Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 22, 1993)
Y 22,1993 oth nference, i guy like pay, January 22,1993 Opinion mmm. The Battalion Page 7 >rd cham- r what I'm d. "When :'s what I real inter- multiyear sed but he idling job, Iso inter- es Buddy iia Eagles ? Chicago TBe COOfcT (A j AC must ggymicToJc news- pv^-ntiaoTiosi R.E-.TRiCTvONJ oO Editorials Budgetary dilemma Higher education cannot be cut i Although Texas is staring down he barrel of a projected $3.2 billion hidget shortfall for the current tri- nnium, funding for higher educa- on stands as the last target that can ford to be hit. While 84 percent of the budget re- lains fixed due to court orders and sderal dictates, the remaining 16 srcent, which includes funding for ligher education, can be altered in .rder to plug deficits. Sadly, one of he state's greatest assets, higher ed~ ication, has emerged as a tasty forsel in the eyes of a legislature ungry to carve up a deficit-free :udgetary pie. Though inequities in elementary ind secondary education require in- leased budgetary consideration, putting funding to Texas colleges jand universities is no solution. By ^tempting to provide equitable and mproved educations to all Texas students, such cuts also succeed in denying those students other educa tional opportunities — and denying the state a potential tax base. College graduates are an integral part of the Texas economy. It is we who will probably obtain the high er-paying jobs and subsequently spend more money. It is we who will start the small businesses and subsequently increase the work force. It is we who will be paying the taxes of tomorrow — but will not be able to if we have to suck up the cuts of today. Even if extreme cuts are made in higher education, the budget deficit will not be erased. Though bal anced budgets and fiscal responsi bility are of paramount importance for Texas and indeed, the nation, Texas cannot afford to drain one of its greatest long-term resources in the face of short-term stop gaps. ? beating awards ^ers who er televi- not mat- rs to win ut sadly, ill about, louston, have to :e finish er with : a skin urrently amplete 3 week a would will be Free speech reaffirmed Anti-solicitation rule struck down The American college campus re mains a forum for free speech, de spite recent efforts by a Texas uni versity to hamper such freedom. Ihe U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that restricting newspa per distribution on college campus- sdue to advertising is unconstitu- ional. In 1989, Southwest Texas State University expanded its anti-solici- ation rule to regulate the distribu- ion of all newspapers that con- ained advertising. The distribution of such newspa pers was confined to subscriptions, ’ending machines at five campus ocations and a single area of cam pus known as the rree expression srea." University officials say the anti- solicitation rule was enacted to con trol litter, as well as to regulate com mercial speech such as advertising in order to help prevent fraud and leception on campus. Newspapers with advertising, officials charged, were commercial speech and not free speech. The Supreme Court ruled, how ever, that advertisements in news papers were included in order to fi nance the publication. Consequent ly, the court ruled that commercial speech is automatically linked to the newspaper's non-commercial speech, such as editorials and sto ries of public interest, thereby mak ing the whole paper noncommer cial. This decision stands as a guard against the deterioration of Ameri cans.' First Amendment rights of free speech. The courts have recognized that the freedom to speak often stems from the freedom to finance such speech — because in this age of mil- lion-dollar media, where inches can cost thousands and seconds can cost millions, free speech doesn't neces sarily mean free publication. Inc. ¥ v w Ho-fly zone prompts flighty response After the Gulf War, I was expecting a Wal for Saddam Hussein like the war times trials that occurred after World Warn. envisioned Bush sending in the CIA io abduct Hussein, at which time they %ld return with a donkey. "But sir, you told us to get the jackass." The CIA would be sent back time and ^ain until they finally got Hussein, wing which time they would manage to ing back enough animals to open an ^qi zoo. But instead of this far more interesting fospect. Bush announced the no-fly Although not as intriguing, I have l! 0 real problems with this no-fly zone lasco. I do, however, have some questions: 1. How high does the no-fly zone extend? Are Iraqi satellites allowed over the no-fly zone? 2. Does Iraq have any satellites? 3. If Iraq were to suddenly inherit land below the 32nd parallel, like the ultra- rebellious nation of Qatar, would it also be under the. no-fly zone? 4. Would anyone care? If a layman such as myself grapples with these questions, I can only imagine what Saddam Hussein, the military genius who invaded Kuwait armed only with pez dispensers, must go through. Saddam: "Do you think they would shoot down our satellites if they flew over the no-fly zone?" His advisors: "We have no satellites, O honorable, greatest, manliest of all creatures." Saddam: "Why don't we build one and send it up, just to test those American pigs?" His advisors: "But sire, because of the Anti-abortion logic falls short Roe anniversary sparks questioning of arguments T oday marks the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade — the famous Supreme Court decision conferring abortion rights on women. Marching to the chant, "Abortion is murder," the shrill anti-abortion movement grows evermore strident and at times, violent. The rallying cry of anti-abortionists begs for review. Is abortion murder? We will find ourselves comparing apples, horse apples and oranges to the accompaniment of flapping arms and mouths if we do not insist upon a consistent definition throughout the discussion. This anti-abortionists have steadfastly refused to do, and for good reason: Assume abortion is murder and the so-called pro-life position collapses under the weight of logical inconsistency. For instance, if abortion is murder, allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest, as some anti-abortionists allow, allows murder in the case of rape or incest. Allowing abortion to save the life of the mother, as virtually all anti abortionists allow, is to allow for murder; for remember, abortion is murder. The image of smug "pro-lifers" dubbing one set of abortions "murder" while dubbing their own pro-life abortions as "mere abortion" is loaded with irony. Oddly, it would not be incorrect to call these anti abortionists "pro-murder" given their own set of assumptions. Favoritism for the woman over the fetus is notable within the anti-abortion movement. Given a situation in which either the woman or the fetus must perish, most anti-abortionists leave the choice (aha!) to the woman. This choice does not immediately suggest itself if the fetus has full human rights. And aren't anti-abortionists proposing that the brutal murder of an innocent is a choice, not a child? The refusal to punish women for illegal abortions in any of the legislation passed to restrict abortion is of great consequence. If abortion is murder, then the woman presumably hires an assassin — the abortionist — to kill her fetus for what she perceives as her benefit. Offering little or no sanction against women as the chief beneficiaries and instigators of abortion, anti-abortionists have cunningly slunk away from the great chasm of logic. Instead, abortionists play the fall guy in anti-abortion legislation. Logic or any proper assignment of rights and ^'' responsibilities consistent with anti-abortion assumptions are the first to go overboard in selling anti-abortion legislation. The belief that there is a moral difference between an ovum and a zygote, or fertilized egg, has implications rarely explored by many commentators. If zygotes have rights, radical legal consequences follow. Authorities investigate all unexplained deaths to determine whether a murder has occurred. This would require government notification of all miscarriages, even those in which zygotes failed to attach to the uterine wall. Women's activities resulting in miscarriage, for example lifting too much, might constitute negligent homicide. This presents a problem because, for many weeks, most women are not aware of pregnancy, let alone conception. This violates the "ought implies can" rule in ethics, which states that if a person is required to act in such a manner, they must be able to do so. How could women be held negligent for the death of a zygote they were not aware of, nor could be? Further, the rights-protecting agency, the government, must be made aware of any new zygotes to protect their "rights," just as the state is now made aware of births. Such a rule would require extensive human rights violations. Women would be required to report all pregnancies to the government, and not only would women be required to incubate zygotes, but would also be required to allow zygote implantation in the uterus. The anti-abortion position implies not only a tyrannical state of affairs, but the impossible. While these examples may appear outlandish, it should be emphasized that this exercise is simply the logical implication of conferring full rights on zygotes, treating them just like anyone else. The anti-abortion position presents a number of problems. It is rarely consistent and appears to be a seedbed for the police state. At best, it is a misshapen tool; at worst, a vehicle for the repression of women. And anti abortionists are not simply insisting that the clock be turned back, as abortion has rarely been treated as murder, not even in the 19th century. Anti-abortionists are espousing a radical legal revolution the implications of which threaten women's liberty as never before. Women have fought too long and too hard to secure the right to control their own bodies for us to allow that to happen. Dickerson is a sophomore economics major. MATT DICKERSON Columnist economic embargo; we cannot even make pez." Saddam: "You fools, I don't want to make pez. I want to build a satellite. . . By the way, what does a satellite do?" His advisors: "It sends you all those pomo movies." Saddam: "Then we must have one — for national security reasons, that is." One thing that confuses me is how long the no-fly zone is going to be enforced. I'm not trying to be mean to Hussein, but even if we get him to pinky- swear not to bomb, I'm not sure if he'll be restrained by the consequences. One option is to declare the no-fly zone a nation. Then they could send an ambassador to the United Nations to plead for help. The UN would promptly respond by translating the plea into every language known to man, thereby letting the world know that "the nation of the no-fly zone" sounds strange in every nation, not just English. Although this seems like an open-and- shut case, there are many touchy things to consider: 1. Will the "nation of the no-fly zone" have an official bird? If it does, will the bird have to be flightless? 2. If a citizen of this nation were \ suddenly to win an airplane from Ed McMahon, would that person have to take delivery, or could he just have McMahon sell it and send him the money? 3. Is McMahon trustworthy enough to be given control over that kind of cash? With thqse kinds of complex questions, it is no wonder we are involved in such a quagmire. John Prashant Class of '94 Free trade agreement no good for America We keep hearing how great the ill- conceived North American Free Trade Agreement will be for the United States, but for the life of me, I don't grasp by what contorted logic one arrives at this conclusion. First it would seem misnamed — probably so done deliberately to deceive the gullible — for, just how free would the document containing 1,700 pages make it? If it is to make trade free, why go to 12 pounds of print on paper to encumber it? This certainly would not make it free to anyone intending to trade who didn't have a battery of lawyers to direct compliance. Here in our beloved country, we are already overloaded with a bloated bureaucracy. Then this NAFTA "secretariat" comes along, which would have at least eight permanant committees, some of which would have the authority to create new subcommittees at will — a whole new government. One thing for certain, this would cut away some of our national sovereignty! Call me an isolationist or whatever, but at least call me an American! If we don't look after our own best interests, then who will. Our country became great by minding its own business. Fletcher Sims, Jr. Canyon, Texas Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the editorial board only. They do not represent, in any way, the opinions of other Battafion staff members, the Texas ASM student body, regents, administration, faculty or staff Columns, guest columns, and Mail Cali items express the opinions of the authors only. The Battalion encourages tetters 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 auihor's name, class, and phone number Due to spiace restrictions, guest columns will not be accepted unless the author contacts the opinion page for prior approval before submitting columns. We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters should be addressed tor The Battalion - Mai) Call 013 Reed McDonald /Mail stop 1111 Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843 7,1993 1 , an- f ould of its about r ear- i em- ategy in its :ould ayees q, no ght. ssary iness >0s," rong eally B on 7esti- ze of ap- 2 re- with ibse- the it on nt to iver- ha- any >een ead- the f the ersi- in- in- ate- she nal are lant t IS ;ent on. itu- ent out on. ted los : of we ca- se- :he ns, gi- at- i a tp- ts, >n- ur :a- n- D- tat ! 7 I