LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
||||
Thanks from the CEO From everyone here at the Center for Equal Opportunity, thank you very much for your dedication to ending the University of Maryland's discriminatory admissions policies.
Rudy Gersten Director of Operations Center for Equal Opportunity
U.S. a Proven Leader in Iraq Ever since the United States quickly and cleanly removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, the rallying cry of those opposed to entering Iraq has switched from “Americans will be slaughtered by the thousands” to “The U.S. has no strategy for reconstruction in Iraq.” This is supposed to be made evident by the fact that it took 17 days to win the war and five months later, there is “still” no centralized, self-maintaining government in Iraq. Despite the difficulties, Iraqis are doing much better than they were under Saddam. For the first time in 34 years, Iraqis can speak their minds in public. Our most successful reconstruction effort was in Japan after World War II. It took five years of stringent US military control by General Douglas MacArthur. Perhaps, in large part due to MacArthur’s free hand at post-war policy, Japan developed the civil culture, private enterprise, and democratic institutions which made it the second most powerful economy in the world; second to the U.S. Do critics of the U.S. occupation have a legitimate complaint, or are they just grasping for straws? Iraq certainly does crave a stable government, and it is in the best interest of the U.S. to stabilize the country, lest it fall back under the control of anti-American despotism. It took 17 days to conquer Iraq, and the logic of those opposed seems to be that reconstruction should take not much longer than that. So Iraq needs reconstruction - what is the strategy to be? What do those who oppose the current strategy, or lack thereof, suggest? Nothing. There are no suggestions. Those opposed to the current strategy of the U.S. will readily voice their disagreement, but offer no substantial solutions to the problems they perceive. When asked if it would have been better not to have gone into Iraq in the first place, their answer is yes. When asked whether it would be acceptable for Saddam Hussein to be in power, they respond that no, it would not. What do they think the U.S. should have done differently? The U.S. should have gotten the permission of the United Nations, they say. Never mind the fact that the UN did pass numerous resolutions pressuring Saddam to allow inspectors and to disarm, which culminated in a resolution threatening the use of force should he not comply. Disregard also the fact that the U.S. worked with Britain, Spain, Portugal, Australia and a host of other countries on Iraq, not unilaterally. If you follow the logic of the shrill critics of the occupation, the next logical question is how would the support of the United Nations help the U.S.? Their answer goes something like, “If the UN supported the actions of the U.S., more countries would be on our side.” Does this sound redundant?
|
What good would having more countries on our side do us? Would the Middle East suddenly welcome western invasion if France and Germany were okay with it? Absolutely not. So why bring them into it? To believe that once a decision has been made, irrelevant parties need to come in and agree with it is a counter-productive, bureaucratic notion which sounds a lot like: “Lets get some other people to sign on with on this so that if anything goes wrong, no one will know who to blame.” This is an obfuscatory, dangerous, and all-too-common tactic today, in business, in government, and now in foreign policy. One such cynic about Iraq, Andy Rooney, recently said that there needs to be a higher power in the world than the U.S., which should be the UN, and in such a situation, Iraq could be “the world’s problem.” It certainly would be a problem. Iraq has posed a specific threat to the U.S., and the rest of the world has understandably less interest in dealing with Iraq. When a country is individually threatened, it does not make sense to wait for the authorization of other countries who are at best disinterested and at worst hostile to the threatened country, in order for that country to defend itself. This “you can’t go wrong when everyone agrees” viewpoint keeps the geopolitical status quo—it doesn’t change anything. What was needed in Iraq was a regime change, and consensus among parties who are disinterested in the well-being of Iraq will not bring about the type of change that Iraq needs. They say consensus is no substitute for leadership, and the saying could not apply to anything more than it does to the situation in Iraq. Lauren Jacob Senior Psychology Major
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson Partial Birth Abortion Dear Editor, Once in a while those surreally amazing days come along: the sun is shining, birds are chirping, a good soccer game happening on the mall, and the Senate has just passed a great bill. Yes, this past Tuesday was one of those days. As I awoke refreshed and energized, Brit Hume told me of the Senate passing a ban on partial birth abortion 64-34, which is now being brought to our President to sign. I applaud the U.S. Congress for recognizing the need to protect human life by passing this bill. The procedure in question here is one of the most inhumane, grotesque actions one can think of. If the reader is unfamiliar with the procedure medically known as “dilate and extract” (D & X), the mother’s cervix is dilated so she can deliver the fetus, which the doctor turns into a breech position and then pulls the baby’s entire body except for its head out of the mother’s body. Yes, by “pull out” I mean the baby’s body actually comes out of the mother’s. One could even call them separate beings. At this point the doctor slits the back of the baby’s head with scissors and vacuums out its brain, and then continues to deliver the rest of the dead baby. Honestly, I can’t imagine how a sane person outside Nazi Germany would think this is normal, much less that our Constitution grants us the right to do this to our offspring. |
My preference for not killing partially delivered (viable) babies aside, and despite what the NY Times or CNN will have you believe, the medical community is actually surprisingly in agreement about this procedure. D + X is agreed on in the medical world to be inhumane (killing a person usual is) and quite unnecessary. AMA President Daniel Johnson said, "The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." That is only one quote among hundreds of doctors agreeing that this is an unnecessary and wrong thing to do. If the argument is that this procedure is necessary for the mother’s health, I can’t imagine how delivering a dead baby is any less of a risk as delivering a living one. While I’m sure groups supporting a woman’s right to do whatever the hell she wants will take this law to the Supreme Court (the same court that said Dred Scott was property and that blacks were only 3/5 human), I applaud and thank the current Congress for recognizing that there is a moral right and an important precedent to be established of not killing our young. Erin Galloway Senior Government & Politics
From the Editors… We, at The Terrapin Times, felt that it was imperative that we look at some of the issues facing the city that the University of Maryland, the state’s flagship University, resides in. Why? Crime is out of control in this city, or so it seems. With over 35,000 students attending the campus in College Park, there seems to be a lack of capital development. Students demanding more restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and a sense of community are left with few options. But, why is this so? Student apathy could be to blame. We, as students, need to first look at ourselves and ask, “Are we doing enough to overcome the issues at hand?” And, if not, then what can we do? A comparative perspective of the college towns of our “inspirational peer schools” is offered on page 7. If our University intends to live up to these schools on every level, in pursuing top-notch perspective students, then we need to realize that the city the University is in also play a vital role in a student’s choice. Students that are here today are telling our University, our city, and our state that we are not satisfied. And, we all know that a dissatisfied customer voices his or her opinion loudly. The Terrapin Times urges students to not only voice their opinion, but to take an interest in making improvements, for ourselves and future generations of College Park students. The first step is to get to the polls. Even if some of the races aren’t competitive contests, the fact that a large number of students vote will show the city council members of College Park that students are not apathetic and that we do care about our city and about making a difference. Change cannot happen without action. Please enjoy this issue of The Terrapin Times and don’t be afraid to let us know how YOU are going to start making a difference in College Park.
|