t, 1992
ralski
Opinion
Friday, March 6 1992
The Battalion
Page 7
deeny
The Battalion Editorial Board
DOUGLAS FILS, Editor-in-Chief
The
Bahai ion
BRIDGET HARROW, Managing Editor
BRIAN BONEY, Opinion Editor
JASON MORRIS, Night News Editor
MORGAN JUDAY, Night News Editor
MACK HARRISON, City Editor
KARL STOLLEIS, Photo Editor
SCOTT WUDEL, Sports Editor
ROB NEWBERRY, Lifestyles Editor
The following opinions are a consensus of The Battalion opinion staff and senior editors.
VJh/ a/#T l£T TH(£ a/£4. SUV>SIVIZ6 ?
' ■puf 'S
i nI
I'M Afj A'RX\$ r /
| ^CT
Artistic welfare
Stop NEA grants to individuals
m! m 4
QKICKLA^eK 1 .
WMfPe'S HV
Hev! i'm a
miesr!
vji-iexe's at
snAize?
Hev! i'ha
flokisW
vdnrRe'5 mv'
I'M 4
■p7,OST\TlSV£f
WHeKC’S -MY
SH4lt6-7
lOvM/U
The recent firing of the director of
the National Endowment for the Arts
brings up the question of exactly what
purpose this organization serves.
Many Americans argue that they do
not want their tax money subsidizing
artists whose work they do not even
appreciate. Likewise, artists protest
that taking away funding for their
work is a form of censorship.
The federal government should
most certainly allow
grants for such things
as museums, ballet
companies,
symphonies and the
like. These are
I 8UCKY
asott!
organizations
providing a public
service on a large scale.
The individual artist
does not fit the same
description as a
museum or ballet
company, and not providing funding
for any one artist is no more a form of
censorship than not awarding a federal
grant to a Battalion columnist for
writing a column.
Instead of worrying about the
funding of these individuals, the NEA
should be more concerned with
making the arts more available to
people.
Much of the money now allocated
to museums, symphonies, etc., helps
keep ticket prices down. This is as it
should be.
Also, there are many private
foundations that need help in funding.
The NEA's leadership make sure they
have to funds necessary to keep less-
mainstream artists from floundering.
But the foundations should have the
final decision on what art is funded.
The existing panel that wields
ultimate control of
NEA funding consists
of artists and those
who have a place in
the art world. It is very
probable that in
response to the cries of
angry citizens who do
not approve of the art
their tax money is
funding, our
government will
replace the existing
panel with politicians who feel they
can adequately represent the people.
Having the same politicians who
balance our budget in such a position
would do nothing to alleviate the
controversy at hand.
The NEA should not be disbanded,
but it should refrain from the
subsidizing of individuals. No other
alternative will completely satisfy the
problem at hand.
e \ Remember Kuwait
1 donate
Ve some
strollers
?ason for
aoked.
it we also
ndo said,
ill's mem-
challenge
to do bet-
ie 5-K run
• Thoma-
cts
priced
es will
ulabili-
ly cost
e half-
e from
on the
3 from
>f meat
■hich is
at the
ith the
sold to
- open
dget of
r about
ley the
oration
2 more
? years
^ard
ital engi
1 intern*
d univet;
U.S. has interest in democracy there
With the recent first anniversary
celebration commemorating the end of
the Gulf War, America's attention has
once again been shifted to Kuwait.
The Kuwaiti government and its
leaders are now making use of the
freedom by holding elections for the
first time since the
country's parliament
was suspended in
1968.
At a National Day
rally held last week
in Kuwait, the crown
prince assured
thousands of
Kuwaitis that
communication
among the monarchy
and the Kuwaiti
government could
solve the country's problems.
He said that the monarchy opposes
a "democracy that destroys."
It is the responsibility of other
countries that have interests in
Kuwait, such as the United States, to
make sure the Kuwaiti monarch
fulfills his pledge. If they do not, they
will have thrown away one of the
reasons they fought to liberate the
emirate one year ago.
Before the emairate can gain full
appreciation of its freedom and
develop a cooperative government, a
properly elected government must be
reinstated. The publicizing of the
elections will improve the global
standing of the
country. \
The publicizing of
democratic elections
should be taken more
seriously by other
nations and by
leaders around the
world. The Bush
administration should
take a supportive and
vocal role in
supporting the
national elections in
Kuwait.
It owes it to our troops who fought
in the war to liberate Kuwait.
It is important that Bush support
the country in their democratic
reforms to show other nations that not
only does Kuwait have strong support
behind them, but also that it is
attempting to regain its status in the
world.
Gig voter apathy
If students want candidates to vote for, they first have to vote
Michael
Quinn
Sullivan
H owdy, Ags! I've gotta little
story for ya! (Whoop!)Well,
Ags, back in 'Ol Army days
Roc and Rochelle fell asleep in a boat
while at Mardi Gras. (Whoop!) When
they woke up, they were on a
deserted, uncharted island (Whoop!)
And they were ALL alone. Army!
(Whoop!) Well, pretty soon they got
rescued. (Whoop!) But instead of
leaving, they set up their own
country, called
Agland. (Whoop!)
It was a
democracy, Ags,
everyone could
vote! (Whoop!)
People came from
around the world
to live there.
Before you
knew it, people
became citizens
and everyone
voted! (Whoop!)
Everything was
going great. Army! Then, after a
while, the new wore off and people
stopped voting, in Agland. (Hiss!).
Not even half the people bothered to
vote, they were just too darn busy.
(Hiss!) The country started having
some problems and everyone blamed
President Roc. (Hiss!).
Then along came the election year.
Roc was up against some bad bull
people, Ags! (Hiss!). They were T.
Sip, B. Toad, S. Pony and R. Owl
(Hiss! Bad Bull!). That's right. Army,
BAD BULL is right!
And they were all complaining
about how bad things were and
wanted President Roc to know about
it. So a lot of people decided not to
vote for him, that way he'd do a
better job. (Hiss!) After all, they
figured everyone else would vote for
him. (Hiss!)
And guess what, Army, since only
about forty percent of the people
voted, and just about all of them
thought like that. President Roc lost!
(Hiss!) Even worse, Agland was now
run by President T. Sip! (Hiss! Bad
bull!)
Then you know what happened,
Ags? (What?) Everyone started
complaining. And I mean everyone,
even those who didn't vote. No one
could believe that T. Sip had been
elected. He was a racist, inbreed,
space cadet, reactionary JERK! (Hiss!)
Agland went to hell in a
handbasket faster than a greased pig!
(Hiss!)
Now everyone wanted Roc back,
but they were stuck with dang-old T.
Sip for four years. Four hard years.
Army. (Hiss!) Things got really bad,
Ags. Too bad to say in polite
company! (Hiss!)
But, everyone learned their lesson
and the next election came around.
This time, everyone founcj out about
the people running, and everyqhe — I
mean everyone— voted!'|Whoof»!)
And guess what. Army? (What?)
Agland had President Roc again and
everything got better and better!
(Whoop!)...
Okay, so maybe my first published
attempt at fiction/political humor is a
little corny. And, yes. I'm not yell
leader material (give me my
Sousaphone any day). But, you have
to admit, it is not all that far off base.
That's right. Agland, for those of
you who may not see the allegory, is
what our fair nation is today, and
could even become. It is sad, but true;
we have become an apathetic nation.
Maybe, as my esteemed colleague
said yesterday, it is because people
do not think the candidates know
what is important to them. And
whose fault is that? Guess what, the
candidates are not talking to the
people who do not vote, they are
talking to those who do. Their
demographics show them what the
real voters want to hear, and make
their platforms to suit.
For far to long we as citizens have
become content with not caring. Sure,
we all care enough to cuss-out
government policies. Say bad things
about the people running for
president. Maybe even write a nasty
and scathing letter to the editor in the
safety of our homes. But we do not
care enough to get up, research the
candidates, and go vote.
If you do not have the gumption to
go and vote, you really do not have
any business complaining about
anything. You had your chance to
voice your opinion when it matters
most, you blew it, so do not waste my
time with your armchair
commentary.
Perhaps the scariest thing this time
around is the Tm-mad-at-George-so-
I'm-gonna-vote-for-someone-else-to-
make-a-point mentality. Oh, sure, it's
not a new thing. But it is made all the
more poignant by who Bush's
competition is in the primary — Pat
Buchanan and David Duke. One is a
racist slime with Adolf Hitler
underroos, but which is which? You
can't tell the professional racist from
the hobbyist without a degree in fine
print reading. If you are planning on
voting for one of them on the basis of
telling G.H.W. Bush you are upset
with him, you had better be prepared
to have one of them win.
My argumentation and
composition class taught me to
always have an "urge to action" at
the end of a paper. Well, here is mine:
This weekend, use an hour or two of
the time you were planning on using
at the Chicken or sleeping or playing
football to find out where each of the
candidates in both parties stand on
various issues. Even our library has
that kind of stuff. Find a candidate
with whom you most agree. Then, on
Tuesday, go to the MSC or wherever
your voting precinct is, and vote in
that candidates' primary.
I close in the manner which I
started.
Beat the ever-livin', ever-lovin',
Fightin' Texas Aggie Band (Whoop!),
Fightin' Texas Aggie 12th Man
(Whoop), Fightin' Texas Aggie
Battalion (Whoop), Fightin' Texas
Aggie Class of '92 HELL outta voter
apathy!
Sullivan is a senior
English major
Mail Call
aware
sin is ii”'
but esp*
"At^
t to her*
-es in tl 1 *
-1 foreif
gker S3)'
intern*
rik that' 5
Gays sometimes
must use violence
The recent editorial on gay protest(Feb. 28)
raises some valid concerns about the actions of
ACT UP and Queer Nation. They are indeed
loud, crass, disruptive, disrespectful, destructive
and sometimes violent, and they make many
moderate gays and lesbians cringe over the
negative attention that they draw to our
community. However, you cannot expect a
blanket condemnation of ACT UP and Queer
Nation from us, because this is not the simple
and obvious moral choice that you represent in
your editorial.
For example, you mentioned that ACT UP and
Queer Nation plan acts of civil-disobedience at
the Republican Convention in Houston.
However, you did not explain that they are
conducting this action because the
administrations of Ronald Reagan and George
Bush have not responded promptly and
adequately to the AIDS crisis and need constant
prodding to tackle this crisis. The case of the
Food and Drug Administration illustrates this
problem well. In the early days of the epidemic,
AIDS activist, doctors, scientists, and
pharmaceutical companies were urging the FDA
to revise its protocols on the testing and
availability of new and experimental drugs for
the treatment of AIDS. However, the FDA
bureaucracy was slow to react, and people with
Human Immunodeficiency Virus and AIDS-
related diseases were access to drugs which may
have prolonged or improved the quality of their
life, or at the least contributed towards research
to find such drugs. ACT UP helped raise public
awareness of this problem by engaging in highly
media-visible acts of civil disobedience, which I
remind you is a traditional form of protests in
this country. No one was killed in these actions,
although a few heads(gay and lesbian ones) were
busted and some government offices were
disrupted and trashed during die-ins(ACT UP's
version of a sit-in), but the resultant public
attention and pressure forced the FDA to listen
and respond to the moderate AIDS activists and
their professional allies. Today, we have revised
FDA regulations which allow for faster testing
and approval of new drugs to fight AIDS(and
other diseases such as cancer), more liberal and
inclusive definitions of HIV, greater access to
clinical trials of experimental drugs and therapies
and the like.
So you see, ACT UP and Queer Nation pose a
complex moral problem for gays(and straights,
since they address issues that effect them),
because they require us to weigh their tactics and
public image against their purposes and
motivation. This problem has been argued in the
gay and lesbian community for a long time, and
we are split over it. Some gays and lesbian people
prefer to work peacefully through legislatures,
courts, schools, business, and institutions to
advance the cause of gay and lesbian civil rights,
and they deplore the radical and confrontational
approach of ACT UP and Queer Nation as
obnoxious and detrimental to that cause.
However, there are also some gays and lesbians
who feel that there may be times when it is
necessary to engage in civil disobedience to catch
the attention of a recalcitrant government, or to
fight for your beliefs and freedoms, and they say
"right on!" to our more radical brothers and
sisters.
Jim Mazzullo
Faculty Adviser,
Gay & Lesbian Student Services
Have an opinion?
Express it!
The Battalion is interested in
hearing from its readers.
All letters are welcome.
Letters must be signed and must
include classification, address and
a daytime phone number for
verification purposes. They should
be 250 words or less. Anonymous
letters will not be published.
The Battalion reserves the right
to edit all letters for length, style
and accuracy. There is no
guarantee the letters will appear.
Letters may be brought to 013
Reed McDonald, sent to Campus
Mail Stop 1111 or can be faxed to
845-2647.