f
October!
asc
d they wer f
ic an-macM
emanufacJ
Sa ys theAli
‘8 and isnj
^xas jur
lawyer
enting Lei
for Texas";
corporate;
fety."
to theSup,
>d, "An ill*
1 the Texas li
hen son;
g< not tl
outcome oii
ness com®.
>ng "cynid
y Will picl
ve home ml
>auvinisticii(
oreigner; ;p
s courts."
>ute
;sued
program ia:
es.
mployeesde
'ights, twice!
Employees i
ceive prizes!
nts, said Ali
iy's intellect
is by US.™
Japanese fin
ecent vears,i
I Nikkei Wa
se is tl
favor of pal
st. Withgra
J.S. compea
frequently!
raticaily goi
Monday, October 5,1992
lectronicsH
;er basic tec
:sts
>uif
ed authonf
nd secorifc
Taking sides:
Should the European Community
ratify the Maastricht Treaty?
By ANTOINE MONTEILS
By IGOR CARRON
as
ver again
g as Tex#
it was an A
ther scholas
to
expect to
:sses.
■ge award o
e a boon 1
y has posief
apt onesino
• pressure I 1
on debt an!
i program *
Colombia,
d really b
says Jo
for Lehmai
ants, Siegd
e limited d
e in Florid*
arrenderini
and illeg*!
?ral civil at
o, has
divorce l> Ji
t the sizee
parent com
trie Corf
me 500 an
,0 billion 1
lined by 31
lysts say.
list
exas
million, tl 1
erot is tl 1
d Electron 11
ling ED5 (
84 for $2.
new co®
-iv in
d his faDj
next vm
The European Community began in
1957 with the Treaty of Rome. The
European monetary system (1979) and
the future single market of 1993 create
the base for an economic and monetary
union.
According to the Maastricht Treaty, a
single currency and a common central
bank should be operating in Europe by
the end of the century. The treaty will
also legislate European citizenship and
will organize closer cooperation among
member states on foreign policy.
While the ultimate goal is to create
the "United States of Europe," the
agreement represents only one stage
and is still far from a federal structure.
Decisions are made by the Council of
Ministers of all 12 countries, and the
most important policy decisions require
unanimous approval. The Brussels
Commission, often accused of power
abuse, is in reality only the executive
arm of the council. Finally, the Court of
Justice controls the whole and protects
the citizen.
Maastricht is a step — an important
one - toward closer European
integration. This integration lies behind
the dream of a wdrfd without borders
where peace would be eternally
secured. It is also supported by some
"realpolitik" justifications.
The treaty provides increased
economic efficiency with the fall of
trade barriers and the use of a common
currency.
It creates a strong democratic entity
as an element of stability and security.
It offers a more efficient way to work
out disputes through the Court of
Justice instead of fighting.
A unified Europe will be a better
influence in world affairs; a politically
united Europe would have intervened
more efficiently in Yugoslavia.
The rejection of the treaty by the
Danes and its narrow victory in France
shows that some issues are worrying
people and need to be addressed in
order for the EC to gain popular
support.
One concern is the voting by
foreigners in local elections; this should
be carefully organized by each country
to avoid possible resentment among
local citizens.
Language and education issues will
have to be addressed as soon as
possible.
Another worry is the recent
European financial turmoil. Since this
is due to a lack of European unity that
allows nations to act individually, the
common central bank that the
Maastricht Treaty calls for would help
solve this problem.
Some are concerned about the pace
of integration. Well, it has been going
on for 35 years and is far from
completion. Why should we wait?
Besides, cultural identities are being
Americanized far more than
Germanized or Italianized.
I am sure that even if I pay in a
common currency, I will still be able to
go to bullfights in Spain and drink ouso
in Greece.
As a citizen of France, I see Europe as
an opportunity to promote French
culture, language and technology.
As a citizen of the world, I hope to
see the peaceful fall of national borders.
Promoting international friendships
remains, in my view, the best way to
prevent war in the future.
Monteils is a French graduate
student in business and is president
of the TAMU European Club.
The European Community (EC) was
bom 35 years ago, the result of people
of good will. The EC has evolved
wonderfully since then. Wonderfully is
actually not the word: let's say it was
less painful for the Europeans to get
together than to fight each other as was
the case with the first part of this
century.
The Maastricht Treaty proposes to
unify twelve countries of the European
continent in a predicted powerful
economic alliance that would enable the
Europeans as a bloc to conduct trade
agreements with the Japanese and the
Americans. While I am not against this
concept, I cast a "no" vote in the French
referendum for the ratification of this
treaty, and here are some of the reasons
why.
First of all, I do not agree with the
sudden rush of European politicians to
proceed with this kind of project when
we have yet to see any of the results
that the openings of the economic
borders will have on the economies of
each of the countries. The opening of
the economic borders is planned for Jan.
1, 1993. Past attempts at easing the
transition from independent economies
to one unified economy have failed!
The European pact on agricultural
policies railed to even convince
European farmers of the treaty's
benefits. Adding to that, it seems
obvious to me that the European
leaders failed to sell the treaty to their
people: why should the voters trust the
politicians when they haven't even
bothered explaining what the treaty
was really all about ? What I saw on the
continent during the summer, were
politicians arrogantly saying "If you
don't vote "yes" for this treaty, Europe
will be Yugoslavia AND I will quit".
While its seems that some politicians
offer similar ultimatums in the United
States too, I, as a voter, am not inclined
to trust this political blackmailing of
their own people.
Beyond these objections, the current
mood of "good feeling" towards the
ideal of a united Europe , places the
politicians and the treaty itself above
question and criticism. The danger in a
democracy - as evidenced by the French
revolution - exists when leaders believe
they're doing great things when in
actuality the have no feedback from the
people who elected them.
Overall, the arguments against the
treaty are multiple. The text itself
ignores the future economic and social
transitions it creates, which might be
detrimental to the union itself in the
long term. In addition the means by
which the Maastricht Treaty was
elaborated to the public and voted upon
raises questions as to its acceptance to
the voters as a whole. Remember that
only the Danes, the Irish and the French
had the opportunity to voice their
collective opinions through a
referendum on this capital issue. The
fact that the Danish government will
impose a second vote next year in
hopes of increasing voter support
reminds me of my mother nagging me
to repeat things until I said them
correctly. Do the righteous politicians
think the voters are really that stupid,
or are they paying the price of not
having done their jobs correctly in
presenting a workable European
Community to the voters and the
world?
Carron is a French gradual
in
Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the opinion page staff and editor in chief only, and do not
represent, in any way, the opinions of reporters, staff, or editors of other sections of the newspaper.
Columns, guest columns, and Mail Call items express the opinions of the authors only.
The Battafion encourages letters to the editor and will print as many as space allows in the Mail Call section. Letters
must be 300 words or less and include the author's name.
We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy.
Letters should be addressed to: The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald/Campus mail stop 1111
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
)PINION
The Battalion
Page 9
'Howdy' a good but dying habit
Friendly tradition truly distinguishes Texas A&M
H owdy. The word is so simple,
yet the tradition seems to be
dying.
When visitors and prospective
students tour the campus, they're told
how friendly A&M is because of all
the Aggies who smile and say
"howdy."
At first, the word "howdy" may
sound foreign to some newcomers
whose vocabulary never included
words like "howdy" or "gig 'em."
These immigrants hail from lands as
far away as Houston or Dallas or any
city large enough to have more than
one Dairy Queen — places unfamiliar
with our Aggie language.
At first, hearing the words pass from their own lips may
sound a bit unusual, but saying the word "howdy" doesn't
seem so strange, once the newcomer is asked to sing
"hullabaloo, caneck, caneck."
Freshmen seem to be the most valiant observers of the
"howdy" tradition. Fresh from Fish Camp, these wide-eyed
zealots still have enthusiasm dancing in their eyes and
"howdy" springing from their tongues. Passing a group of
upperclassmen who already know better, the freshmen
smile and emit a genuine "howdy," sweet as molasses made
with NutraSweet.
Now, if the group of upperclassmen is feeling friendly —
not having consumed Campus cuisine — one or two may
actually recognize the ritual and say "howdy" back.
In fact, the whole group usually will grow animated,
remembering who they are — Aggies — and where they are
— A&M. Like a hypnotic code word, "howdy" musters up
the enthusiasm those upperclassmen once displayed when
they first came to Texas A&M.
The Corps is an outfit well known for upholding
University traditions. Yes, they may bludgeon the
occasional adventurer who has nothing better to do than
run across Kyle Field. And maybe they did harass some
female cadets last year, but maybe they didn't.
But no one can dispute that the Corps does one thing
better than almost any other organization at Texas A&M:
Make national news.
OK, the Corps does two things better than any other
organization. Corps members almost always say "howdy"
as they march to class. True, they usually don't smile, or
look at you, or even blink, but they almost always say
"howdy." And that's cool. It kinda' humanizes them. And
it sets them apart from the rest of the zombies fumbling
between classes.
Fraternity members usually get a bad rap for reasons
which may or may not have to do with devil worship and
sacrificing virgins. But one particular "frat daddy" showed
himself an uncommonly good Aggie.
After checking out 13 books at one time, as bookworms,
nerds and last minute paper-writers often do, I opted to
return all of the books at one time. Although the combined
poundage of the books weighed slightly more than an
imported sports car, one trip to the library saved precious
seconds as my Honda sat in one of 12 empty tow-away
zone parking spaces.
Juggling books and stumbling toward the library, I
mumbled "howdy" to the students who scurried to safety.
One of the students passing by wore clothes with little
horses on it — suggesting he spent more on his wardrobe
than the state of Texas does on education. He smiled and
said "howdy" back, and then he turned and asked if he
could help.
Caught off guard by this stranger's thoughtfulness, I
stopped for a second, realizing that this was the friendly
campus that I had always heard of. Unprompted by a tour
guide, this Aggie had made an effort to make a stranger feel
at home.
Aggies often boast of the friendliest campus in the world.
We credit the "howdy" tradition for making a huge campus
seem smaller and less impersonal. Traditions that make
Texas A&M one of the best universities in the world are
kept alive by students like you and me.
Like the right-of-way in traffic, "howdy" is something to
be given and not taken. So the next time you pass someone
on campus, take a second, lighten up and help keep a
tradition alive. Say "howdy."
Vasquez is a senior journalism major
ROBERT
VASQUEZ
Columnist
DEMKTMENT
OF DEFENSE
MAASU-lES
TH£ PEzXPP
new
Campus food cooked,
but still a raw deal
Gee, the Northgate restaurants
petitioned the University not to allow
privatization of food services. Why
would they care?
Maybe because the food on campus
is so unusually awful and overpriced
that students are forced off campus?
Nawww, it couldn't be.
Well, hmmm — what looks good?
Food Services specials? No — one look
reminds me of a rap album (nasty as it
wants to be). Well, maybe a roast beef
sandwich would be good.
One piece of bread with three wimpy
looking pieces of roast beef. Hey! This
isn't a sandwich! It comes with this
broth stuff (supposedly gravy) poured
on it, with a splat of watery potatoes
beside it. Doesn't look like much, so I
guess I'll get a bag of chips with it.
What? Out or medium sized cups?
Guess I'll have to get a large cup ...
maybe they'll sell it to me for the price
of the medium I wanted. Ha, ha, ha ...
yeah, right.
I hand the lady my ID card to pay
with magic money — Aggie bucks. She
tells me my new balance. Since this is
an experiment, I ask her how much I
was charged for the meal. $6.40. Huh?
Excuse me?
I look at the food. I look at the lady.
Back at the food. Back at the lady. I ask
hopefully if I can keep the plate to add
to my fine dinnerware set. Nope.
I sincerely hope the food tastes better
than it looks. The roast beef is gone in
three bites, leaving half a slice of bread.
The mashed potatoes keep sliding
through the fork so they get left.
Well, no reason to stay. Get chips,
drink and backpack and depart $6.40
poorer, and still hungry.
So allowing competition on campus
is going to hurt the students? What a
crock. Any business major can tell you
that competition increases quality and
lowers prices.
If the University is here for students
it will decide unequivocally to allow
restaurant companies on campus ... but
don't bet on it.
So what's the problem? The
University has its hand in the money jar
once again. And, from experience, I can
safely say that anyone that stands
between the University and money will
get run over.
All those funny stories you hear
about Aggies? Those are jokes. The
students here are at A&M aren't really
stupid.
We know we're getting a raw deal.
Wiiliam Oliphint
Class of '94
Pro-choice translates
to anti-children
Here's a tear for the children
Who will never see a sunset
and feel the wind upon their face.
For lips that will never kiss
their mother
and ears that will never hear
their name.
For hands that will never clap
with joy
and arms that will never embrace.
Here's a tear for the children
whose heart will never cease to love
and a love that will never be felt.
For laughter that will never be heard
and a smile that will never be seen.
For dreams that will never be shared
and eyes that will never be dry.
Here's a tear for the children
who will never have a chance
Because of a choice.
Stephen Emmons
Class of '94