The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, January 26, 1984, Image 2

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    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