Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 19, 1990)
Monday, November 19, 1990 •OPINION* 2 Opinion Page Editor Ellen Hobbs 845-331 Don’t broadcast yell on radio stations Radio stations should not broadcast yell practices. Some local radio stations broadcast yell practices quite fre quently, and, with the arrival of bonfire, we can be sure that many local radio stations will be jumping on the live-from-yell- practice bandwagon. It’s a waste of time and money. The poor sound quality doesn't do justice to the Aggie Band, and the yells are totally unintelligible. If a television station wants to broadcast from bonfire, that’s great. There’s a big fire to look at, and it’s a special occasion. But you can’t see bonfire on the radio. The radio stations should just tape the people who speak at bonfire and play it later, when the people who were there and couldn’t hear what they were saying might be listening. And broadcasting a regular Thursday or midnight yell is lu dicrous. The real excitement of yell practice comes from being there, not listening to it. Face it — if we wanted to hear a yell practice, we’d be there. If the radio stations trying to get those of us in our cars and at home to turn the dial to a new station, they’ve found an efficient way to do it. The Battalion Editorial Board NFL defeated Arizona MLK day On November 6, Arizona voters rejected a proposed paid state holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King. Big deal, huh? Most of America pictures Arizona as that big barren state with cacti and road runners streaking from hapless coyotes. Those people are supposed to be backwards. In the process of rejecting the holiday, they also rejected $225 million that would have been generated by the Super Bowl. In the mold of Jimmy Carter’s decision to boycott the 1980 Olympics to express his discontent with the Soviet Union’s foreign policy, the National Football League is showing that it too can use athletics to try to prove a political point. Actually, it used blackmail. And it backfired. Arizona has had problems with this holiday for quite a while. More than two years have passed since former governor Evan Mecham rescinded the King holiday. Oh well, he eventually got the boot for misusing state funds. Since then, the holiday has been a recurring topic in Arizona newspapers and in dinner-time chatter. CBS Sports ran a report on the Sunday before the election which let it be known that the NFL would move the Super Bowl from its proposed site in Phoenix to another state if the voters rejected the King holiday. A poll commissioned by the MLK Better America Committee found that 60,000 voters who were going to vote for the holiday decided to vote “no” after they found out about the CBS report. The holiday lost by 17,226 votes. Why is the NFL using blackmail to try to prove its point? Arizona is one of the last strongholds of the rugged individualists, those don’t-mess-with-us- and-we-won’t-mess-with-you types. It is sad that the holiday was rejected, but it gives me a sense of pride in the Arizona voters for not giving in to the NFL’s ploy for the holiday. Though impractical — I drove through Arizona this summer and, if any state could use $225 million, Arizona certainly can- they did not want anyone telling the® what to do. The NFL defeated the Kingholkb For some Arizona voters the issue* the legitimacy of Dr. King as a figuret merit. The NFL gave the added incentive to those voters who were no; fully committed to the holiday. Rober, Rose, a Phoenix accountant, led a statewide campaign against the holidi “We honestly don’t believe ourkidi and grandkids should revere himasi national hero,” Rose said. Thefactik Dr. King allegedly plagiarized portiot. of his doctoral dissertation does not dispute his claim. For me, the issue is not whetherDt King is worthy of a holiday. Every®! have ever visited, with more than two stoplights, has at least one Dr. Martin Luther King Drive somewhere within confines. If for no other reason, King deserves a holiday for being so revert; by people across the country. The issue is that the NFL has overstepped its bounds and, in the process, defeated the measure it was seemingly so concerned about. Matt McBumett is a senior electrici engineering major. IMail Calll No sympathy for Jack and Dianne EDITOR: I am writing in response to Irwin Tang’s column in the November 8 issue of The Battalion. If “Jack and Dianne” have so much difficulty simply making ends meet, what business do they have bringing children into the world in the first place? Have they not heard of contraception? Surely a $5 box of condoms is less of a financial burden than the expense of having a child. If contraception fails, and abortion is not a viable option for religious or other reasons, why not put the baby up for adoption? In most cases, the adopting family agrees to assume the cost of any medical expenses associated with the birth of the child. I can understand your friends’ desire to have children, but it is extremely selfish and unfair to have a baby if you are not financially capable. When peo ple have children, they should do so with the best interests of the child in mind. Scraping by on handouts from social welfare is certainly not fair to the child as time progresses. WIG is indeed a noble program, but why should we as taxpayers have to foot the bill for Jack and Dianne’s carelessness and irresponsibility? Sorry, but no sympathy for Jack and Dianne from me. David B. Helms ’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 arul must include the classification, address and telephone number of the writer. Morals won’t let Bush start war to lower gas prices In the Nov. 6 edition of The Battalion, you published a column entitled “How many people will die for cheaper gasoline?” by Patrick Nolan, columnist. In his column, Mr. Nolan makes several assertions and implications that need to be refuted. He says, for instance, that “Every American who drives a car, rides a bus, ... etc., knows that the sole purpose of the American deployment in the Persian Gulf is based entirely on the realization that oil is a necessity in Twentieth Century America.” Nolan then accuses President Bush of “justifying the potential sacrifice of American troops” by saying that we are containing the aggressive nature of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Nolan, I am an American, and I drive a car and do all of those other things which you mentioned. I do not, however, know that our troops are in the Persian Gulf merely to “be sacrificed for reasonable gasoline prices,” and I Wallace L. Reed Reader’s Opinion feel sure that millions of other Americans do not know this either. What a terrible thing to accuse your president of! It shows cynicism on your part that is beyond my comprehension. Do you know President Bush, Mr. Nolan? Do you know him personally? Well, I do. I have known and worked with him in business for over thirty years. You will not find a kinder, more moral individual than George Bush, nor one who is more concerned with the well-being of his fellow man. I can relate to you countless instances when George Bush suffered personal discomfort so that others might be more comfortable, when he made sacrifices for the sole benefit of others, and when he demonstrated by his every action and deed that he places the well-being of others above his own. This man is no murderer, and he would never send Americans to die for “cheaper gasoline.” That I know! You may disagree with him politically, and you may question some of his decisions. That is your right and your privilege. You may not, however, question his morals. Not if you know the man. Men like Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to continue their aggression against weaker countries. By your own admission he has built the fifth largest military force in the world. Hussein has already demonstrated his willingness to use chemical warfare on his own people, and by the best informed estimates he is only five years away, perhaps less, from having nuclear bombs in his arsenal. With an avowed goal of “bringing all Arab countries together under one rule” (guess whose rule), and with the wealth acquired from Kuwait, how large do you think his military force might be in a few years? With his record of supporting terrorism, do you think he would hesitate to use his full might on any nation, even ours, when the time is right? The cost of stopping him will be high, certainly, but the cost of stopping him later, if it is even possible, will be much higher. As for cheaper gasoline, I haven’t found any. Everywhere I shop it seems to have increased in price since our deployment of troops. If war does begin, financial analysts are predicting that oil will rise in price to $75, perhaps $100, per barrel. That means $3 per gallon gasoline. With the possible destruction of refining and producing facilities in the Persian Gulf, no one is willing to predict where the price might end. President Bush knows that. How, then, couldk be sending troops to “ensure cheaper gasoline prices?” Until someone can offer convincing proof to the contrary, I will take the word of President Bush as to whyour troops are in the Persian Gulf. Bush fought as a fighter pilot in World War II as a result of nations' averting their eyes to Hitler’s early aggressions. He knows, firsthand, where appeasement leads, and he knows the horrors of war. His was not an easy decision to make, and I know that he agonized over it. As trite as it may sound to you, Mr ; Nolan, I believe that President Bush took the only course of action whichh| felt would have the best chance of ensuring continued freedom for yon me, and all other free peoples. Wallace L. Reed is a lecturer in Developmental Mathematics in the Academic Skills Program. 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- Collejje 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 $50 per full year: 845-2611. Advertising rates fur nished on request: 845-2696. Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col lege Station, TX 77843-1111. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station TX 77843-4 111. Adventures In Cartooning by Don Atkinson Ji 17{ TftBUTt 75 l imujflwunJ ’Quo., &> Avow /rs Ooo Uff> To too! * to m TWe of'G(/ii.uov know rr$ TRue." Ooi tuidoot... Epbv, SiieeD’s DoAzrCflsrft flSOUW-; \fle Meev Mm M