Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 18, 1983)
Page 2/The Battalion/Friday, November 18,1983 opinion Letters Possible Nixon speech condoned by reader Editor, On October 28, the Battalion printed a letter of opposition concerning the possi bility of Richard M. Nixon speaking at Texas A&M. My reply to Mr. Haye’s let ter is not to argue the guilt or innocence of Mr. Nixon, but to present a viewpoint from someone who tries to expand upon the knowledge others have to offer. Since Mr. Haye dwelled on the issue of Watergate, I would like to point out that G. Gordon Liddy previously spoke at Texas A & M. I honestly do not belive that Mr. Liddy had so much to offer on a specific topic as Mr. Nixon has to offer on arms control. His only claim to fame is the fact that he was convicted in the Water gate scandal. Did the people who saw Mr. Liddy, or bought his book, condone his crime by attending his program? I also know for a fact that Mr. Haye did not raise any objection to this campus spon- sered program. I do not belong to a Nixon fan club, nor do I scan the obituaries for mention of his name. Watergate was so painful mentally for America, but no one suf fered more mentally and physically than Nixon himself. America’s young leaders can choose from a number of political figures to pat tern themselves after. No man possess all of the ideal qualities. As Aggies and Americans, we have hopefully learned to derive the valuable knowledge and worthy qualities of those who served be fore us. Nixon’s knowledge of arms control, world crisis, and super power relations are tremendous. For Mr. Haye to ignore Nixon’s experiences in those vital areas mentioned is to say that such knowledge does not exist. Each of us as individuals must use our own minds to differentiate between corrupt propoganda and intel lectual discussion. We should not have the need for Mr.Haye to remind us of Watergate or infer that for Aggies to lis ten to an arms control discussion by Mr. Nixon is to condone political corruption. I am sure the citizens of the Mas sachusetts do not support reckless driv ing and the plunging off of bridges by having Ted Kennedy as their senator. If the Texas A&M student body feels, as Mr. Haye does, that Mr. Nixon’s part mistake far outweighs the lesson he has taught us about political corruption and his expertise in the ever increasing strug gle with arms control, that they cannot listen to him—Mr. Nixon, you can stay at my house. Randal Smith Hartsfeild ’83 Any Ag can be good Editor; A phrase often heard is “Good Ag.” The implication in that if one stands at football games, doesn’t wear a hat in the MSG, works on Bonfire, etc., he’s a better Aggie than someone who doesn’t. This attitude shows when a Good Ag calls someone a two percenter or tells them Highway Six runs both ways. The Declaration of Independence (100 years older than any A&M tradition) says that all men are created equal. Ammendments to the Constitution nave granted equality to all people. Since A&M is in America, and Aggies are equal, to say that someone is a Good Ag because he conforms better than the next guy also goes against the thorough Amer ican ideal of rugged individualism. Self—righteous Good Ags tend to think they have more of a right to be at Texas A&M than a two percenter. Wrong. The University Catalog says A&M is “open to qualified individuals re gardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or educationally unre lated handicaps. That means that a green, Russsian, mongoloid, buddist, 90 year old hermaphrodite pinko has as much a right to A&M as Rock. Texas A&M isn’t owned by Good Ags; its owned by the people of Texas. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being a Good Ag. Do whatever turns you on. But be active because you want to and enjoy it, not because you’re press ured to. As for those who apply the press ure it’s too bad time doesn’t run both ways, you could go back to the Dark Ages where you’d be happy, or better yet, back to the Ice Age. Tom Dobson ’86 The new guilt trip: Buy computer or by Art Buchwald The computer companies are now laying a real guilt trip on parents through TV commercials. They state that you’re really cheating your children out of a chance to make it when they grow up if you don’t go out immediately and buy them a computer. The kids see these commercials, too, and it’s causing a lot of trouble between the haves and have— nots in our school system. “Johnny, where is your report card?” “Here.” “Why did you get a D in math?” “Wasn’t my fault. You wouldn’t buy me a computer.” “We can’t afford a computer right now. They cost $200.” “Don’t matter to me. The man on TV said if you don’t want to give me a head start in life you’ll have nobody to blame but yourself.” “That’s a lot of television commercial nonsense. I did math without a com puter.” “Maybe that’s why you can’t afford to buy me one.” “We didn’t have computers in those days. Besides, its hasn’t been proven yet whether computers are good or bad for children. There is a school of thought that they can be harmful to the learning process and kids should depend on their own brains instead of machines. The computer can tell you what 4 plus 4 is, but you don’t know how you arrived at the answer.” “They don’t care in school how you arrive at it as long as it comes out right.” “Let’s forget math for a moment. Why did you get an F in deportment.” “I hit Jill Gleason with a book.” “Why did you hit Jill with a book?” “Because sne’s got a computer, and she Johnny fails wouldn’t tell me the answers to the math problems.” “You can’t go hitting people because they have a computer and you don’t.” “You got to if they say your parents are too cheap to buy you one.” “Did Jill say that?” “Yeh. She said you were depriving me of a chance to make something of myself and I should be taken away from you and put in a foster home.” “She couln’t of said that.” “The other kids heard her. Those that had computers laughed, and those that didn’t all wanted to hit her too.” “What did your teacher do?” “She sent me to the principal’s office and he put my name in his computer and said if I did it again, I’d be kicked out of school.” “What about spelling? How do you ex plain the D in that subject?” “I have to do all my own spelling. If I had a computer it would check my spell ing for me. When Jill Gleason hands in her paper she never has a mistake on her printout. She says she gets her homework done five times as fast as I do.” “Yes, but is she learning how to spell?” “She said her father told her it doesn’t make any difference because when she grows up computers will so all the spell ing for you anyway.” “Her father apparently doesn’t realize that the disciplines you learn by doing your own work in school are far more important than whether you make a mis take or not in your papers.” “That’s what Johnny Parks’ father said. His father won’t get him a computer either. But I don’t care. I’ll probably wind up in jail anyway.” “Who tola you that?” “The guy on TV. He said if parents didn’t buy their kid a computer, the kid would probably wind up sticking up li quor stores when he grew up.” The cc t he made pay Aftei jsts and n dering w hould be lime — “TheE happens icartland (do., aftei nuclear r itates anc Becaus tion of de the movi< fear it n adverse a adults wh “The 1 airSunda by disclai Children : ABC has by Challenges of foreign policy should have positive effect Greyhc ning on a Bryan a Thursday by Maxwell Glen and Cody Shearer Frustrated in part by Democratic quietude regarding nuclear weapons and Central America, citizens are themselves increasingly challenging U.S. foriegn policy in court. The barrage of litigation is reminiscent of judicial wrangling over Vietnam. Though no outright reversal of policy may come of it, the result will be constructive. Thirteen women, all but one British, opened the latest front last Wednesday (Nov. 9) before a federal judge in New York City. Joined by Democratic Reps. Ron Dellums of California and Ted Weiss of New York, the women chal lenged the legality of U.S. plans to deploy 96 cruise missiles;a.Lthe U.S. Air Force base at Greenham Common, west of Lon don. An antagonistic Judge David N. Edelstein refused to grant the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order against de ployment, and agreed to hear a juisdic- tional challenge next week (Nov.21). The Greenham Common case follows a string of three seemingly quixotic law suits that have centered on Reagan admi nistration mischief in Central America. One challenges the presence of U.S. advisers in El Salvador; the other two in volve Washington’s covert assistance to Nicaraguan rebels. While one case re ceived a big boost from a federal judge in San Fransico on Nov. 3, two are now hos tage to federal appeals panels. Understandable angst over the course of foriegn policy inspired judicial sorties by congressmen and private citizens dur ing the Vietnam War. Orlando vs. Laird (1971) and Atlee vs. Laird (1972), like those cases pending today, essentially contested the legality of war by executive grounds or as matters for political resolu tion; not one ever to a final “guilty” ver dict. Enactment of the War Powers Act in 1973 did little to bolster the public’s check on presidential war—making. The law’s value has become proactically illusory in the view of its sponsor, Sen. Jacob Javits (R—N.Y.), who wrote recently in the New York Times magazine, “...(we) in Con gress helped to establish the unwritten precedent whereby avoiding the War Powers Resolution’s intent has become more the rule than the exception.” Nevertheless, 1978 ethics legislation has enhanced the leverage of citizens who want to take issue with errant foriegn policy. This was evident in San Fransisco, where a federal judge ordered Attorney General William French Smith to under take a preliminary investiagtion of U.S. support for Nicaraguan rebels. In that case, Dellums and two co— plaintiffs—one a Nicaraguan—have sued Althou the Amal n have Nov. 2, : riven by rve Bry; Jack V er of the asked for an injuction. By asking for investigation in this case, what I we’ve done is focus the debate on facts that have been reported iniftrminal, media... I don’t know how anybody,; ^alservic eluding the attorney general, can do dll take those facts.” e P n tra Ronald Reagan’s blatant contempt for facts has offered concerned citizens every reason to yell and scream. So has a waffling Con gress, which in almost successive actions has invoked the War Pow ers Act (over Lebanon) and abdi cated it (by giving the CIA money to topple Managua’s Sandinistas). Ronald Reagan’s blatant contemp t Since facts has offered concerned citizensevt pike, Wi reason to yell and scream. So hasa»: ^ 80 P fling Congress, which is almost success: ' actions has invoked the War Powers! ^ an (over Lebanon) and abdicated it (byf ^. ing the CIA money to topple Manager Sandinistas). That’s why tne council I lenges to the president’s way ward forki policy are nothing to belittle, while! may eventually falter under the admin tration to bear for its ambiguity. Public officials should not be to break the law simply because it’s lb policy, or insult the public’s standards integrity. Smith, Reagan and other administration officials for dismissing a request, submit ted under the ethics law, for a prelimin ary investigation into possible violations of the Neutrality Act (a 1974 law that basically prohibits undeclared war). The Justice Department had said the plain tiffs’ information about domestic rebel— training comps and CIA support over seas didn’t merit the possible appoint ment of a special prosecutor. Luckily, Judge Stanley A. Weigel found the admi nistration’s claim “unreasonable and un supported by the record.” For Jules Lobel, the University of Pitt sburgh law professor who argued against the government, Weigel’s ruling fulfilled the plaintiffs’ mission. ” In this case,” Lobel says, ” the question is whether or not the president is respecting the ethics law....It raises Watergate in a foriegn policy context. “In the other cases,” adds Lobel. “we Slouch by Jim Earle I SICK GRAKV MOTHER 1 Ripe leaves EARLY — vocsroiz <r ^ . sperrs “When you get down to it, there are no original excuses for leav ing for the holidays early. ” The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member ot Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference Editor Hope E.Pa Managing Editor Beverly HamS City Editor Kelley So Assistant City Editor Karen Schriai Sports Editor Melissa Ai Entertainment Editor.... Rebeca Zimmers Assistant Entertainment Editor Slid Hods News Editors Brian Boyer, Kathy Bra Kevin la Tracey In Chris Tin Kathy Wiesep Photo Editor EricEwnl Staff Writers Robin Bb B rigid Brocto Bob Caster, Ronnie Crod Kari Fluegel, Trade Hu Bonnie Langfe Johnh| Kay Denise Mia Christine Mu Michelle P: 1 Ann Ramsbi Stephanie Ross, Angel Std Steve Thomas, John W; Karen W Wanda Wd Copy Editors Kathleen Hart, Krista! H Susan la* Cartoonists Paul DW Scott Met- Photographers .Michael D? Guy Ha' John Makely, Dean t- Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-suppormf paper operated as a community service to Teii University and Bryan-College Station. Opinio® pressed in The Battalion are those of the edited author, and do not necessarily represent theopiw' Texas A&M University administrators orhcullfV hers, or of the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratorynewfl for students in reporting, editing and photograph ses within the Department of Communications. Letters Policy Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 woni length, and are subject to being cut if theyareW The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letW 1 style and length, but will make every effort to mai® the author’s intent. Each letter must also besignd' show the address and telephone number of the v"® The Battalion is published Monday through d during Texas A&M regular semesters, exceptfo-' day and examination periods. Mail subscription' $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and}■'l , full year. Advertising rates furnished on request Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed Md^ Building, Texas A&M University, College Statio 11 77843. United Press International is entitled exclusi'*' the use for reproduction of all news dispatchescre^ to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matterM 11 reserved. Second class postage paid at College Statio® 77843. Columns and guest editorials also are weicont* are not subject to the same length constraints as If 5 Address all inquiries and correspondence to: h The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas AL'f versity, College Station, TX 77843, or phone(409’ 2611.
