The Battalion
OPINION
Tuesday, October 2, 1990
Opinion Page Editor
Ellen Hobbs
845-33!
Souter opposition too late
to make court more liberal
The Supreme Court convened yesterday for
the start of the new judicial session, and with
David Souter’s nomination just about assured, this
Court could prove to be the one Ronald Reagan
was dreaming of when he took office in 1981.
Historians have noted that a president’s most
enduring legacy is often his appointments to the
Supreme Court. This is obvious when one realizes
justices that Presidents Kennedy and Johnson
appointed are still serving.
Realizing this, most feminist groups along with
minority interest groups and labor leaders have
been denouncing Bush since his nomination of
Souter for the vacated position on the Supreme
Court. Although not very revealing in his views,
Souter is thought to be conservative as far as
judicial ideology is concerned.
Vowing never again to vote Republican, these
aforementioned groups are doing everything in
their power to read Souter’s mind in an attempt to
find out how he feels on such controversial issues
as affirmative action, separation of church and
state, and abortion.
Fearing that Souter could be the justice that
gives the present conservatives on the Court a
vote they have been denied, the groups opposed
to Souter are blaming Bush for seeking to draw
the line on civil liberties that have seen great
progress since the mid-60s.
If they haven’t already realized, their
opposition to Souter is too little too late. These
“johnny-come-latelies” to the liberal cause are
doing nothing for their respective groups but
making them look like a bunch of juveniles who
expect the courts to protect their causes.
Where was this outpouring of concern when
Reagan was running for President in 1980? Were
they so short-sighted as to think that Reagan’s
conservative ideals wouldn’t carry over to his
judicial appointments? For them to think that
Reagan would hold the line on taxes and at the
same time appoint liberal jurists demonstrates
their political simplicity.
This weak attempt at organized opposition to
Patrick
Columnist
Nolan
Souter is delaying the inevitable — what’s done is
done. If these groups are concerned with the
direction the Supreme Court has been heading
during the 1980s, they should channel their effort
to electing national leaders that agree with their
judicial philosophy.
• These groups in opposition to Souter seem to
be surprised that the liberals on the Court are
becoming rarer. Yet Souter is the latest
conservative appointed to the Court, not the first.
And he by himself can’t change the direction of
the Court; these worried groups should have been
a bit more vocal in their opposition to Antonin
Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony
Kennedy.
Where was the feminist opposition to
O’Connor when her nomination proceedings
were being conducted? Nowhere. The feminists
were so brimming with glee at the token woman
appointment that they suddenly forgot about
ideology. The effects of this strategic blunder
remains to be seen, but O’Connor, along with the
rest of her comrades, has the potential to
invalidate feminist advances that we have seen in
the last 20 years.
Apparently, the interest groups concerned with
the direction of the Court were so intoxicated with
Reagan’s feel-good elixirs concerning other
issues, they forgot about the president’s judicial
appointment power.
In all fairness, however, there has always been a
noble minority in opposition to Reagan’s social
agenda from the beginning, and these people
should be applauded for their foresight.
But for those folks who have just realized the
beating that civil liberties could take under a
conservative Court, your feeble opposition is akin
to shutting the barn door after the horses are out.
Patrick Nolan is a senior political science major.
PTTS, get new uniforms
Imagine this:
You’ve been mistaken for a
drug importer who worked for a
Mafia boss in 1977. It’s time for
that importer to be rubbed out,
and the assassin is after you.
He finds you in the library
and comes after you, chasing you
out of the building and pursuing
you across campus. You run into
a parking lot and see someone
who can help you: he’s wearing a
blue uniform shirt, dark pants
and a badge.
“Ha!” you say to your would-
be assassin. “You can’t get me
now! I’ve found a police officer!”
“That’s no police officer, that’s
just one of those people who give
parking tickets,” says the assassin
as he puts the gun to your head.
OK, so that’s a pretty
ridiculous scenario, but it
illustrates my point. Those
Parking, Transit and Traffic
employees who give parking
tickets are wearing the uniforms
of security officers, and they
don’t have any business wearing
them.
A few semesters ago, the
University Police Department
gave up the chore of giving
parking tickets and decided to
stick with real criminal activity.
Now they are connected with
ticketing car owners for only
moving violations. The duty of
ticketing parking violators was
given to PTTS.
But the PTTS has taken its
authority a bit too far. It clothed
its employees who give the
tickets with the uniforms and
badges of security officers.
It could be argued, I suppose,
JPlBk ^ Sm
Ellen
Hobbs
Opinion Page Editor
that the uniforms give those
employees recognizable
authority — we see the uniform,
and we know that those people
are authorized by the powers
that be to give parking tickets.
And those people do have
power and authority that we
must recognize. If we get a ticket
from one of them, we may be
blocked from registration or
graduation, and we are forced to
take care of our ticket.
But frankly, they don’t
deserve to wear the uniform and
badge of a security officer.
Uniforms carry a lot of
meaning. Just ask anybody in the
Corps of Cadets. They wear
uniforms and decorations that
show the training they’ve had
and the achievements they’ve
made. Postal employees wear
postal uniforms because they
have taken tests and have been
trained to perform the duties of
a postal worker. Chefs wear
chefs’ hats because they’ve gone
to school and have been trained
as chefs.
Police and security officers are
trained to protect and serve, and
they are employed to perform
those duties. That’s why they
wear the recogized police
uniform. So why are PTTS
employees walking around
campus looking like thecastol
“Hill Street Blues?”
This isn't only a breach of
uniform etiquette, but it confn
people who don’t realize that
PTTS gives the parking ticket!
Complaints, questions and
contempt that should be direct
toward PTTS end up being
to UPD instead because the
people who give parking ticket
are wearing police uniforms,
ByS
OfTI
The ensuing confusion is
inconvenient for the UPD and
for the people who get tickets-
ask anyone who has walkedall
the way over to one side of
campus to the UPD officeonln
be told they have to walkalltlit
way over to the other side of
campus to the PTTS officetos
questions about their tickets,
Why not just avoid the
problem and quit suiting the
PTTS ticketers up like police
officers? Almost any
othergeneric uniform woulddtl
—with a patch and I.D. card,
maybe, instead of a badge.
In
and'
tries,
pula
Di
of i
abou
day
rang
B<
worl
year
ute.
B<
worl
ence
"V
essai
carr;
proc
A different uniform would
still give the ticketers the
authority they need to do the
jobs and allow the UPD officer!
(they’re the ones in the black
police uniforms) to retain the
respect and authority they
deserve.
The PTTS people don’t m
to dress up and play like they'd
police officers to give parking
tickets. Don’t give them more
credit than they deserve.
Ellen Hobbs is a senior
journalism major.
Bikers, stay off the sidewalks
EDITOR:
This is in response to the letter of Jesse Spears in the Sep
tember 24 issue of The Battalion. I’m glad to see that at least
one biker knows the traffic rules concerning bike riding.
Like Jesse said, “bike riders must obey all traffic rules.”
This does not only apply to riding on the streets but NOT rid
ing on the sidewalks. Since when have cyclists had the right of
way on the sidewalk? There are many times as a pedestrian I
have been asked to move out of the way on a sidewalk to allow
a cyclist to get by. If I’m not mistaken the people allowed on
sidewalks are pedestrians and wheelchairs. It has been my un
derstanding that if a cyclist used the sidewalk he/she would
have to walk their bike, unless cycling on that pathway is al
lowed by traffic rules (this is very rare).
Of course this brings up the whole subject of what cyclists
should and shouldn’t do. Cyclists should; ride on the road
way, stop at stop signs (drivers cannot interpret your actions if
you don’t), maintain their position on the road (do not swerve
out without signaling or looking). Cyclists should NOT; use
the sidewalk when the traffic gets thick, nor jump onto the
sidewalk to avoid stopping, nor ride off the sidewalk onto the
road (because you shouldn’t be on the sidewalk anyway).
Maybe you think I’m a snob because I have a car and I
think I own the road. However, if I cannot interpret a cyclist’s
actions that is how I will come across. I cannot read a cyclist’s
mind.
I’m sorry that you have to get off the seat of the bike and
remove your feet from the pedals to come to a stop. Unless
you do I cannot assume you have any intelligence and you are
also illiterate. Coasting through a STOP sign is against the law
for both cars and bikes. I won’t give you the room you need
on the road if you do not act like a responsible cyclist; and I
will cut you off if you run a stop sign; and I will honk if you
disobey the law; and I will continue on my immediate path if I
cannot understand (not guess) what your actions are. I truly
hope you inconsiderate cyclists don’t get injured for your im
proper actions. I’m not that vindictive, but I hope you can see
my point of view.
Harriet Shannon, ’88
Graduate Student
i„ 4- * mr
Low-level waste is a high-level risk
EDITOR:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may
soon deregulate a large share of the nation’s so-called “low-
level” radioactive waste as “Below Regulatory Concern”
(BRC).
“Low-level” waste is actually highly radioactive, and is not
a “low-level” risk to public health. BRC materials are disposed
into ordinary landfills and sewers, or by incineration, which
could allow radioactivity to escape into the soil, groundwater,
air and the food chain.
The NRC is also considering an expanded version of BRC
known as “Exempt from Regulatory Control” (ERC). ERC ra
dioactive material would be recycled into materials used by
the public. This would mean higher levels of radioactivity in
consumer products, the release of contaminated land and
buildings for unrestricted public use, and the disposal of ra
dioactive material into the water.
What’s behind this full-moon lunacy? Quite simply, the
government does not know what to do with “low-level” radio
active waste, and for a very good reason: there is nothing that
can be done with it. Instead of admitting this fact, the govern
ment has tried to “linguistically detoxify” the waste, in an un
precedented reversal of current policy.
In July, 1990, Congressman George Miller said, “The
BRC is fatally flawed in many respects ... . It would be vir
tually impossible for the NRC to keep track of BRC wastes
once they are deregulated ... there is a growing scientific con
sensus that low-level radiation is far more hazardous than
previously thought ... . Under this policy, the NRC has the
ability to override any state or local laws and ordinances that
prohibit the disposal of BRC wastes in ordinary landfills.”
Congressman Joe Barton has publicly stated his support
for this policy. The SSC would generate 65,000 cubic feet per
year of “low-level” waste. The Comanche Peak nuclear power
plant, which would provide electricity to the SSC, will also
generate radioactive waste during its operation, and consider
ably more when it is eventually decommissioned.
Only one of the three existing “low-level” radioactive
waste sites in the U.S. will be open by 1992. Joe Barton needs
the BRC exemption in order for his SSC to go through.
If you do not want the College Station and Bryan land
fills, and other ordinary landfills like it around the country to
become glow-in-the-dark dumps, let your elected officials
know today.
Michael Worsham
graduate student
Batt folks are good Ags
EDITOR:
I wish to thank you. The Battalion is my main source of
news. The Battalion keeps me informed over local and world
events and provides a stress reliever through the comics. As
classes have progressed, I haven’t found time to grab a seat in
the TV lounge anymore, and reading the Battalion is my way
of keeping up with current events.
I would also in particular like to thank Chris Vaughn, a
member of the Battalion staff. I am taking a Mass Media class,
and for my term paper, I am covering the Texas economy. I
have been keeping newspaper clippings of any articles per
taining to my topic. Within the last week, we were assigned to
contact groups associated with our topic for a lab project.
Since I was not lucky enough to know of a club like Aggie
Economists, I felt discouraged. I thumbed through my clip
pings and noticed that one was from the Battalion. Chris was
noted as the writer, so I called him. He wasn’t home, but I left
a message for him to return my call. Not only did he return
my call, but he saved my lab project by giving me some possi
ble sources. I love that Aggie Spirit!
spe
Cristy Ecton ’94
Have an opinion? Express it!
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. There is no guarantee that letters submitted will be printed. Each
letter must be signed and must include the classification, address and telephone number
of the writer. All letters may be brought to 216 Reed McDonald, or sent to Campus
Mail Stop 1111.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Cindy McMillian,
Editor
Timm Doolen, Managing Editor
Ellen Hobbs, Opinion Page Editor
Holly Becka, City Editor
Kathy Cox,
Kristin North,
News Editors
Nadja Sabawala,
Sports Editor
Eric Roalson, Art Director
Lisa Ann Robertson,
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-
Colle^e 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 Monday
through Friday during Texas A&M regu
lar semesters, except for holiday and ex
amination periods. Newsroom: 845-3313.
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 77843-1111.
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.
Adventures In Cartooning
i TEXftS RM CftMPUS... I
l emu M0MIH3. f -■ J
/ me com of colas I
I ear megmsr... {—‘
by Don Atkinson I
{...om> mas
f CRUS-
HOJJO? MTiM?
\NU5M m WO rJ
GOING 70 F(R£ j
Tfrflr comic f
omouisr?