Page 2/The Battalion/Thursday, June 2, 1983
opinion
Symbols become reality
by Arnold Sawislak
United Press International
WASHINGTON — When the Roman
Catholic bishops passed their nuclear
freeze resolution, a hard-boiled type at
our post-work seminar in a place down
the street summed it up: “It ain’t nothin’.
It’s just a lot of symbolism.”
“It don’t do anything. It ain’t like cut
ting off appropriations for the Defense
Department,” he growled.
There were, as it happened, a couple
of soft-boiled types in the booth who took
exception to this analysis and proceeded
to give the first chap a dose of unshirted
what-for.
In brief, they argued, symbolism can
be exceptionally important in govern
ment and politics and a purely symbolic
act or event often is the catalyst for more
concrete action. They argued that while
demonstrations against the Vietnam War
in the 1970s may not have ended the
fighting, they certainly had an impact on
the actual events that led to that end.
The discussion didn’t go much farth
er, but it could easily have gone into the
many examples of symbols that have
achieved their own reality.
The example that leaps to mind is the
Emancipation Proclamation, which
many Americans might identify as the
document with which Abraham Lincoln
ended slavery in this country.
Not quite. The proclamation in 1863
ordered freedom for slaves only in the
Confederate States, which at the time
were in a shooting war with Lincoln’s
A more recent example of how
symbolism affects action is the fai
lure of every president since
Gerald Ford to invite Nobel
Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
to the White House.
government. Thus, the proclamation was
more of a symbol than a deed.
Not until the 13th Amendment was
ratified in 1865 was slavery outlawed in
the entire United States.
But it was the Emancipation Proclama
tion that is most often cited as the instru
ment of freedom for black Americans. In
that case, symbolism became reality.
A more recent example of how sym
bolism affects action is the failure of ev
ery president since Gerald Ford to invite
Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
to the White House.
The Russian writer certainly is more
distinguished and accomplished than
many of the record-breaking balloonists,
champion horse radish farmers and
prime ministers of postage stamp princi
palities who do get Oval Office audi
ences.
Solzhenitsyn, for his own reasons, is an
implacable foe of the Soviet regime and
has made very clear that he does not
think the West has taken a tough enough
stance against it.
For their own reasons, many Amer
icans who believe the only way to deal
with the Kremlin is to nuke it have
embraced Solzhenitsyn. He has become,
as the saying goes, the “darling” of the
hard-liners, and whether he wishes it so
or not, a symbol of their viewpoint.
The policy of the United States gov
ernment is to oppose the expansion of
the Soviet Union’s influence and power
without going to war. The style with
which this policy is carried out may vary
from president to president, but basically
Ronald Reagan is trying to accomplish
the same thing as Jimmy Carter.
It might seem silly to suggest that invit
ing an aging author to lunch at the White
House would be taken as the signal of a
change in basic foreign policy, but that is
almost surely why Solzhenitsyn hasn’t
broken bread at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue.
ONE OF THESE IS AN ILLEGiM.,CONGRESSIONAL BRIBE TO
INFLUENCE LEGISLATION-THE OTHER ISA PRIVATE „
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONCAN YOU TELL THE PIFFERENCE?
Light at the end of the missile debate
by Dick West
United Press International
WASHINGTON — I was split right
down the middle by the congressional
missile debate.
So persuasive were speakers for both
sides, I could see the wisdom of building
new missiles, and also the wisdom of not
building new missiles.
Then I heard it explained that build
ing new missiles is a necessary prelude to
meaningful arms control negotiations,
and suddenly it all came together.
Not only did the “missiles for peace”
picture become clear for the first time,
several other murky issues were illumin
ated as well.
Gun control, for example.
We’ll never have a meaningful reduc
tion in the number of shootings in this
country until everyone owns a gun.
Once there is a pistol in every closet,
assuring equality between law-abiders
and lawbreakers, America will be ready
for gun control legislation. Not a minute
before.
Another controversy the missile de
bate can help us find the handle on is the
report by the National Commission of
Excellence in Education.
The commission, I gather, is 100 per
cent in favor of educational excellence.
But philosophies differ as to how to go
about achieving that goal.
Some educational philosophers argue
for higher standards for public school
curricula. Others say the surest way of
raising grades is to make the tests easier.
Now, judging from the arguments
that seemed to prevail in the congression
al missile debate, it may be a philosophy
whose time has come.
So what if today’s students lack basic
skills in reading, writing and mathema
tics? As long as tests don’t expose their
ignorance, who is the wiser?
A similar point can be made with re
spect to the seemingly contradictory
aspects of a new diet plan that stresses the
importance of overeating.
“We’re never going to have meaning
ful weight reductions in this country until
everybody gets fat,” a promoter of the
plan told me.
I said, “A flab freeze wouldn’t do it,
huh?”
“Not for a minute,” the unfitness ex
pert replied. “Freezing flab at present
levels would only solidify the pounds that
already are in place, usually around the
hips and stomach. It provides no incen
tive at all for skinny people to lose
weight.”
“I think I’ve got it now,” I said. “Once
obesity becomes a universal condition,
there will be an irresistable demand for
weight control programs with teeth.
Verification at the scales is essential.”
“You’ve got it,” she confirmed. “Once
everyone is overweigh, we can institute a
‘builddown’ system. Folks will continue to
eat too much, but for every pound they
put on, they take off two.”
“You mean ...” I gasped.
“Exactly,” she said.
That seemed to sum up the missile
debate right there.
As soon as some country develops a
case of missile anorexia, we’ll know the
disarmament talks are making progress.
The Battalion
USPS 045 360
Member ol
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
Editor Hope E. Paasch
City Editor Kelley Smith
Sports Editor John Wagner
News Editors Daran Bishop, Brian Boyer,
Beverly Hamilton, Tammy Jones
Staff Writers Scott Griffin, Robert
McGlohon, Angel Stokes,
Joe Tindel
Copyeditors .... Kathleen Hart, Tracey Taylor
Cartoonist Scott McCullar
Photographers Brenda Davidson, Eric Lee,
Barry Papke, Peter Rocha
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting news
paper operated as a community service to Texas A&M
University and Bryan-College Station. Opinions ex
pressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or the
author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of
Texas A&M University administrators or faculty mem
bers, or of the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper
for students in reporting, editing and photography clas
ses within the Department of Communications.
Questions or comments concerning any editorial
matter should be directed to the editor.
Letters Policy
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in
length, and are subject to being cut if they are longer.
The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for
style and length, but will make every effort to maintain
the author’s intent. Each letter must also be signed and
show the address and telephone number of the writer.
Columns and guest editorials also are welcome, and
are not subject to the same length constraints as letters.
Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Editor,
The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M Uni
versity, College Station, TX 77843, or phone (409) 845-
2611.
The Battalion is published Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday during both Texas A&M regular summer
sessions, except for holiday and examination periods.
Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per
school year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates
furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald
Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843.
United Press International is entitled exclusively to
the use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited
to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein
reserved.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX
77843.
Slouch By Jim Eafl
p4
HAPPY BIRTHDAV
ELIZABETH !
JUNE?, 1965 2,19
to
by
| There’?
campus f
counselin
just some
The C
ition, ft
“After doing this thing for 30 years, I guess he can
personal just once. ”
S*
misters
hile the
consist
patholic ;
ons, cht
lys, “Th
[ligions.
The m
Faith:
House members
5r
courage praised
by Don Phillips
United Press International
WASHINGTON — Forty-one mem
bers of the House would be eligible for a
medal today if such things were given for
political courage.
They are the 41 who bucked the bank
ing industry and a frenzied letter-writing
campaign from millions of upset voters.
They voted against legislation repealing
the scheduled July 1 tax withholding on
interest and dividends.
The pressure to go the other way was
enormous. The banking lobby had
staged a campaign that even many of its
allies in Congress acknowledged was de
ceptive and filled with half truths and
untruths.
The campaign was effective. It hit a
chord in the American people, and mil
lions of angry letters flooded congres
sional offices. Some of those letters clear
ly were from millions who were duped by
the bankers and didn’t understand the
legislation. Some were from informed
but angry folks who said they didn’t want
to pay for the sins of others.
But others, a surprising number, were
from scoff-laws who even bragged that
they had never paid taxes on their in
terest and dividends and didn’t intend to,
and would vote against anyone who tried
to make them obey the law.
Under such pressure, 382 House
members voted to repeal the withholding
law.
Of those 382, some voted from honest
conviction. It would be a mistake to think
that all of them voted from fear. For ex
ample, Rep. Norman D’Amours, D-
N.H., led the fight against withholding
from the beginning, and Rep. Andrew
Jacobs, D-Ind., who sponsored the final
repeal bill, long ago proved his ability to
think independently.
But it is clear that a majority of the 382
voted that way purely because of the
pressure.
It also is clear that the 41 who voted
“no” did so purely from conviction.
There was nothing for them to gain from
such a vote, and there is little doubt that
all of them will lose something politically
through lost votes or financially through
lost campaign contributions.
The list of the “no” voters reads like a
rundown of the moral leadership of the
iSUt
B
Becaus
omy, tb
ecome n
ryan Pc
as an e
House, the people who havepn
they have guts on other issi
Almost all of the 41 are expen
legislators, and many are comrai
subcommittee chairmen
They include the chairman aK
ing GOP member of the tax' jpposed i
House Ways and Means Cora j°y s yes
Reps. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill.,ai hief Ch
her Conable, R-N.Y. Many oftk
members of that committee,
position to see the
cheating and to know all the face
withholding
One of the Ways and Means®
is a former banker, Rep. Fortnei
D-Calif, no stranger to fights'
fellow bankers even before hei
Congress.
Thirty-two are Democrats ai
are Republicans. The highestmec
Until
get offi
■ , j-Phelps sa
problems »> men r has
the Democratic leadership is whi j t h e
Applic;
mas Foley of Washington, No.
hierarchy. The only Republicanlt Police A(
Rep. Jack Edwards of Alabai® y
chairman of the Republican Corf ; j\^ f
and ranking: GOP member ofl 1 ^
ranking
fluential Defense Appropriation
committee.
There are three freshmen, Ref;
ward Berman, D-Calif, SanderL<
Mich., and Sherwood Boehlert,
One is a woman, Rep. Lynn
R-Ill.
Most are no strangers to caused
stimes lost causes, including Ref lields of
Edwards, D-Calif, champion
Equal Rights Amendment; EdwaF rcupants
key, D-Mass., leader of the nucleaj
movement; and David Obey
who has led the fight for reforff
House for more than a decade,
Some are among the mostacti' 1
men in the House — Reps. Hem 1
man, D-Calif., chairman of thel
subcommittee; Sidney Yates,
of the keepers of the nation’s na®
sources as chairman of the A|
tions interior subcommittee; Edvi
land, D-Mass., the most influenrf
in the House on intelligence
chairman of the Permanent Selef 1
mittee on Intelligence; John Serf NEW C
D-Ohio, chairman of the Intend
lands subcommittee; andJ.JP"
Texas, chairman of the Social
subcommittee.
e office
The id
“Thrt
nine peoj
A maj
ge was t
lave in r
reening
dark Ric
“We :
iard dep;
id. “Bui
fre
Unite
ALBUC
dung cl
ed rod
used mi
Ibuquer
Officei
le child
own the
f the fre
ved at tl
Ra
fo:
Unite*
the small society
by Bri
TH^TfZl^K V? 'TO &&
UtVTlL YoD'fZ.fr /M -
AFT&fZ
'THAT,
reorfe-
WILL
Mi^
'T<3 yZ>i) -
merous
ised by c
y Mafia
Dentor
1982 fede
fiction.
As a re: