested a record $190
billion for next year, twice as much
as in 2004. There is no end in sight
to this madness.
In the end, I do not need to spout
off statistics in order to convince you
that Iraq is a debacle: Statistically,
two-thirds of you already oppose the
United States' presence in Iraq. So
what do I have to do to convince you
to act? Other citizens already are.
Just in the past two weeks, 18 anti-
war activists were arrested in Iowa,
protesting outside the campaign
offices of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary
Clinton, both of whom supported
the war. In Olympia, Wash., at least
a dozen people were arrested as
they tried to block military cargo
shipments arriving from Iraq.
This spring will mark the fifth
anniversary of our invasion of
Iraq. There are so many ways for
students, faculty and staff to take
a stand. First, we need to educate
ourselves. Next, we can call our
representatives in Congress, we
can stage vigils and protests and
we can sign petitions. Join student
groups like Rice for Peace and
Justice and Amnesty International
and become more vocal on campus.
Together we can make the peace
movement stronger.
Sarah Taylor is a Sid Richardson
College senior.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
LETTERS, from page 2
haunted by every gentle embrace
you see that could have been a knife
wound if we had our way. In short,
go to heaven.
Bonner Reed
Jones sophomore
May fails to support
argument with facts
To the editor:
Caroline May's column on smok-
ing was factually inaccurate and
makes her come off sounding like
a nut ("Smoking bans nothing but
political hot air," Nov. 9). She obvi-
ously buys into right-wing framing,
"nanny-state" and all. Ann Coulter
would be proud.
Who, precisely, are these "liberal
politicians" who stand to gain profit
from smoking bans? Last I heard, the
tobacco lobby had far more money
than any anti-smoking group could
ever put up. There is no liberal
conspiracy to ban smoking because
society 'vilifies' smokers. Obviously,
we're too busy waging the War on
Christmas.
Also, she claims that the World
Health Organization has issued a
statement saying that secondhand
smoke causes no ill effects. I'm
sorry, is this the same WHO that said
that "involuntary smoking involves
exposure to the same numerous car-
cinogens and toxic substances that
are present in tobacco smoke"?
And that "more than 50 studies
of involuntary smoking and lung
cancer risk in never-smokers, espe-
cially spouses of smokers, have been
published during the last 25 years.
These studies have been carried out
in many countries. Most showed an
increased risk, especially for per-
sons with higher exposures"?
And that the existence of the ill
effects of secondhand smoke are
accepted by the Center for Disease
Control, the U.S. Surgeon General,
the National Cancer Institute, the
American Medical Association, the
American Uing Association, and just
about every other medical organiza-
tion of note?
Perhaps Caroline, like her ap-
parent model Ann Coulter, ought
to check her facts before making
baseless assertions. Banning smok-
ing in places where other people are
forced to inhale it makes sense and
protects the public.
Travis O'Rear
Brown freshman
Nonsmokers reserve
right to comfort
To the editor:
Caroline May's column has some
good points. May points out that
there are a number of scientific
studies that support the notion that
secondhand smoking is not as bad
as most people are lead to believe.
Not being able to find these reports,
or having done any myself, I cannot
really comment on them.
I, for one, support smoking bans
because of the discomfort it causes
me. I have faint memories of going into
restaurants as a kid and getting major
headaches from secondhand smoke
across the room. Even to this day, my
allergies flair up when someone who
was smoking half an hour before is
in my general vicinity. I do not say
anything: It is their right to smoke,
and it is my prerogative to leave the
room. But it is also my right to, say, at-
tend smoke-free classes. Or, perhaps,
work in a smoke-free office.
1 am not advocating a complete
ban on smoking. If I go into a bar,
I know quite well that it will reek
of cigar and cigarette smoke. That
is cool. It is a bar. You smoke, I
drink — everyone is happy.
Perhaps the solution is not so
cut and dry as "smoking is banned,
period" or "smoke everywhere, when-
ever you feel like it." Maybe the next
step would be to improve upon the
"smoking section" concept with high
volume ventilators or something. 'Dial
way, smokers can smoke inside, and
others do not have to sneeze.
Michael Foree
Will Rice junior
Free-market concept
not akin smoking
To the editor:
Anytime I hear someone advocat-
ing a free-market approach to a public-
issue, particularly a public health
issue, I check to see if they are look-
ing to pick up a check as a lobbyist.
In Caroline May's case, it is more
likely part of her ongoing audition
to replace Ann Coulter.
But to the larger issue: Free-
market approaches to governing
simply do not work. All one has to
do is look at how deregulation has
negatively affected the public to
know that. Deregulating the savings
and loan industry in the 1980s was a
multi-million dollar disaster. Anyone
paying a light bill or boarding an air-
liner can tell you how well deregulat-
ing those industries has gone.
The free market is predisposed only
to look at the bottom line as rationale for
any decision. If five or ten waitpersons
at a restaurant contract lung cancer or
emphysema because of secondhand
smoke inhalation, well heck, there is
always someone else willing to take
the chance, huh Caroline?
R.T. Castleberry
Rice University Purchasing Agent
Column's reasoning
ignores others' rights
To the editor:
How does condoning smoking
under the guise of individual rights
not violate my right of not having
to gag on smoke-filled air when I
am simply trying to study outside
the Rice Memorial Center or run
on the Outer Loop? By citing a
scientific article that claims sec-
ondhand smoke is only marginally
detrimental to health, Caroline May
seems to imply that there is no gray
area between killing me and simply
pissing me off.
I guess she would not mind if we
relocated the Sid tower speakers to
outside her bedroom window while
we are at it? After all, we apparently
have a right to do whatever we want
as long as the "free market" allows
it—whatever that means. Having to
put up with a little extra noise when
you are trying to study is not going
to kill you, now is it?
How about my right not to have
to pay higher insurance premiums
to support a health care system that
spends $73 billion annually to treat
the single most preventable cause of
death in the United States?
Or my right not to pull more than
my fair share at a workplace where
smoking coworkers on average
spend twice as long on breaks during
the day and take twice as many sick
days, and then stink up the entire
office when they return?
Or my right not to live in a room
that smells like an ash tray because
the former tenant "exercised his
individual rights" so frequently?
What about everyone's right to
live on a campus as beautiful as Rice's
that's not spoiled by cigarette butts,
the single largest source of litter in the
United States and one of the largest
sources of water pollution?
If smoking actually did something
good for anyone, besides feeding a
chemical addiction, I would fight
just as hard as the next person to
allow it; but no one has the right to
breathe carcinogens into the faces
of people around them, dump heavy
metals into our water supply, and
recklessly endanger themselves and
those around them at the sole benefit
of the tobacco companies.
Dane Powell
Jones senior
SAC clarifies article
on Owl Days panel
To the editor:
As Student Admission Council
Directors, we appreciate last week's
coverage of our Owl Days panel discus-
sion; however, we would like to offer
clarification of several points ("SAC to
replace Owl Weekend with Owl Days
for prospectives," Nov. 9).
ITie decisive factor in replacing
Owl Weekend with Owl Days was
the difficulty of accommodating
500-plus prospective students on
campus, especially with plans for in-
creased growth. Contrary to popular
belief, the reason that the program will
take place early in the week is because
previous prospective students wanted
greater focus on attending classes, not
because we want to discourage party-
ing during the program. Owl Days, we
hope, will have much of the same feel
and focus on personal interactions as
did its multi-day predecessor, while
allowing admitted students more
flexibility in choosing which date to
come visit campus. The overnight
component is not lost, just shortened
to one night. We expect positive re-
turns from this new setup.
We would also like to respond to
your suggestion of two Owl Weekends,
one for the "party ()wls" ;md one for the
"more academic Owls," which simply
cannot be taken seriously ("Changes
to Owl Weekend," Nov. 9). Please do
not make the mistake of assuming that
some Owls are only interested in aca-
demics and some are only interested
in the Rice social scene; undoubtedly,
are interested in both.
The article also mentions asking
prospective students to stay in a hotel
Sunday night prior to the Monday-
Tuesday Owl Days program. This
was an idea discussed at the meet-
ing on Wednesday and is currently
under intense scrutiny by SAC based
on the criticism of the students who
attended. Programming and logistics
for this year's ()wl Days are still being
formulated, and we remain open to
suggestions from Rice students, who
may contact us by emailing the SAC
account at ricesac@rice.edu or even
joining our On Campus Programs
Committee, which is in charge of
planning Owl Days. We hope that
with the enthusiasm of the Rice stu-
dents, our Owl Days program will be
even more successful this year than
programming in the past.
Claire Shorall
Sid Richardson junior
Student Admission Council Co-Director
Casey iMngwith
Sid Richardson junior
Student Admission Council Co-Director
Students not above
doing patriotic acts
To the editor:
This past Friday, I hoisted our
country's flag up the RMC flagpole
and rendered a salute as our national
anthem played. The Veteran's Day
ceremony was going great.
But halfway through the anthem,
a solitary Rice student walked right
by the ceremony, refusing to merely
stop and stand until the anthem fin-
ished — in front of over 100 veterans.
He was just in too much of a hurry, 1
guess, or perhaps he was ignorant of
the proper protocol.
N either is an excuse for such a poor
display of citizenship. What is worse-
is that I am not surprised. At Rice, we
seem to think that patriotism means
merely voting and perhaps engaging
in some sort of pseudo-intellectual
activism. Standing with one's hand
over one's heart when our national
anthem plays, standing and remov-
ing one's hat as the flag passes in
parades, knowing how to display and
fold the flag — somehow these are
too cheesy or unsophisticated for us
educated elite.
But that is an entirely incorrect
attitude. What otherwise well-
intentioned Rice students need to
remember is that it is never wrong to
enforce these standards. Patriotism
is not something to be trivialized —
its true demonstration speaks to the
character of the individual.
Every one of us has profited from
the freedom and opportunity the
United States affords its people. While
we live safe and cushioned lives, others
are sacrificing theirs for us. It is not too
much to ask, at least for their sakes, to
show a bit of the same devotion to our
country that they show?
"For your country... and for that
flag ... never dream a dream but of
serving her ... though the service
carry you through a thousand hells."
— E.E. Hale
Josh Kirlin
Hanszen sophomore
f"
I
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Whitfield, Stephen. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 95, No. 12, Ed. 1 Friday, November 16, 2007, newspaper, November 16, 2007; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth443211/m1/4/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.