Global Stability and a Northern Snack
By Editorial Board

We want two things.

First, a United States government that will effectively contribute to world stability. Now, the government reminds us day after day that the opposite of world stability is “weapons of mass destruction.” The stakes are indeed high. There are existing UN resolutions regarding Israel’s continued, illegal occupation of the West Bank toward which the United States has demanded Israel’s compliance, repeatedly, to no avail. Iraq is thrown up like a veil, and now Germany (a key NATO ally) approaches a state of alienation from an eerily hard-line US government. These are not nations that particularly want to deviate from the US line, but as we go to press this morning, September 26, it is unclear where diplomatic relations between the United States and Germany stand. A labor-environment coalition facing a worsening economy was re-elected based largely on its anti-US sentiment. This is a fact with which all European governments must now contend.

The Bush administration needs to recognize that just because it constitutes the US government, it is not exempt from making rational policy arguments in defense of its interests. Coherence and dedication to principled, rational policy goals are the first steps toward global stability, let alone justice. We fear that the United States government may be a collaborator to unrest, rather than contributor toward a lasting peace.

Second, an opportunity to enjoy snack, restored to north campus, its rightful location. Now, we understand the concerns of the staff (and of the many students who, it is nice to see, are concerned for the staff’s well-being) that a north campus snack translates to late-night overtime for them, due to the transportation of materials to Walker from Frank and vice versa. However, we believe that between snack at Frank (lame) and hot snack at Walker (equally lame, for different reasons) there is a third way.

We suggest a “cold” snack consting of cereal, fruit, the toaster bar and leftover desserts. This would provide a more than ample snack and is probably healthier overall for our precious student body than a less nutritious “hot” item each weeknight. This would preclude needless trips about campus.

As far as dishwashing is concerned, we realize that this may not be the most environmentally conscious solution at first glance, but our recollection of Frary snack’s past is that disposable dishes were used excusively. The armchair ecologist will argue that to suggest the continuation of this practice would be reprehensible. However, we ask the armchair ecologist to note the gallons of chemical-saturated water that are wasted each Pomona meal in this, the invisible desert of Claremont. The hard-line environmentalist must concede that snack is not in line with her/his politics. We are not willing to concede that as such.

Snack belongs on north campus. Once a week will not cut it, Thursday night of all nights. It is curious indeed that Alexander would choose Thursday snack as an appeasment for our beloved juniors and seniors when Thursday evenings are earmarked for the time-honored junior/senior social. We were apathetic when they forced the lower classes south. We were apathetic when they turned our social venue (Walton Commons) into an RA desk. Thursday night snack up north seems like a cruel joke, akin to an unelected American president whose mantra for free elections around the world is intoned without irony. Irony may be dead, but is it too late for a north campus social scene (an alcohol free one at that)? Perhaps.