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governor Evan Mecham rescinded the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