Thursday, February 1,1990
The Battalion
Page 3
Mail Call
Non-regs ‘tolerate’ Corps runs
EDITOR:
I address this letter to Corps Commander Poling and all
others in command of the Corps of Cadets, for they seem to
misunderstand our arguments concerning their unit runs.
While it may be true that most runs occur before 6:30
a.m., the simple fact that they occur often at other times dur
ing the day is cause for concern. Except for the late night and
early morning hours, the main campus commonly has moder
ate to heavy vehicle traffic. To say that these runs cause “little
interference with traffic” is absurd! Poling, you apparently
have never noticed the problems unit runs cause. First of all,
more often than not the units have at least 50 members and
occasionally more than one unit will run together. More im
portantly, it is not just a matter of a “few seconds” at an inter
section. Because the Corps members run down the middle of
the street, traffic problems arise at consecutive intersections
and on numerous adjacent streets. That “few seconds” can
and does cause serious congestion for minutes! This is not to
mention the numerous scheduling problems encountered by
the shuttle buses as a result of the congestion.
If the above argument does not sound convincing
enough, consider this: Would you and your cadets, or would
you not, be upset to encounter a stream of vehicles ap
proaching you on the sidewalk while you were in a hurry to
make some destination? It is likely that you would have a reac
tion similar to that of the 37,000 non-regs and numerous fac
ulty and staff when we find streams of cadets running in the
streets while we hurry to our destinations.
If the Corps of Cadets truly wishes to show consideration
and understanding, an alternative to running in the streets of
main campus should be found. For instance, the units could
conduct their drill practice on the jogging track, at Kyle Field,
or at Research Park. Of course, to get to any of these loca
tions, sidewalks should be used. Also, if the entire Corps must
run together, at least wait until the weekend, when there are
fewer vehicles on campus and no bus or class schedules with
which to interfere. As for our consideration and understand
ing, Poling, we have never been given a choice in this matter.
We have only tolerated the situation.
Chris McNees ’91
accompanied by 12 signatures
Complainers didn’t see movie
EDITOR:
By the sounds of it, those contemplating about the “X-ra
ted” movie shown by Aggie Cinema’s International Film Se
ries, didn’t see the movie. Yes, it was graphic in detail at times,
but viewers were forewarned. So what? The complainers,
who probably didn’t see the film, appear to be obsessed with
what appeared on the screen rather than the context, content
and meaning of the film. Many people may have gone to the
film because it was “X-rated.” If that is what they went for, I
don’t think they saw what they expected. To me, the film
showed, in rather striking terms, some of the complex diffi
culties occurring in relationships between men and women
(from an Italian viewpoint).
We live in a very complex age where interaction with
other cultures, for some people more than others, occurs on a
daily basis. We cannot afford to close ourselves off from other
cultural expressions. Wells doesn’t seem to care about other
cultural perspectives and seems to advocate shutting our
selves off from different viewpoints and ideas. If you want to
live in a purely moralistic state, try Iran, where extremely
conservative Koranic law prevails. I also wouldn’t advise Wells
to travel to many European beaches, especially in southern
France, where nudity is commonplace.
Those who disagreed with the movie expressed their free
dom of choice by not seeing it, and exercised their freedom of
speech in The Battalion. I happen to disagree with them,
which is my right, and support the showing of the film. I
think the graphic scenes helped express the emotions and
meanings presented by the film. I think most students have
good enough judgment to make a decision on the issue simply
by attending or not attending such events.
Peter Warnock
Graduate student
Sounds like censorship to me
EDITOR:
After reading Monday’s Mail Call, I was disgusted at the
hypocracy in Fred Well’s following statement about the film
of the Aggie Cinema: “I am not trying to ‘censor’ something
from someone ... if society does not set standards, people will
not know where the boundaries are.” Well, Fred, it sure
sounds like censorship to me, and like they say: If it looks like
a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck.
First of all, Aggie Cinema warned viewers of this “oh so
controversial” film’s content — which is more than what is
said about the “Nightmare on Elm Street” movies. In other
words, the film committee didn’t hunt people down with guns
and force them to view this movie. Instead, they chose to fore
warn movie patrons, and in turn, people decided for them
selves whether or not they wanted to view the movie.
I didn’t get a chance to see the movie, but to get to my
point, I’m glad I live in a country where I have the opportu
nity to make up my own mind for myself. In case you didn’t
know, in this country democracy has majority rule, but the
right of the minority is also secured.
Now if you believe society is too morally decadent then
that’s your right. But do not force standards that you consider
to be “moral” on me. I do believe there should be standards
because we as a country don’t need murderers and rapists
rampant, but your idea of morals is censorship. If sex was as
offensive as you feel, half the population or more wouldn’t
exist for fear of these sins of the flesh. Also, what kind of
analogy is there between speeding laws and moral standards?
Does society need carnal cops writing tickets for those remov
ing too much clothing in front of their partner? If that’s the
case, you’re going to have to make the nation into a prison
state. It’s this thought process that explains why over half the
states have sodomy laws.
If you are so concerned about achieving “moral purity,”
then let’s return to a puritan state and lock people up for for
nication under carnal knowledge and burn heretics and
witches. If you feel the need for censorship, go to the USSR
and see if you like not being able to express the opinion you
did. I think you need to appreciate the right to bitch before
you start bitching.
J. Rogers ’91
Metcalf unjustly rewarded
EDITOR:
After many years of watching Fine traditions die at Texas
A&M, the school has Finally managed to make me mad.
Shelby Metcalf is the epitome of Aggie character. This gen
tleman has earned the respect, gratitude and friendship of
students, players and alumni for many years. His outspoken
nature is consistent with his integrity.
MetcalFs dedication to Texas A&M should not have been
rewarded with dismissal. He should be reinstated immedi
ately.
I urge the association to be outspoken in this matter.
Shelby deserves our support.
Thomas B. White ’83
Abortion opinion was distorted
EDITOR:
Your article in the Jan. 23 issue was insulting to me and
probably many others, pro-life or pro-choice. This is a univer
sity newspaper. You are writing articles for people who like to
read an intelligent argument and to decide their beliefs on a
logical basis. They do not appreciate a simple-minded, name
calling generalization, even in an opinion column. In the First
place, your stereotypical image of a pro-lifer is grossly dis
torted. It is the equivalent of describing all pro-abortionists as
sexually irresponsible, sociopathic, atheistic savages. Did I
make you want to convert to being a pro-lifer by making such
an inflammatory accusation? The very thing that you accuse
the pro-lifers of is something of which you are guilty — intol
erance of others’ opinions. Your response is to viciously attack
the people who have an opposing opinion.
In the second place, what is the “danger?” Is the danger
that people might have to accept responsibility for the deci
sions or choices they make? Are you saying that people in
general are not intelligent enough to make use of the various
methods of birth control available? I have news for you: Be
ing against abortion does not also mean being against birth
control education. With the exception of a relatively few
cases, the woman has control over her body. She has the
choice of sex or abstinence and of whether or not to use birth
control. Does she have the right to end another human be
ing’s life just because she does not want to take responsibility
for her own actions?
Third and Finally, there is no need to even bring religion
into the argument. (It is better that way since people tend to
tailor religion to suit their fancies anyway.) We, the people of
the United States, decided that murder was unacceptable. To
get away from calling abortion murder, people come up with
rationalizations, such as the argument that life does not begin
at fertilization. They define life as beginning at some time
convenient for their own piece of mind without offering any
scientific justification.
I do not mind that people have dif ferent opinions, but I
do mind when people distort the opposing opinion. They
must not feel very confident about the basis for their own be
liefs. Worst of all, they are only hampering the possibility of
enlightenment for all sides of the issue and promoting intol
erance of other’s views. Now that IS dangerous.
Karen Wade
Grad student
MSC
PoYifica)
Forum
The Invasion of
PANAMA
Right or Wrong?
An analysis of Gen. Noriega's fall
from power by
Dr. Jonathan Brown
of the
nstitute for Latin American Studies
Thursday, February 1, 1990
•30 p.m., 301 Rudder
Free Admission
Reception to Follow
From Safety Pins to Supercolliders:
Since 1790, the Patent and Trademark Office
of the U.S. Department of Commerce has
fostered American ingenuity by encouraging
the invention of new technology. Whether it’s
the patent for a simple everyday device or the
patent for a technological breakthrough that
changes the way we look at the world, the
Patent and Trademark Office is the beginning
of all great American inventions.
Attend our group presentation
Thursday, February 1
6:00-8:00 PM
Room 214, Anderson Hall
You’ll learn about the following exciting oppor-
tunities in our Arlington, VA headquarters:
ENGINEERS
Applicants from all engineering disciplines will
be considered, though specific training in the
following areas is preferred:
Electrical & Electronic Engineers
You’ll help judge the patentability of inven
tions in such areas as photography, illumina
tion, radio, television, data processing systems
and many other ground-breaking areas. BSEE
and MS EE candidates preferred.
Mechanical Engineers
You’ll assist with the patentability judging of
inventions in such areas as aeronautics, motor
vehicles, tools, surgery, internal combustion
engines, and many other exciting areas. BSME
and MS ME candidates preferred.
Chemical Engineers
Take part in the patentability judging of inven
tions in such areas as petroleum chemistry.
metallurgy, plastics, fuels, medicines, molecular
biology, and many other important areas.
BSChE and MSChE candidates preferred.
SCIENTISTS
Opportunities for BS, MS, and PhD graduates
are available in the following fields:
Chemists, Biologists, Microbiologists
& Related Scientists
You’ll serve as an Examiner for inventions
relating to chemical or biotechnological pro
ducts or processes, including state-of-the-art
discoveries in new compounds, formulations,
or life forms. Biological scientists will examine
inventions involving recombinant DNA, cell
biology, immunology, and other areas.
Physicists
You’ll help judge the patentability of inven
tions in such areas as semiconductor physics,
radiant energy, atomic and nuclear physics,
lasers, and other breakthrough technologies.
Discover why we’re the patented force behind
American creativity. And find out how you can
help put ideas to work for America . . . and
your career. Come to our group presentation
on February 1 from 6:00-8:00 PM in Room
214, Anderson Hall and learn about our out
standing career ladder and other one-of-a-kind
benefits. If you’re unable to attend, please call
us toll-free at 800-368-3064 or send your
resume right away to: Manager, College Rela
tions, Office of Per
sonnel, Patent and
Trademark Office,
1CPK, Suite 700,
Washington, D.C.
20231. An equal
opportunity employer.
U.S. citizenship
required.
Op
v C Q*
g \ ^