FRONT PAGE

1. What, in your opinion, are the most important issues in the 2004 presidential election?
Michael Flavin (Dem.): What it's boiled down to now, because Kerry has lost in the polls, is that people are not sure he's presidential enough, and Bush has tried to show people he is. A lot of Democrats are upset that Kerry hasn't performed stronger, because he's got a lot of qualities, but if he doesn't come across to the people as a strong leader, he's going to lose. I think that's what he's got to show in the debates: he's got to be forceful and not be wishy-washy.
Everett Kindig (Rep.): Without question, the War on Terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan. Not that there's differences between the candidates on the fact that we have to pursue to a successful conclusion the war with Iraq; the question is how and who would provide the best leadership. I think that would be the major issue, but with some important subsidiary issues. Obviously, Social Security and jobs are important issues that have to be dealt with, but taking a look at it from the long-range point of view of the country as a whole, I think it's the foreign policy issues.
2. What issues do you think are most important to students on campus?
Flavin: I think probably about the war and the economy, because both might affect them. They're not talking about a draft now; they've kind of put that on the backburner, but if the War on Terror expands beyond Iraq, they're almost certainly going to find some way to get more troops, and I think the draft might be a possibility. And then, I think the economy as well. Costs have gone up, like health care, and they would probably worry about tuition, fees and the cost of books going up.
Kindig: I know that they're interested in a variety of things, like tuition costs, which is basically a state issue, but still. I know they're also concerned about jobs being out there when they graduate. I find it hard to believe, though, that the majority of students still wouldn't be mostly concerned about the problems in foreign affairs and the War with Terrorism. After all, no matter whether you're a student, or in your 40s or 60s, these are life and death questions.
3. What issues do you think people should be more concerned with?
Flavin: I think the two major issues are out there, which are the war and the state of the economy. And the war, obviously, just because of the nature of it. One issue I can think of is health care, particularly for older people. A lot of people here on campus I've talked to have had their health care costs go up, and in some other places they've gone up quite a bit, so that would be a concern. All of that's more of a concern with older people than with younger people, because they're more likely to have more illnesses, but it should be a concern to younger people because those costs go up, and the government pays for it. They're going to be paying for it through their tax dollars over the next couple of decades - three, four or five decades, even. I also think Social Security should be an issue for young people, too, because even though they're not thinking that far in advance, when the baby boomers hit, there's going to be a lot of people getting Social Securi ty and not that many paying into it. That's something that has to be addressed.
Kindig: I think the American public needs to be aware of just what the specific plans for both candidates happens to be. I think that both Kerry and Bush are probably being as specific as they can. When you're dealing with developments four and five months down the road you can't get much more specific. But certainly, I think a debate on whether or not we had the right information from the intelligence agencies several years ago is useful, but only to a limited extent, because the decision to go to war was made: it's there, and neither candidate says that they want to just drop everything and leave. In a way, it's almost like it's about the issues of what Kerry did in Vietnam or what Bush did or didn't do in the National Guard; it's addressing something that's already past. So I'm much more interested in what their plan is for the future and how they'd deal with terrorism as a whole. One thing I want to make clear is that terrorism is not limited to Osama bin La den, or for that matter, to just Afghanistan or Iraq. It's a world-wide phenomenon, and you have to deal with it on a basis of world-wide and regional stability. You can't say, "Well, if we capture bin Laden, and Afghanistan has national elections, then terrorism is gone." It's not that simple.
4. Do you think people place more value on past issues - like the Vietnam War - or more recent ones, like gay marriage?
Flavin: You would assume that since we’re in the middle of a war the past would have some importance. It’s interesting, because it appeared in the beginning that Kerry would benefit from that since he was in Vietnam and he got medals. But a group that was not connected to the Bush campaign went ahead and put ads out, and there was a book written questioning Kerry in very severe terms. For those people who weren’t aware of his war service, they question if maybe he wasn’t so heroic. They wonder if maybe he had ambitions in mind. Some believe that the group did that because they thought the issue of Bush’s service would come up again. The thing on Bush has popped up and down, and when CBS ran that piece with some fake information, that may have knocked all that out entirely. It’s still uncertain what Bush did during his time in the National Guard. No one has said conclusively that he attended all the meetings. He said he got an honorable discharge, so that would be a que stion if it came up that he actually didn’t. The Swift Boat veterans may have immunized him on that now if it turns out that he didn‘t go to all his meetings, since we are in a war and he looks stronger by some of the press than Kerry does on foreign policy.
Kindig: I think they tend to focus on the present, but that is not to say that in an election this close that a significant number of people won’t consider the past. That past might be hostile. Obviously, comments made by partisans both against Kerry and against Bush have in part stemmed from hostilities. But, you can’t ignore what someone’s done in the past. Obviously, what happened 20, 30 or 40 years ago is of less importance than where they stand today, but it is an insight into the person, so it’s valid to that extent.
5. Should people vote for a candidate based on personality, ideals or both?
Flavin: I think people should just decide themselves what they want to do. There are so many different ways to vote. One is to vote party, because then the person will have a better chance to work with people in your party and accomplish goals that are in your party platform. They like to gain control. The Republicans, for instance, have control over all three branches of government, and the Democrats are trying to win back control of the Senate. Some people vote on the basis of issues. Some people vote just whether they like the candidate or not. Can you really feel that? We try to judge that. One of the things Clinton had, with all of his faults, was that he was a likeable guy. I think that helped him, and I think that helped Bush as well. In a close election their personalities can make a difference, which is what happened in 2000. If you’re talking about looks, all things being equal, someone who looks like John Edwards would do better than someone who doesn’t look like him. Take Kennedy and Nixon, for example. When this comes up, I always try to explain to people that you can’t judge the quality of a person by how they look. Maybe it’s just part of human nature to be attracted to the prettiest choice as opposed to what we define as ugly, but I don’t believe most people vote like that. But, then again, when it’s a 50-50 choice, that might be the thing that swings them over.
Kindig: The greater emphasis should be on logic and ideas. The problem with emotions is that you’re often unaware of what’s driving them. No matter what ideas someone might have, character is important. I agree with a lot of the positions that Richard Nixon took, but character-wise, that was a real problem, and he had to pay the consequences of his errors. I think, basically, you should make a decision on such things as: What will the candidate support? What are their goals and stances on issues? That’s basically a logical assessment. I would favor that more. There are instances where it’s good to vote party. When you find someone with a low character, or you can’t trust them, then certainly that affects your vote. Those who tend to vote for personalities rather than party labels don’t understand how our political system works. Much of the decision making in Washington, in the executive and judicial branches, and certainly in the Congress, is driven by party ties, a ge neral agreement on philosophy - which is reflected by party affiliation, and in a very real sense, it’s vital to support the kind of party you most believe in.
6. Do people really watch all the presidential debates?
Flavin: It varies. Some people - a lot of people - have already made up their minds by the time the first one is shown. What they'll do is just try to get reinforcement. What happens is your candidate doesn't do well, but you know you're going to vote for them so you see his positives; the other candidate does better, but you see his negatives, so you think your person won the debate. It's just like rooting for a ball team: you want your side to win, so you do that. For those who are undecided, they want a person who looks like a strong leader; that doesn't necessarily mean going into a war or anything like that, just somebody who will be strong. From what a lot of people have seen right now, Kerry hasn’t shown that. At least, he hasn’t shown it to the nation; he might have shown it in some of his smaller speeches, whereas Bush, having lead us into war, uses that as a forum for talking about the strength of America. The incumbent president always has an advantage on th at.
Kindig: I think fewer watch the others after the first. They tend to fall off, and that’s a shame, because the next debate is about domestic issues, which they deliberately weren’t talking about in the first one. While the war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism may be the most important issues at hand, it’s very vital that the public know where these people stand on others. I think it’s a shame, but I know from experience that there will be a fall off.
7. Should more attention be given to the vice presidential debates?
Flavin: People watch and evaluate them, and decide who won and who lost, but again, vice president is a position in which you don’t really have any power; you just listen to the president. Dick Cheney is one of the most influential vice presidents in history because, with his long record in the cabinet and Congress and his business record, he’s had more experience than most. The first Bush’s vice president didn’t do much except make appearances and things like that. So, it should be an issue, but I don’t believe it will. For one thing, you have an older guy running against a younger guy, who is good looking and articulate. I think the looks of Edwards and his articulate style will have people feel better about him than Cheney, but it won’t be relevant to the election of the president. The vice presidential debates are pretty much irrelevant, unless someone just goes nuts on stage. People don't vote for vice presidents; they vote for presidents, and no one assume s that a president's going to die in office.
Kindig: They have a fuller picture of both tickets’ positions if they do, because, presumably, both Kerry and Edwards, and we know both Bush and Cheney, are conversing together are talking about options of plans. One person can’t cover everything in one debate, and certainly by listening to the other individuals you get a fuller picture of the overall approach of either the present administration or the new administration. I think we need to access the abilities of these two men in case they would have to step into the Oval Office. Both Kerry and Bush seem to be in great health, but you never know. John F. Kennedy was in modest health, we found out later, but he certainly seemed to be one who was going to finish out his term in office. You can never be sure of what’s going to happen. That’s how the old cliché goes: they’re only a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
8. Should more attention be given to the wives of the candidates?
Flavin: I look upon first ladies as how they match up with their husbands, you know, see if there’s a connection there. And then, first ladies will most of the time pick out some project that they will push on. Hillary Clinton had several, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan - they all had some of these things. I think the general population feels that the perfect marriage type, which appears to be Bush and his wife, is better standing for the country rather than Kerry, who’s married to a woman who’s very assertive. She had some words with someone who was giving her a hard time, which to some appears unladylike. They want a first lady to be strong and behind the scenes, where I think it’s okay to have her in front of the scenes as well, if for no other reason than to be an inspiration to other women, as well as to others who may have wondered if they could do more with their life. I don’t think it will make much difference who is the first lady, although there are some out there who vote against them. It’s not enough to actually make a difference in the outcome of the election, though.
Kindig: First ladies tell you something about the character and something about the interests and the attitudes of the two candidates. Basically, if you have an idea of what drew these couples together, you have a better insight into the interests and ideas of the men. It has also become traditional in our society for first ladies to take on important tasks. Because they don’t have any law making ability, they have to do this on an unofficial basis. This can be very important. Education is very important to Laura Bush, and there’s no question that she’s had an influence on her husband’s thinking about it. Mrs. Reagan certainly was concerned about drugs. Eleanor Roosevelt was obviously of tremendous importance in the area of civil rights with her husband. First ladies have an area of influence on their husbands of enormous importance, so yes, I think it’s very significant to look at both women in this race.
9. What are the strengths and weaknesses of President George W. Bush?
Flavin: I guess the war would be one of his strengths, but I’m not sure how that will play out. I think the biggest strength he has is he’s an incumbent. A lot of times when you’re an incumbent, things are going at least okay, so people don’t want to change. That, and also that he has resonated with and at least got the backing and support from conservatives who are quite active and determined to get him reelected. He has pushed some of the things on their agenda, and for that, they’ll come out and work very hard for him. They’re also claiming credit for the economy.
Kindig: His strengths are that he understands that the stuff we are engaged in goes beyond our region: it goes to the world stage, and that we are going to be engaged in it for years to come, long after he’s left the White House. I think he’s also quite firm in pursuing the goals he’s laid out, and basically keeping our word about what he intends us to do. I think he also is willing to looking into some tough problems coming up in the future, particularly Social Security. That was one of the most amazing things I’d heard Kerry say, when he said it’s not that much of a problem; I disagree. I think Bush, however, is not as strongly verbal as Kerry is. At times he has difficulties getting some of his ideas across. I don’t think that’s a great weakness, and I’m not saying he isn’t a great communicator, but it is a small weakness and in the end I think he understands that.
10. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Senator John Kerry?
Flavin: I think the strength he has is that he reflects, socially, what a lot of people in this country want, and also his positions on the economy and the war. I think they want those kind of things, and that those are the ones he'll try to attract people with. His weaknesses: he has not looked very presidential yet and his speeches and his responses to various kinds of attacks on him have not been very strong. I think what's been reflected is that people, through what some of the polls have shown, look upon Bush as a strong leader, because Kerry doesn't seem to be fighting as hard. Their first debate is key: if Kerry comes across as not very strong, a lot of people won't watch them again and they'll make up their mind that first night. It's a key debate for him.
Kindig: He is well-spoken, a good speaker and a strong debater. He certainly has had many years observing the federal government in action. In my opinion, I don’t think he did too much as a U.S. senator, but he was there, and even just by sitting there you learn a lot. I think certainly he’s aware that the world faces other problems than just the war. He’s concerned about things like the environment, which he should be. Kerry’s weakness is that he does have a tendency to shift his position. I think he tends to shift with the political winds.
11. What social and political changes, if any, do you see if Bush wins the election?
Kindig: Once the war in Iraq winds down - whether it’s going to be a few months or a few years after the election - eventually, and both candidates agree, we will win. We will gradually be withdrawing our troops, and I think all the protesting and dissent will disappear as an issue. In the future, I don’t see nearly as much upheaval as there is now, and having lived through the 1960s, this is nothing compared to that. I think a victory for Bush and the Republicans would mean a more conservative trend within the U.S. government and an increasing number of judges who will be conservatively inclined. That’ll have an impact on what people in government do. I think you’ll see a resurgence in concern about social values and how that should be interpreted, and probably a more conservative interpretation of things. I think the biggest problem, frankly, is the War on Terrorism. It’s the one that will stay with us the longest. It’ll still be with us years after Iraq is taken care of. That could alter the way American society functions, and I don’t just mean when people decide they have to fly someplace. This could have an impact on government-individual relations as well as everyday activities. Unfortunately, in a sense, we will be for years to come at war - it just won’t be declared war. This could certainly change the functioning of American society in ways that I can’t even begin to imagine. I don’t think the draft will return, however. Barring a major war - which, thank God, we don’t have that - a professional, trained army is better than an army of trainees. I think back to World War II. Basically, what they needed were tens and tens of thousands of people who could shoot a gun straight that you could throw them into a battle. We are so high-tech today, that even corporals are learning to use machinery that was almost like science fiction 20 years ago. You cannot take a draftee and cast them into that and expect him to do the type of job needed, not in the time period available. We might enlarge the army. There has been some debate about that, but I think the day of the draft is gone, barring a major foreign crisis.
12. What social and political changes, if any, do you see if Kerry wins the election?
Flavin: I think you’ll see a more liberal agenda, pushing for more environmental matters, more attention to health care and to jobs and Social Security. By the way he’s voted on things, and as the neutrals have defined "liberal," it’s true that he’s one of the most liberal members of the Senate. And in this day and age, it seems like people want someone who’s more conservative. They’d actually really rather have somebody who’s a moderate, but if they had their choice between liberal and conservative, most people tend to want the later. I think part of it is that, even though Kerry hasn’t really pushed these kinds of things, when you start talking about issues of gay marriage, stem cell research and things along that line, there are a lot of people with religious leanings who just don’t want those things to happen. So when somebody who identifies with all of that comes along, they’re looked upon as a liberal-liberal-liberal.
13. Where will the Republicans be if Bush wins? If he loses?
Kindig: My personal feeling is that probably the Republicans in Congress will increase by 5-10 votes. The hold on the Senate is more difficult to predict, though I’m fairly confident the Republicans will have the majority there as they do now. It won’t be much greater than now, but if Bush wins, this will be a signal that the majority of Americans support Bush, which means that they’ll support those who support him. I think the Republican control of congress will continue, and maybe be even a little bit stronger. If Bush loses, you could well see a situation in which Kerry would be elected and Congress would remain in Republican hands. If he is elected it would be more problematic and more difficult for the Republicans to be sure of control of the Senate, but I still see them holding onto the majority in the House. Of course, that would make things more difficult for Kerry, particularly in domestic programs. Many people in both parties often feel that politics stop at the water’s edge - when the commander in chief says something is needed, even if they have doubts, they’ll go along with it. But when it comes to domestic programs, all bets are off. They’ll fight the partisan battles they believe in.
14. Where will the Democrats be if Kerry wins? If he loses?
Flavin: It’s unlikely and virtually impossible for the Democrats to regain control of the House, since district lines have been redrawn across the nation - especially in Texas - in such a clever way as to get more Republican seats. The Democrats did this in California ten years ago, too, so it’s not just one party. The Democrats could take control of the Senate, since they’re only two seats away from doing so right now. They’d be only one seat away if Kerry is elected president, because the vice president breaks ties. Right now, from what I’m seeing, it looks like the Democrats would do well just to break even in the Senate. I think later on the campaign, things might happen. God forbid another attack of some kind. The hurricanes, which are all just so unprecedented, will demand tremendous help from the national government, and even when they get that, people might get frustrated and blame Bush because it's not being done quicker. I don't really think it can be done quicker, but people standing in line for aide, whose lives have changed in ways they didn't want, might wonder why they're the last to get some help. You know, saying, 'Well, why does everyone get it but me?' If he loses, they’ll be in the same spot they were at the end of the last election. It’s a long time until the next election, you know. There’ll be a few superstars who will emerge if Kerry loses. A lot of people think Edwards will emerge, even if he is on a losing ticket, because he’s always likeable and happy. Have you ever seen him unhappy? He’s good looking and seems to enjoy himself and seems to want to do good things. Although, if they lose badly, he’ll also be blamed for that. There are also lots of younger Democrats out there who haven’t hit the national spotlight yet, like Clinton, who came out of nowhere when he got the nomination. I think the party will focus on some of the younger ones rather than the older ones the next time around .
15. How will Ralph Nader influence the election this year?
Flavin: Ralph Nader was the hero of the average man back in the 1960s when he found that General Motors had an unsafe car, and with all the organizations he formed for environmental and people’s issues. But the fact he could not understand, when he ran for president four years ago, was that his votes were taking votes away from Gore, and then he refused to acknowledge that he might be responsible for making Gore lose close elections in states where he had a lot of votes. Bush’s agenda is much more conservative than Nader’s was, and even though he didn’t like Gore, Gore would have pushed more of his agendas than Bush. Nader would have had all that, but he wouldn’t be in charge, which just shows that his ego has become huge. If he gets the 3-5 percent vote in some states, that will mean the difference between the two other candidates losing and winning. He’s a real distraction for the Democrats. Some vote for him because they feel that it’s important to vote for t he issues they believe in. I don’t think anyone has any illusions that he could possibly win, but he’d still have that influence. He’d have more influence in a Democratic administration than a Republican one. If people perceive that he has cost the Democrats two elections in a row, people - especially those in power - won’t have anything to do with him.
Kindig: People understand he’s serious in his claims. As a historian, I understand what he’s doing. But, you know, he has no chance to win. He’s not even going to be on all the ballots in all the states. I think people tend to dismiss him as a serious player in this election. Nader knows that he’s not winning, and that he couldn’t ever win. What Nader’s doing has been typical of third parties throughout American history: they want to use their candidacy as a means of drawing attention to bigger issues and getting people to talk about them. If they can begin to enlarge their base, they can force the major parties to deal with issues that are important to them. I think that’s Nader’s purpose. Nader’s really looking to the future, not to this election. That’s a very traditional role for someone who’s not in the mainstream of American thinking to take and embrace.
15. Considering the role Florida played in the 2000 election, and with the hurricanes that have devastated the state this year, of what importance will Florida be to this year's race?
Flavin: I think they will be a little bit worried, but what happens, or can happen - and I don’t want to say it’s one party or the other - but some members of each party are so intent on it that they have a blind eye to any kind of problem. In other words, to one side if something happens it’s an advantage; the other wants to contest it in court. It’s a normal kind of reaction with something like that. Florida, as well as all the states in the South that got hit by the hurricanes, are going to have tremendous problems, because a lot of people won’t be where they used to live by the time the election comes around. A lot of people will be so busy trying to figure out what to do with the rest of the lives. Some have lost their car, their boat, their job, their house, animals, family members. They’re not going to really be all that interested in the election. I expect there’ll be a big drop in the turnout in Florida. But, you know, it’s still a month away, and all that cou ld change.
Kindig: So many people are concerned about that. It’s conventional wisdom here, but it is going to be very difficult in Florida this year because of the problems caused by the hurricane. There are places where there are no more polling places; they’ve all been blown away, and that’s going to be a real problem. I guess the goal of both camps will be to make sure that it’s conducted honestly and to make sure that you don’t have any problems, because some will occur. Other states are aware and have been informed of these problems, and will be paying closer attention. Both parties are going to be paying special attention to make sure there’s no foul play on the other side. Of course you’ll have outside groups watching this too, so I anticipate you won’t have the problems and claims of unfairness you had four years ago. It won’t be removed entirely, however. In Florida especially there’s going to be a lot of unusual problems because of all the turmoil and devastation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 


Students may Face Tuition Hikes
Shinice Curry | Staff Reporter

A tuition increase that could possibly take effect in the spring, and another in the fall, according to a report Keith Lamb,  associate vice president of student affairs, gave at the Student Senate meeting Tuesday.
The reason for these possible increases is that the state and federal government is paying less for education, which leaves it up to students to make up the difference.
As of now, MSU is the fourth cheapest institution in the state, according to Lamb.
“If we don’t do something, the quality of education will suffer greatly,” Lamb said.
An MSU administrative representative will be present at the next Senate meeting to present the tuition increase proposal.
Michael Fairbanks, senator for the graduate students association, also gave an update on the recreation center project. The committee in charge of the project will try to have an official proposal to Student Senate in about two weeks and try to have the Senate vote in four weeks. 
In other business, the SGA also discussed the reelection for the office of Parliamentarian. Joe McFadden was nominated Parliamentarian in a previous election, but resigned the position so he could contribute more to SGA.
“Last week I was informed that the Parliamentarian cannot hold a senate seat. Faced with a choice, I chose to remain a Senator for the Catholic Campus Center. I believe that I can best aid the student body as a senator and that another person can better advise the Senate in its procedures,” said McFadden.


Greeks Suspended for Drunken Brawl
Maggie Ahren & Mirand Zepedia

Four fraternities have been put on probation following a Sept. 26 brawl at the Tau Kappa Epsilon House.
“There were 30 or 40 people fighting,” said Sgt. Cindy Walker of the Wichita Falls Police Department.  “When we showed up they fled.”
The fight was between the Phi Sigma Kappas, Kappa Sigmas, Tau Kappa Epsilons and Omega Delta Phis, according to fraternity members who requested their names not be used. Alcohol was reportedly involved. 
According to several fraternity members who were at the fight a Phi Sigma Kappa attempted to hit a Kappa Sig, missed and accidentally struck a member of Omega Delta Phi, turning a fistfight into a brawl.
Two fraternity members were reportedly pushed through the fiberglass-corrugated sheeting.  The situation continued to grow out of control and the police were summoned.
Four units from the Wichita Falls Police Department arrived and law enforcement officials yielding nightsticks gained control of the situation.
  No one was arrested but some fraternity members left with bloody noses, bruises and black eyes, according to witnesses.
“I’m still investigating everything to be fair to part of the due process,” said Sofia Rodriguez, director of Student Activities.  “I’m trying to be fair to everyone.  There is a lot of hearsay back and forth. I don’t want to implicate anything or anyone.”
A Greek Conduct Committee was created following the incident to deal with future disorderly conduct within the Greek community at MSU. 
A member of the GCC said that the fraternities can either accept Rodriguez’s punishment or they can go before the GCC and plead their case at a hearing. No hearings dates have been set.
“It was a misunderstanding among the fraternities.  The Greek community usually stays unified.  One instance should not be a determinate of how Greeks act as a whole,” said Summer Hamilton, president of Chi Omega.  “The council is being formed to maintain peace.  This instance has not been overlooked and we have formed a standards committee to make sure this won’t happen again.”
No fraternity members would comment on record.

CaribFest drawn 1,000 Revellers
Abigail Carter | Managing Editor

People of all colors and sizes boogied across campus Friday. Bejeweled women danced in the street, their faux gems and glitter-glazed skin shining in the sun. Waiting in line for food, one little girl was bustin’ a move on the sidewalk.
CaribFest 2004 was a smashing success, with more than 1,000 people attending, said Alesia Paris-Toulon, president of Caribbean Student Organization. The CSO raised $4,000 from meal tickets alone, not including the proceeds made from T-shirt sales.
The festivities began at 5 p.m., and before an hour had passed, several hundred people were milling about Sunwatcher Plaza. Balloons dotted the common while trees were wrapped in gauzy scarves of orange, purple, and magenta. There was an inflatable bounce-around house for the many children in attendance, and some people brought their pets.
Long tables were placed along the walkway, cafeteria-style, to facilitate the more than 800 diners eager to sample some of the islands’ native cuisines. Choices ranged from the familiar to the unusual. One recipe offered, which is quite prevalent in Trinidad, is the curried goat--tender meat with a dash of spice that was altogether delicious and decidedly foreign. Another, the fried tuna balls, had a warm, subtle flavor and did not taste as if they had been prepared with canned tuna.
The banana fritters, fried banana slices, and the Grenadian rugbuns, muffin-like rolls flavored with cherries, were delicate and sweet. Though appetizing, the calypso rice, and the baked, barbequed and jerked chicken dishes were much like something you could find locally.  No doubt these were a safe haven for those with less adventurous palates.
The flag wavers, in bright orange CaribFest t-shirts and black skirts flecked
with iridescent paint, led the annual parade, twirling their flags in time to the music.  A truck carrying the portable DJ and stereo set-up followed close behind, pumping out tunes. The party was all out free-spirited revelry.  As Toulon said, “If you’re going to have a party, you’re going to put on a great party.”
The women wore costumes in bright blue, red, light green, bronze, and gold, which were paired with sequined, feathered headdresses.  They adorned waist and ankle with gauzy scarves, which floated softly through the air with the motion of their uninhibited dance.
In the Jab-Jab band, students’ painted bodies ranged from black and white to every color of the rainbow, eventually becoming a sort of living, breathing work of art that would put Pollack to shame.
Jogging in and out of the parade and crowds of people were the impressive Shotnees, their masked faces seeming almost ominous as they passed by larger than life.  The vibrant, multi-colored shirts they wore shimmered with mirrored patches set to reflect light and brighten their costumes.
Following the parade was a performance of steel pan music, played on a collection of steel drums tuned at different levels. Three lines of skilled percussionists produced a primal sound that made a person’s soul want to groove.
The proceeds from Caribfest will go to aid the citizens of Grenada in the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Ivan. “We want to extend a special and heartfelt thank you to MSU and the Wichita Falls community. Without their help, we would not have gotten so much food and clothing,” said Toulon.


Settlement ends Two-Year Lawsuit with Moon
Amanda Carr | Copy Editor

MSU has reached a settlement with former university president Henry Moon,
In an hour-long executive session Friday morning, the Board Of Regents met with attorney Jim Todd of the Texas Attorney General’s office, local attorneys Roger Lee, Larry Lambert and Michael Lambert. The BOR agreed to give Moon an undisclosed amount of money as was discussed in Sept. 20 mediation between the two parties. The amount will remain secret until a motion to dismiss the case is filed by a Federal Court judge.
“I don’t know how long that will take. I would think a couple of months, but that is just a guess,” said Mac Cannedy, BOR president. “ Certain parts of it will be made public; I don’t know if everything will or not. I’m not against making the amount public, but I cant.”
According to a motion made at the meeting Friday, the money will be taken from “Quasi-Endowment Fund 6-65005.”
“Back in the 80s sometime, money from the sale of some property was set aside to grow and not be used. We didn’t want to take money from tuition or any other student money,” Cannedy said. We set up the fund so we could get to the money if we need to.”
Cannedy said the fund was termed “quasi” because a true endowment fund is set up so that the money can only be accessed after a certain time. He also said students need not be concerned about feeling the university’s loss of funds concerning this settlement.
“I think it will overall save the university money,” he said. “This has taken time from our staff. We were about to enter into depositions, which are very time-consuming. We have attorney fees and court cost; it would have cost us this much or more to continue. As far as I’m concerned, when the judge approves this decision the matter of Dr. Moon will be concluded.” 
Moon was fired in 2002 after serving one year as president. This settlement ends a two-year lawsuit regarding the status of Moon’s tenure at MSU.