The Battalion
OPINION
Tuesday, July 10,1990
Two Live Crew album
truly vile and obscene
In his last column, Colin Moss
criticized “super conservatives in
Florida” for banning the sale of Two
Live Crew albums because they contain
bawdy language, and characterized us
as a “closed-minded society” for
reacting as we have. Framing the issue
in this manner is a gross
misrepresentation of the facts.
The album in question has not been
banned simply because it contains
profanity or offensive words as Moss
would have us believe. The record is
truly vile and deserves to be treated like
any other obscene material. Because of
it, we have thousands of high school
(and younger) age kids singing about
the joys of damaging a girl’s vagina
during sex, or forcing anal sex on a girl
and then forcing her to lick excrement.
(You probably haven’t heard this on
TV.) These lyrics are more than just
dirty words, Mr. Moss.
But the fact that so many people rush
to defend the mass production and sale
of this Filth as constitutionally protected
free speech is even more disturbing
than the album itself. Decent people
with a firm belief in what is right and
wrong are overshadowed by the growth
of dubious constitutional arguments.
These arguments stifle the initiatives
needed to remove this obscene material
from the malls and record stores and
put it where it belongs: in the XXX
video (audio?) shops.
Another salvo of “save Two Live
Crew” arguments emanate from certain
members of the liberal intelligentsia
who seek to turn this into a racial issue.
Henry Louis Gates of Duke
University, for instance, makes the case
that black culture has characteristics and
styles that whites can’t understand. This
Stephen
Beck
Reader’s Opinion
argument leads to the attack that those
who support the Florida judge’s
decision are just racists who are more
interested in suppressing black culture
than maintaining some modicum of
decency in our society.
But then again, it’s probably too late
anyway. The rapid decay of our system
of values, the demoralizing t elativism
that accompanies it, and our inability to
pass on what little there is left to the
next generation is reflected every day
across the country in the countless acts
of unthinking brutality and callous
indifference to human suffering that
would have horrified even the hardiest
souls in a not too distant past.
Moss asserted that there is no real
harm done in the promulgation of this
type of entertainment material which
celebrates violence (against women in
this case). I disagree. The cycles of
decay that are afflicting us are a
feedback process. The success of one
wave of desensitization paves the way
for an even more depraved reality.
There may be hope yet, but certainly
not if we as a society lack the moral
resolve to demand that this “music,”
extolling the virtues of degrading sex
acts and the infliction of pain upon
women, should not be packaged and
peddled to children as entertainment.
This small thing 1 hope we can
accomplish.
It’s not much, but it’s a start.
Stephen Beck is a senior electrical
engineering major.
Liberals use ‘newspeak’ to
become more appealing
By now, I’m sure most of you have
read “1984” by George Orwell. Or, if
the studies done on such things are
correct in telling us that the population
as a whole and the youth in particular
are favoring videos over the “chore” of
having to read, perhaps you have “seen
the movie.”
Do you remember the term
“newspeak?”
Now we have a new and improved
newspeak, thanks to the communist
government of the Soviet Union. Words
such as “communism,” “fascism” and
“imperialism” have been redefined to
reflect a more favorable light on Soviet
political goals.
There are certain liberal Democrats
using the power of this new'speak to
make themselves appear more
appealing to the public eye. Let’s take
Senator Ed Kennedy (D-Mass.). He says
his party must search for “new
approaches” (not new ideas, please
note) to the needs of the country. “We
canno^and should not depend on
higher taxes to roll in and redeem every
costly program. Those of us who care
about ‘domestic progress’ must do more
with less,” said Kennedy.
Well, Mr. Kennedy, I think the true
test will come when you suggest just who
will have to do more with less. I will
enjoy seeing you stand up to those
demonstrators when you suggest
cutting welfare or reducing funding to
Planned Parenthood or tightening
immigration laws, or any of the other
issues near and dear to the hearts of
liberals. If Kennedy is going to indulge
in euphemisms, then the rest of us will
Gary
Gaither
Reader’s Opinion
need a glossary to know what is actually
being said.
Here are some samples of liberal
“new newspeak” and a glossary to help
you understand this new wave of
euphemisms:
• FOLERANT: person who is
willing to accept any form of behavior,
because there is no standard of right or
wrong (except their own).
• DIVERSITY: close relative of
“tolerance.” If you are tolerant, then
you can appreciate diversity, such as
adultery, homosexual behavior, wife
beating, etc.
• THE FIRST AMENDMENT: that
part of the Constitution which protects
liberals so that they may publish, write,
broadcast anything (however no such
amendment is available for the
conservatives).
• PLURALISM: here is the newest
of the modern catch-phrase, the process
by which one gives in to a liberal if there
is a disagreement. This process is not
reversible. If one tries, he is anti-
pluralistic.
There will be more, to be sure. The
liberal left is in dire political straits at the
moment, and they need every ploy
available to gain ground lost in the past.
So the next time you hear one of
them speak, wonder as to which
dictionary they are using.
Gary Gaither is a staff member in the
agricultural education department.
2
Opinion Page Editor Damon Arhos
845-3
Court made ‘realistic’ decision
EDITOR:
This letter' is concerning Monique Threadgill’s “New
court ruling on euthanasia unrealistic” article. She missed
the point.
She stated the ruling correctly, “that the artificial ad
ministration of nutrients cannot be cut off to a person in a
vegetative state without convincing evidence that the pa
tient wants to die.” However, she elaborated on another
subject — comatose persons being kept alive by machines.
The Supreme Court’s ruling dealt with “nutrients,” not
“machines” (food and water not heart/lung machines). A
comatose person that cannot communicate but can breathe
and that has a heartbeat and bi aiq waves can no longer be
starved to death! Why is this unrealistic?--
A person in a coma may be aware of what’s going on
around him, but has no control of his body. Many patients
in a so-called “permanent” vegetative state have recovered.
Before this decision, some of these people were frequently
being legally starved to death in the name of compassion!
Who are we being compassionate to? Ourselves, that’s
who! We see someone struggling for their life, but it is too
much for us to take so we get rid of what’s bothering us.
Since when is our right to life dependent on whether we
are wanted or not?
We see sick, old or disabled people and we decide that
their family is suffering too much so we want to starve the
sick, old or disabled person to death? What happened to
taking care of our family and our elders?
Thank God that the Supreme Court made a realistic
decision.
would be refreshing to hear the voice of Biko perhaps.
Biko testified in a South African court that violenct
should only be used if all political means were exhausted
Unfortunately, Biko is dead now. With a little research
anyone can create a list of appalling length of the leader*
killed by the South African government.
The fact of the matter is, it is a surprise that someoneas
moderate as Mandela leads the ANC. It’s a rare man who
can tolerate such oppression for so long and not advocate
complete warfare.
Think about it. Mandela looks like a saint compared to
some of the younger ANC leaders. 1 he number of peep
dead would be much higher, many of them white, if Man
dela had been killed instead of put iq. prison, and some
other man woidd lead the ANC.
Does any of this excuse the necklaemg? No. Does this
excuse Mandela in any way or make him a democratic
man? No. 1 he South Af rican government has a choice,
can deal with him, or it can deal with some of the mucli
more militant leaders. South Africa limited itschoicesto
Mandela’s long ago when it killed off the more peaceful
leaders who of fered bettei ways to end apartheid.
Chet Laughlin ’91
Rape, incest warrant choice
Michael Bradham ’88
Apartheid’s choices limited
EDITOR:
The title of Jon Beeler’s June 29th column makes the
bold statement that there are “better ways to end apartheid
than Mandela’s” methods.
However, nowhere in his column does he mention a
single alternative. Instead the column is devoted to show
ing that Mandela is a communist who favors violent ac
tions.
It is very easy for one to point a finger, like Beeler has,
and judge. In this case, I think I would even agree. Man
dela does seem to advocate violence and has communist
supporters.
But what about these options that were hinted at?
Where are the other opposition leaders from outside of the
ANG who would lead the “non-whites” to a solution to
apartheid? I can tell you where they are, and the blacks in
South Africa can point you to the very spots where they
are: six feet under.
Beeler is right. One does not have to meet violence with
violence. The government of South Africa has seen fit to
kill off such moderate voices over the last 20 years. It
EDITOR:
Imagine a woman of 38 years wot king diligently athei
downtown of fice. At 9 p.m. her husband worriedly calk
but she assures him she will be home in 30 minutes. Assk
enters the parking garage, a man grabs her and forceshet
into a van, brutally raping her.
After months of physical and mental pain, the babyii
born. This is certainly a welcome occasion to any family of
a rape victim.
I can’t imagine the pain and suffering a rape Victim
goes through. No one can. And as if the suffering isni
enough, Louisiana wanted to make abortion illegal incase
of rape or incest. Sounds pretty ethical let me — whataboui
your
If we can’t persuade courts to fully legalize abortion ill
cases of rape or incest — what next? Possibly visitation
rights for the rapist? Maybe even adopt a rapist? It could
be hereditary, who knows? The press deemed the Loui
siana bill as the toughest abortion bill proposed.
I’d settle for calling it “stupid.”
C
By J/
OfTh
Th
Tran
ridinj
Tli
ers t:
Hasw
Th
upal
of the
Th
fora
Th
June
sumn
Jared Kaiser ’93
Have an opinion? Express it!
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. 1'he editorials^
serves the right to edit letters for style and length, hut will make every effort ton
tain the author's intent. There is no guarantee that letters submitted wij
printed. Each letter must he signed and must include the classification, addrtuA
telephone number of the writer. All letters may he brought to 216 ReedMcDw
or sent to Campus Mail Stop 1111.
1
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
Associated Collegiate Press
The Battalion Editorial Board
Monique Threadgill,
Editor
Melissa Naumann,
Managing Editor
Damon Arhos,
Opinion Page Editor
Holly Becka, City Editor
Meg Reagan,
Lisa Ann Robertson,
News Editors
Clay Rasmussen, Sports Editor
Eric Roalson, Art Director
Todd Stone, Lifestyles Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-sup
porting newspaper operated as a commu
nity service to Texas A&M and Bryan-
College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion
are those of the editorial board or the au
thor, and do not necessarily represent the
opinions of Texas A&M administrators,
faculty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion is published Tuesday
through Friday during Texas A&M sum
mer semesters, except for holiday and ex
amination periods.
Mail subscriptions are $20 per semes
ter, $40 per school year and $50 per full
year: 845-2611. Advertising rates fur
nished on request: 845-2696.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed
McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col
lege Station, TX 77843-1 111. Newsroom:
845-3313.
Second class postage paid at College
Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes
to The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald,
Texas A&M University, College Station
TX 77843-4111.
FAX
Toupots
jb a a
We Buy useo
E>ook<e>
W**T To htoHUtC.
Mt*r rut
You
—TtTgPlVr
by Brett Bridge mm
]*J€LLjT‘S
R Nfcrw e£>iT/o/s/
Wrfrf Lots oc=
EASV To Re AD
”0LOR. GRAP/l$V
U.S.fl TbDftY
MaksS Tfexr-
Boox.s?'?
X'ti, Hfll/e You
kdow Vjs DodT
Mflke bmV R/k/d
OF PRoFir OCF
lUe&G. USeo
Books.
Do You 9
LYiriO cRU
this Just|
Hogeye;
In
Tex
Ave