/
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