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