Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 16, 1980)
/ Viewpoint The Battalion Texas A&M University Tuesday December 16, 1980 They < tudents Slouch By Jim Earle “That's it? I come in here in good faith to ask your advice on how to improve my grades and all you can come up with is ‘study'?” O’Neill’s words signal need for vigilance By DON PHILLIPS United Press International WASHINGTON — Where have all the re forms gone? Where is “government in the sunshine?’’ As far as the Democrats of the House of Representatives are concerned, the concept of open meetings is last year’s old coat. When Democrats who were elected to the incoming 97th Congress gathered in Washington Dec. 8-11 to organize themselves for the battles ahead, the meetings were closed. What’s more, unlike past years, the con cept of open vs. closed meetings was not even an issue. No citizens pressure groups lobbied for open meetings; no groups of legislators banded together to try to open the meetings; there wasn’t even a press release from an out raged group or individual. It’s almost as if the open meetings advocates declared the battle won and retired from the field, only to have the enemy silently steal back in and occupy the area. In those organizational caucuses, the Democrats selected new leaders and new committee chairmen for the new Congress. They discussed — but did not approve — proposed rules changes for the new Congress that would have an indirect effect on the lives of all Americans. In past decades, almost all congressional hearings were closed. There were “public” hearings at which testimony was given by in terested groups or individuals, but when the time came to make decisions, the legislators retired to smoke-filled rooms and the public was effectively shut out. Of course, not all the public was shut out. Highly placed lobbyists always had a “pipe line” into the closed meetings, and it was nor mal to see a congressman stroll out of the meeting and retire to a dark alcove with a lobbyist to discuss the subject at hand. Then, in the early 1970s Common Cause and other citizens groups pushed for reform of the entire congressional process, including open meetings. The pendulum swung so far at that time that Congress even agreed to open most of its deepest, darkest meetings, the House-Senate conference committees that work out com promises between differing House and Senate bills. Reform was not without its strains. Like the face-to-face standoff between a half dozen eco nomic reporters and former Rep. Wilbur Mills, D-Ark., then-chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, when Mills attempted to close a committee hearing on the grounds that it was an “informal meeting. ” The reporters, in effect, staged a sitdown in the committee room, telling Mills the House rules did not provide for informal meetings. After several tense moments, Mills backed down and never tried that ploy again. All the reforms of those years have not been dumped, of course. Most hearings still are open, and no one has suggested changing the rules to close them again. But if the attitude expressed by Democrats in their organizational caucus is any indica tion, there is a danger of erosion. House Speaker Thomas O’Neill was asked about the closed caucus at one of his regular pre-session press conferences. Washington Post reporter Richard Lyons asked O’Neill why the caucus couldn’t be conducted in public. O’Neill answered in a sarcastic tone. “Because the pendulum of reform always swings,” he said. He added that “reform” was simply doing something different this year from how it has been done it in the past, and now the pendulum was swinging to close meetings. The O’Neill comment was at least half fun ny, of course. But it was at least half sincere too. Someone once said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Apparently the same goes for reform, and this year someone — a lot of us — dropped the ball. Warped It s time to circle the wagon , loyal Ag; What i By DICK WEST United Press International WASHINGTON — Two New York Universi ty professors, Herbert London and Albert Weeks, have brought forth a book under the title “Myths That Rule America.” I can’t tell you anything about its contents, having never peered between the covers, but the blurbs really make good reading. Permit me to quote a couple from a mail order form distri buted by the publisher: — “As a nation, we need to remember those myths that gave us strength and then practice using them.” — “ ... an urgent call for a national effort to rediscover the myths that gave our nation great- You don’t find too often these days anyone who is willing to say a good word for myths. In particular, you don’t often hear it asserted that myths are what made this country great. For whatever reason, myths have fallen upon hard times of late. Yet, deep down, we know that had it not been for the pioneer myth- makers conquering the wilderness and pushing back frontiers, American would never have made it to the Top 10, much less nail down a procession of No. 1 rankings. The main reason so many people today appear to be aimlessly drifting is because they have lost sight of the guiding myths by which we once steered our course. As I have already indicated, I do not know what national myths the authors of the book deem worthy of rediscovery. My own candi dates for that honor most definitely would in clude the myth that the wheels of covered wagons spin backwards when pioneers are being chased across the prairie by Indians. You and I have seen this happen many times in western movies. Yet modern scholars, citing Newton’s Laws of Motion, say it was an optical illusion. Illusion or not, pioners taking part in the westward ho! movement were firmly convinced the wagon wheels were turning the wrong way. dents have fou: being Af ■They < ly emplo It was for this reason that they stoppeifoaha — outrun the Indians and starteddraM wagons up in a circle. They The latter technique, asweb»IL me wagons from being picked offoneatiJT n thus was instrumental in the West. Today, if I read the message in blurbs correctly, we need to redi myth, which gave us strength,and using it. In other words, we need to revive pie of drawing our wagons upina danger threatens. It is true we don’t have manycwisi any more. But surely we could circle swagens, and maybe our Datsunsa; as well There is, I figure, only one ini[ rediscovering this myth. IftheFedeJ way Safety Commission sees the ufe ning backwards, they will recalled. \and fir 'them, good n unr it sum uic order lL the free ' someoni Texas Ad turf iron Idea — t mat-size W HOW K) YOU TELL MUCH COWS ARE THE 5ACPEP0NES? tOU JUST HAFR ASK 'EM, RON.,. the sprir but app accepted | The s Man; land; as Todd W, Nelson; fBoyce; f ters; ass Saathofl Oliver; p mornin |Mever. | Staff Afflerb i,Duran. ( Liz Nev It’s your turn 3611 S, Covernmen t in terven tion questionei i i Editor: As I was reading the Wall Street Journal last week I noticed an article that mentioned that Britain charges a death tax. The absurdity of this caused me to examine the taxation system in the United States. The United States as well has a death tax — after all what else is an inheritance tax? While a person is living, he or she may distribute his wealth with freedon among his friends and rela tives (up to certain amounts). But should the same person die, his wealth is subject to taxa tion. Does it seem correct that a family should suffer the loss of a relative and monetary loss at the same time? From the point of view of a monstrous federal government facing a $60 bil lion deficit, I assume it seems entirely fair. I do not intend to argue that taxation and government should be abolished, simply that a question of limits has arisen. There scarcely exists in the United States today a field, en deavor, or action that is not regulated, taxed, or federally influenced in some form or another. In some areas government involvement is total ly necessary, in others it is grossly inappropri ate. I argue that it is long overdue that the informed citizens of the United States question the extent of government intervention. Does the government have a right to tax my generosity, which is what the gift tax implies? Should the government benefit monetarily from the death of one of my relatives? What is next in line? Will there be a tax on all Christmas gifts, or perhaps a terminal illness tax is next? Mayber there will be a tax on all items colored red (to discourage Communism) or a tax on left-handed persons. The absurdity seems apparent to me, but then the federal govern ment needs $60 billion to cover its deficit and it must come from some place. Gary Barker Criticism is tradition! Editor: This letter is in response to GerryAlU Criticism, even self-criticism, is parto!| II turies-old American tradition: speech and expression. The reason"^ tee free speech is to promote relevant)! ly change. Criticizing Aggie tradition!® be appropriate for a “100-percenter, cizing the freedom of speech is appropriate for a good American Carol By Scott McCullar The Battalion I SPS 045 360 MEMBER Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congres Questions or comments concerning My edito^* should be directed to the editor. I Editor Dillard Stone Managing Editor Rhonda Watters Asst. Managing Editor Scott Haring City Editor Becky Swanson Asst. City Editor Angelique Copeland Sports Editor Richard Oliver Asst. Sports Editor Ritchie Priddy Focus Editor Scot K. Meyer Asst. Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff News Editors Lynn Blanco, Todd Woodard Staff Writers Jennifer Afflerbach, Kurt Allen, Nancy Andersen, Marcy Boyce, Jane G. Brust Mike Burrichter, Pat Davidson, Cindy Gee Jon Heidtke, Uschi Michel-Howell, Debbie Nelson Liz Newlin, Rick Stolle Cartoonist Scott McCullar Photo Editor Pat O’Malley Photographers Greg Gammon, Jeff Kerber LETTERS POLICV Letters to the Editor should not esceedSOOMiii and are subject to being cut if they are longer, jW''‘ resen’es the right to edit letters for style and M 1 ' make every effort to maintain the authors intent b must also be signed, show the address and phone 0* writer. \ Columns and guest editorials are also welcome ** subject to the same length constraints as letters inquiries and correspondence to: Editor, The Heed McDonald, Texas A&M University, Co. 77843. The Battalion is published daily during Texas A*'* spring semesters, except for holiday and examina ,l0,f . Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33 ^, year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates to On P Stort EDITORIAL POLICY The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper op erated as a community service to Texas A&M University and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or the author, and do not necessarily repre sent the opinions of Texas A&M University administrators or faculty members, or of the Board of Regents. quest. j Our address; The Battalion, 216 Reed MeDorf Texas A&M University, College Station, TX United Press International is entitled exclusive “ J for reproduction of all news dispatches credited W 1 reproduction of all other matter herein reserved... Second class postage paid at College Station, T E