Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 31, 1985)
Page 2/The BattaliorvThursday, October 31,1985 ■ Propositions 1 and 2 don't hold water Texas needs an effective, comprehensive water plan to manage its diverse water problems. Propositions 1 and z are proposed state constitutional amendments aimed at solving some of our water woes. If the proposed amendments are ratified, Texas still will need an effective, comprehensive water plan. The proposed amendments are really a massive bond issue designed to generate funds for the program. They establish low- interest loans for farmers to install hign-efficiency conservation equipment. They deal with many important conservation issues untouched by previous water legislation, such as bay and estuary maintenance. But the propositions don’t contain specific goals, limitations or expenses. They create a new bureaucratic heirarchy for groundwater management which has powers of taxation. The plan allocates most of the funds for reservoir constructions rather than con servation. The money for the reservoirs can be provided with out taxpayers’ approval, yet the specific sites for the reservoirs are not designatea by the plan. Part of Proposition 1 enables the Legislature to allocate an unlimited amount of funds for water assistance programs, es sentially granting the Texas Water Commission a “blank check.” Texas desperately needs a good water management plan. We are using our water reserves faster than they are being re plenished. But to effectively conserve this most vital natural re source, we need a plan that deals in specifics, not generalities. Propositions 1 and 2 are not the answers. The Legislature must return to the drawing board — again. But they had better draft a new plan quickly. Time is running out for water in Texas. The Battalion Editorial Board Call Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length. 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 be signed and must include the address and telephone number of the writer. No right turns EDITOR: After reading Sylvia Pena’s account (The Battalion, Oct. 22) the debate on the effects of the religious right on the First Amendment, I honestly wonder if she and I attended the same debate. She quotes Fred Mason, the director of the Moral Majority in Texas, as describ ing the First Amendment as “made for all of us.” She presents me as the censor, reporting that I said that the First Amendment is for everyone — except those who have radical ideas. The views are correctly stated; it is just that she tagged them with the wrong names. I certainly did not say that “students should have the right to pray in schools, but giving them this right wouldn’t be beneficial since Judeo-Christians probably would control it.” My stated position was that religious clubs should be treated as any other student organization: that if they want to pray together before or after school then they should have the same status as the beekeeping club or the com puter club. On the other hand, the affable Mason listed three kinds of ideas which he, as a member of the Moral Majority, does not think are covered by the First Amend ment: those that are “radical,” those that are “unreasonable” and those that “ vio late national security.” Since he offered no definition of these terms, I assume that he and his fellow right-wing religious zealots would make the call. Pena was partially correct in reporting my claim that “there are portions of the Bible that are offensive to people.” The passage that I paraphrased, Judges 19: 22- 30, a passage which includes attempted homosexual rape, the gang-rape of a fe male, and her subsequent mutilation by her husband, was one which Mason him self professed to Find disgusting. He apparently was not listening when I fed him the chapter and verse at the close of the paraphrase; he complained that I had brought up a book that he had not read and that it was one that he would certainly not read to his children. I maintained then, and still hold, that few of the books that the Moral Majority would like to take off the shelves of school libraries contain as many accounts of rape, incest, violence and overt sexist behavior as does the Bi ble. If Mr. Mason’s performance is any indication, much of the confusion and intol erance of the memoers of the Moral Majority must surely stem from the fact that they do not read the Bible. During my 11 years as a faculty member at Texas A&M The Battalion has al most without exception quoted me fairly and correctly. But let me tell you, this arti cle has caused me some problems: my friends and colleagues are now asking just when I took such a hard turn to the right. Larry Hickman Associate Professor of Philosophy The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Rhonda Snider Editor Michelle Powe, Managing Editor Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor Karen Bloch, City Editor John Hallet, Kay Mallett, News Editors Travis Tingle, Sports Editor Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the Editorial Board or the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Department of Communications. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examina tion periods. Mail subscriptions are $16. 75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates fur nished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. a Opinion WE W&NT TO PREE TUE SOVIET PISSIPSNTS, WHO ARE SHACKLED TO RUSSIAN BALLISTIC MISSILES,. ANP AIMED DIRECTLY AT THE WHITE HOUSE ROSE GARDEN* WHICH ARE STATIONED ON NICARAGUAN Soil * THEN AFTER lunCh The man behind voters land boar proceeds the Perm buv more i Curren ated thro vested on fcurities. J The f sored in t Sen. Kent Rep. Chai I The P< unrelated versity Ft i mags If Prop B-C By Every TV net work is feverishly competing to get a presummit inter view with Mikhail Gorbachev. The person who will make the final decision is the incomparable Aft BllChwald Soviet image ————— maker, Mik Dea- vervitch. It was Deavervitch who sold the Russian people on the fact that style was more important than substance. As Gorbachev’s press chief during the re cent Soviet elections, Deavervitch came up with the catchy slogan, “Vote for somebody who is red, but not dead.” So effective was Deavervitch’s politi cal strategy that when Konstantin Cher nenko died, Gorbachev was elected less than Five hours later — in a landslide. Since then Deavervitch has been consul ted on everything Gorbachev does. He was responsible for advancing the secre tary’s trips to London and Paris as well as setting up photo opportunities with Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterand and Tip O’Neill. Deavervitch has posed Gorbachev talking to nurses in a Lenin hospital, lis tening to hardhats in a Lenin auto works and shaking hands at a university with Lenin grads. Not only does Deavervitch serve Gor bachev, but he also works for the Soviet leader’s wife. Moscow watchers say that Raisa Gorbachev, who is the real power in the Kremlin, does not make a move without First checking it out with Dea vervitch. This being the case 1 decided to pick up the phone and speak to the man. It was much easier than I thought. The Soviet operator put me right through, after saying “Thank you for using ST&T.” “Mr. Deavervitch, I’m calling about the selection you have to make concern ing the secretary’s First American tele vision appearance.” “We are noodling it. Goodbye." “Wait a minute. How will you arrive at your decision?” “I just received the overnight ratings from our KGB man in New York. Dan iel Rather defeated Peter Jennings and Thomas Brokaw. What kind of a man is this Rather?” “He’s a very decent sort, but then again so are Jennings and Brokaw. The three are only a point apart.” “Our mole at ABC says a point means a million viewers. I cannot allow the Sec retary to appear in a vast wasteland." “So you’re putting your boy on the ‘Evening News’?” “Not necessarily. We also are consid ering one of the morning shows. The secretary likes Phyllis George very much.” “Phyllis is a Fine interviewer, but un fortunately she no longer works on the Apartheid protests Issue-oriented or just the CBS morning show. VVhatabod night? Fed Koppel is hot rightro "The secretary doesn’t wantJ head-to-head with JohnnyCrl Since our leader is making TV appearance we’re hopingt! the top ten.” Fun (coi |ter expe say the )rotect “Would Mr. Gorbachev walk-on part in 'Dallas’?” * “No, our Bulgarian agent inii wood reports it is full of filthyil crossing capitalists. What others would you suggest?” mtee in Ford fnents o i fi :quate c I to bathi |about th Hous “There is ‘Entertainment Tot ‘Miami Vice,’‘The Phil! Show ,’ and then my favorite,% Fortune.’ The best thing about Ii of Fortune’ is Gorbachev will net have a large audience, but he s| win some valuable prizes." Iwater p tion, de 1 quality ] undergi fTexas. “It’s not dignified. Tell mti rade, what is this HowardCoseiS ‘He tells it like it is," 1 said. ‘How do you mean‘like it is? “Remember when Kruscho off his shoe and banged it on tbs Well, if Howard doesn’t agreew* person he is talking to he doesk) thing.” Art Buchwald is a columnist 14 Los Angeles Times Syndicate. latest fad It has become styl- === — ish to protest apart- J. ByrOH heid. The reason I Schlomach say “stylish” is that, Guest Columnist just as in the 1 Qfifk - there seem to be a lot of people who are protesting without really thinking about what they are doing. They are just fol lowing the latest fad. I am not saying that these issues are not important, but a lot of people who get caught up in the emotion of the time and do not think about what they are doing, who they are following or what their leaders are saying and doing. Many people have overlooked some ba sic contradictions in the actions and words of anti-apartheid leaders. I do not condone or wish to see the continuation of apartheid. I think it is detestable to base a socio-political sys tem on race rule (minority or majority). However, many blacks are migrating to South Africa from neighboring coun tries to obtain better jobs and to escape persecution from their black lead erships. In Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe and Uganda, black-on-black oppression usually is worse than the white-on-black oppression in South Africa. Anti-apart heid leaders conveniently overlook this detail. Somehow, in their mind-set, they must honestly believe that black-on- black oppression is not as immoral as white-on-black oppression. I cannot see this. I also cannot see how tribal and interparty strife is pre ferable to a relatively stable government that is less oppressive. I want to know why no one is protesting black cruelties against blacks. In many nations majorities (and mi norities) are more cruelly treated than the blacks are in South Africa. In Rus sia, there can be no Desmond Tutus and “fact-Finding” trips by Jesse Jackson and Edward Kennedy to identify cruelties. This never would be allowed. But then, such anti-apartheiders insist that we must not offend the Russians — we must be friends with Russia. Other countries’ anti-apartheiders, like Jackson and Kennedy, insist we must be more friendly with Nicaragua and Cuba, where religion, freedom of the press, and virtually every other civil right has been robbed from the people. Nicaragua and Cuba, as well as Russia, harshly oppress their own people and are professed aggressor nations. Yet, the anti-apartheid leaders have differ ent standards for them as opposed to South Africa. Today’s anti-apartheid leaders, according to their actions and words, apparently believe the following: • Only blacks (or at least those who would be minorities in the United States) are oppressed. • They are oppressed only by whites. • As long as it is a majoritw “socialist” government, it is good • Russia has nuclear weapons:^ fore we must be friends with Ri® 1 pecially now that the chiefbutcto 1 o-o friendly. • The United States is always*^ Many of today’s anti-apartheij ers (especially Jackson and M lums) are themselves racists. 11 nore the crimes of some and} support many who havecommiq very crimes they condemn. Theq ers must believe only whites are! at least such crimes are bad 0^1 two different races are involved. | I think President Reagan’s) condemning the actions of all] sive nations while trying to' peaceful and friendly with much more consistent and rigl the policy of sucking up to theR on the one hand while fomentin lution and fanning the flamesit' Africa on the other. Theantia| movement just falls on itsfacetdq recognizes the inconsistencies. So, if you are a serious an heider, be consistent and cart)] protecting Russia, Cuba, iff Zimbabwe, Angola and Mi well. Then I will be proud tojoiii! i | J. Byron Scblomach is a gndf dent in economics.