Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 26, 1984)
Opinion Page 2/The BattalionTThursday, January 26, 1984 Take off, hoser ifs only an ad Confusion has abounded lately over a cartoon which has been running in The Battalion. A letter to the editor in Wednesday’s edition of the newspaper criticized “the lack of humor” in Batta lion cartoons. Go ahead and criticize “Warped” and “R.I.” all you want. Those cartoons are regular features of the newspaper. But to set the record straight, the other cartoon mentioned in the letter — “A Take Off’ — is an advertisement. That cartoon advertisement — which began running last week — wasn’t clearly labeled as an advertise ment until this week, and confusion still exists about it. The cartoon, which imitates Cana dian comics Bob and Doug McKenzie, is part of an advertising campaign by the Business Student Council to promote its annual career fair/business week. Running a cartoon for an ad is per fectly acceptable, even enjoyable at times. But a promotional flyer before the advertisement appeared added to the confusion. It said: “Bob and Doug Are Gonna Add Hoser Humor To The Batt.” The cartoon itself is a teaser for the event, so only slowly has it become apparent that it isn’t a regular cartoon. Many people have read the flyer and the cartoon and mistakenly believed “A Take Off’ was a new feature in The Battalion. Ifs not. If you have a complaint about that cartoon, mail it to the Business Student Council. “A Take Off’ is in no way re lated to editorial content of The Batta lion. It is an advertisement. The Battalion Editorial Board ob jects to the misleading implications of the flyer and to the cartoon’s use last week without proper labeling. — The Battalion Editorial Board Execution another form of murder It is possible that a Florida man was executed this morning, before today’s Battalion was delivered and you picked it up. He claims he is innocent. The courts say he isn’t — and have sent enced him to death. Appeal after appeal has failed, and his execution — barring another last-minute stay — was ’ ?d < carried out today. It is ironic that events like these take place in relative obscurity, at a time when anti-abortion sentiment on the Texas A&M campus has reached a fev er pitch. This is murder also — but no body seems to care. Criminals deserve to die, right? But what if the man or woman on death row is innocent? Who takes the blame for the execution then? Was it just a mistake, or the senseless destruc tion of a human being? Criminals or not, there’s no doubt death row inmates are human. It is impossible to determine right or wrong in a case such as this — The Battalion Editorial Board realizes that fact. But in a society where moral deci sions need to be made every day, it is important for citizens to think rational ly about what is or isn’t morally right. If abortion is murder, what do you call executions? — The Battalion Editorial Board is impossible The Reagan administration could well be the most paranoid group to inhabit the White House since the Nixon regime. In his almost four years in office, Pres- ident Reagan has made countless attempts to amend the Freedom of Infor mation Act, which originally gave citizens the right to obtain almost any type of government records from executive branch offices. The Reagan administration has con tinually advocated the expansion of the nine areas of exemption from free access recognized under the Freedom of Infor mation act, especially in the area of na tional defense. Under the President’s sweeping definition of national security, almost all matters of national defense and foreign policy could be kept secret from the American people. Reagan also proposed lengthening the time in which government agencies could reply to requests for information and re quiring all citizens to pay fees for infor mation received. More recently, the White House has begun a zealous campaign to plug up in ternal information leaks. The latest strategy is a proposal from the assistant attorney general to fine government offi cials up to $5,000 for each piece of classi fied information released to an “unau thorized” person. When will government officials learn how unrealistic it is to expect to hide their administrative decisions from those who elected them? The American system of government outlined in the Constitution is designed expressly to support a system of “leaks.” Both houses of Congress and the American press were given the func tion of keeping an eye on the White House, to prevent the secrecy that is often the first step toward tyranny. Members of Congress often receive in formation that would be beneficial to their districts if released to constituents. Should they be fined for doing their jobs kathy wiesepape Slouch by Jim Earle “The perfect schedule! IVo Friday clas ses; no Monday classes; and no late classes! How long will it take me to graduate if I only take seven hours per semester?” just because a bureaucrat has inadver tantly stamped the material “classified“? When reporters, in monitoring the activities of the executive branch, learn of abuses of power in the administration, should the person who helped them obtain information be penalized for ex posing activities dangerous to the demo cratic process? Without internal leaks, the corruption of the Nixon administration would not have been exposed. In addition, the Reagan administra tion, which persists in seeing a spy in ev ery corner of the White House, a traitor in each dark hall of the Capitol building, and a crowd of non-patriots at every press conference, doesn’t even consider one important aspect of security leaks: simple human error. Last Friday, the FBI collected an 4- inch stack of government documents from a 13-year-old Pennsylvania school girl who brought them to class for a social studies project. The papers were classified memos re garding the 1980 presidential debates. A maid had accidently delivered the stack of documents to the hotel room where the girl’s father was staying. She appa rently mistook him for a presidential staff member. Should she be fined $5,000 a page for her carelessness? And what of the official who handed the documents to her? Should he be fined for being too lazy to deliver the documents himself? Last fall a file cabinet filled with classi fied information was mistakenly deli vered to one of the U.S. prisons. Who should be liable for that leak? TV habits examined Americans set another new record last year — watching more hours of television per day than ever before. Now that’s something to be proud of. The average household in America watched more than seven hours of televi sion every day; seven hours and two mi nutes to be exact. These figures were re leased by A. G. Nielsen, and they reflect an all-time high in the history of televi sion. What the report didn’t include is who is doing all of the watching and what ex actly they are watching for over seven hours every day? Somehow I don’t think that people are watching seven hours and two minutes of news and educational television. In short, I don’t think that people really watch what they watch. Now I’m all for entertainment and I enjoy turning to the television for some of that entertainment, but if the average household is watching seven hours a day, that means many people are relying mainly on television for entertainment and forgetting that there is more out there. And we wonder why Johnny can’t read. And we wonder why parents and their children aren’t communicating. Whatever happened to children get ting library cards and checking out all of the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew Mysteries — and enjoying them? How many times do people wait for the movie version of a book to come out rather than reading the book to begin with? People need to start communicating with each other more, and about worth- ::Pc Stephanie ross while things. How often do we talk about what was on television last night or what Erica did on “All My Children” yester day? Probably too often. I’m not really worried about college students and don’t think that the figures released include many of them. After all, when do we have time to watch two hours of television a day, let alone seven? It’s the children I really wonder a How many mothers are using then sion as a babysitter? We need to spend time talkingto Qg dren and teaching them howtothinllp communicate with people. ParenuH Uni families should play a bigger roleiiB education of their children and notl® LIS it up to Mr. Rogers and his friendsi' mint c neighborhood. dor d Lm not saying that we should aBkn V come television snobs, either. Tetaij|' nisu snobs do exist. They are the ones | > ‘ l 1 take great pride in sayin, “Me, 1 watch television.” . ■ SeVi They are missing out on manytlm) { . rnoc too, because television does havemu( ners i, offer. Television brings the worldducoalitit together, and exposes people tolls resign that they may never beabletosee.l’ii abandc so sure I’ll ever go to Africa, or to % nen depths of the Pacific ocean, but 11. 3 * 301 '' 0 been exposed to them throughtebiili ‘ 3< r 6 K Ue 111 A balance needs to be struck by« 1I B*y K ers. Television can be used fr»r«ir«iB ° ,JS ment as well as education. for enterl- ( , mg abc The problem with many things: are good in themselves is that thef! used in excess, and thus abused, hours of television is an excess ofd could could be a good thing forall Letters: evolution vs. creation Freedom of choice Editor: Last Friday a letter was printed in The Battalion addressing the measure taken by the Texas Board of Education which stated that state textbooks do not have to mention Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. The author of the letter attacked the action of the Board as a “spineless” attempt to appease fundamentalist Christians, arguing that fundamentalist Christians advocate the total exclusion of all teachings other than Mature Crea tionism. However, in his view there was no question as to the validity of Darwin’s theory. In fact, he was angered by the board’s action which made it optional for text books to mention the theory of evo lution. We as Christians feel that what the author has failed to recognize is that Dar win’s theory is just that — a theory. For this reason we feel that it should be given no more preference than any other theory of human origin, including Crea tionism. If the author is truly interested in edu cation, how can he oppose the freedom of choice? True freedom of choice is fully dependent upon the inclusion of all pos sible alternatives presented objectively. We believe that it is the omission of, or the preference given to, any one theory that will draw us one step closer to Orwell’s vision of 1984. Scott Parrott Sean Royall Class of ’85 protect their minor children from being force-fed the theory of evolution. I do not believe that being anti evolution is anti-scientific. If an indi vidual learns mathematics, chemistry, physics, engineering, etc., I do not see how an individual would be handicapped by not knowing about Darwin’s theory of evolution. If you believe a knowledge of the tory of evolution is of great benefit, you are free to share that theory with your own children. When considering whether or not Darwin’s theory of evolution is true, it is important to remember that it is only a theory and not supported by actual evi dence. It seems to me that if there is any parallel between the present situation and George Orwell’s “1984,” it is that Darwin is attempting to rewrite the true history which has been given to us in the Bible. Whether you believe Darwin’s theory of evolution is up to you as an individual. What bothers me most is the way that some people are living their lives. It seems that the part of the Bible dealing with evolution is not the only part some people do not live as though they really believe it is true. Dan Eggers Computer Science True science' Editor: ■ This letter is in response to some| turbing but common correlations® by Mr. Rex Alan Hanger in the Jan issue of The Battalion. He associates lution with “true science,” but could be further from the truth, is evolution forever destined to rei an untestable, unprovable hypotlitj but it is surounded by the mostun: tific, rigid, and close-minded thougll] our century. True science is composed of ci and questioning thought integrated* an open mind. The zealous and fm defense given evolution when a Creaticmism appears reveals a jystifii insecurity. Two of the major problems are The absence of the essential transi forms among the major plantandani kinds, and 2) the sudden advent of 5000 different species of organism the earliest known fossil strata, instead the one or two expected by evolution! Even the highly touted “early anceslt of man are either gross exaggeratioi primate fossils or outright frauds! David Bii Separate doctrine, public education Editor: For some religions it is a matter of doctrine that the earth was created by God in seven literal 24-hour days. There fore, teaching Darwinism in the schools would mean that the state was engaging in the teaching of religion, which would violate the separation of church and state. I wouldn’t want my children to be forced to learn something contradicting their religious teaching. Parents who do not believe in evolution have the right to The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference Editor Rebeca Zimmermann author, and do not necessarily represent thcopini Managing Editor John Wagner Texas A&M University administrators or faculty City Editor Patrice Koranek bers, or of the Board of Regents. Assistant City Editors Kathleen Hart, rhc Battalion also serves as a laboratory new Stephanie Ross for students in reporting, editing and photograph News Editor Tracey Taylor scs w ’ l hin the Department of Communications. Assistant News'Editors .7.7.7.7.'. Susan Talbot, Questions or comments concerninganycdito^ Wanda Winkler tcr should hc d,rcctcd ‘° t,l( ' cd “° r - Editorial Page Editor Kathy Wiesepape Sports Editor Donn Friedman . Assistant Sports Editor Bill Robinson Thc Battalion is published Monday through Entertainment Editor Shelley Hoekstra during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for Assistant Entertainment Editor Angel ^ 7 a " d examination periods. Mail subset,puo Stokes $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and t^i r i * # i i full year. Advertising rates furnished on request Photo Editor John Makely ^ ur addrcss: rh 8 c Battalion, 216 Reed McP Building, Texas A&M University, College Station 7 7S43. Editorial Policy United Press International is entitled exclusive the use for reproduction of all news dispatches ci Thc Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting news- to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter paper operated as a community service to Texas A&M reserved. University and Bryan-Collcgc Station. Opinions ex- Second class postage paid at College Station. pressed in Thc Battalion arc those of the editor or thc 77843. t