rch 1,1993
Opinion
a Uy came
'8^ the runs
V Granger
game. We
e the guy
well also."
?r's stellar
southpaw
to one-up
strikeouts
work. The
> freshman
rington on
c, but I was
t with my
hce," Wun-
bashful in
leeded to."
hough, be
nder,
n a season
ut of it in
ring, when
'dd Kurtz's
ie left field
^iate home
3-0 lead,
out a big
lersaid. "I
n that he
have been
/eballs.
nally came
3
>
sat out the
irtlett had
he centers
1 floor, and
ade it pos-
iway from
the coach
n her and
:o go out
tt said. "It
ver gotten
^ed like 1
ith no fear
there and
me, Hick-
i applaud
struggling
ence.
i to them
e was we
hese kids
so many
d weeks;
cess," she
ou - hey,
•y blue
ing else
on my
out to
of the
to one
e game
tore re-
iing up
times,
torts to
ul was
to the
sgan to
ito the
iy own
anyone
boxer
sight,
boxer
an you
ie box-
is still
lay.
has al-
Just
all the
better
nis job.
IS
tester
;eting
and
ro
r'
/ and
ef
of
Monday, March 1,1993
The Battalion
Page 7
Taking sides:
Should the United States cut
funding for the space station?
As President
Bill Clinton has
repeated many
times, we are in a
time of national
crisis concerning
the growing an
nual budget
deficits and the
steadily increas
ing national debt.
In his speech
two weeks ago,
Clinton repeated
ly referred to the
terms "sacrifice"
and "contribu
tion." And al
though the Space
Station Freedom could make many con
tributions to science, the initial $38 bil
lion price tag and projected operating
cost of $200 billion for the next 25 to 30
years is too much of a sacrifice.
If Clinton's whole economic plan is
adopted, the deficit will be reduced to
just more than $200 billion by 1997, and
will then begin to rise again. If none of
Clinton's'cuts>Ure. adopted, the deficit
could rise to more thtftl $700 billion by
the end of the decade.
To really chip away at the deficit and
make ground on the debt, some of the
sacred cows of the tax-and-spend years
are going to have to go, or at least be
trimmed. Among these are the out-of
hand space projects.
The space program has had its num
ber of successes, but there have also
been many expensive failures. We all re
member the costly Hubble telescope
from a few years ago that failed to pro
duce a 10th of the results that scientists
projected; and the failure of the Chal
lenger that cost the lives of seven astro
nauts.
Many supporters of Freedom point to
ihe spin-offs and scientific benefits of
past space projects. But the benefits
don't justify cost overruns and exorbi
tant price tags on current projects, such
as the $23 million toilet on the space
shuttle.
With as large a budget as the space
station has, there is plenty of room for
fraud from private companies wanting
to cash in on the project, and for the sub
sequent cost overruns that come out of
taxpayers' pockets.
If the funding for Freedom is not to
tally cut, it at least should be trimmed to
areasonable amount, and the money
should be more closely monitored.
Yet even if the costs were controlled,
one has to consider the ethics of a gov
ernment-sponsored space program. We
live in a world of homeless and hungry
children, a rising crime rate, an ever
growing health care crisis, and military
conflicts throughout the world.
With all these problems facing us and
Mure generations, is it responsible for
our government to devote so much
tioney to the space station? Should we
de paying so much to have scientists or
bit around the problems that continue
down on mother Earth?
j With the breakup of the Soviet Union,
the space race is over — the United
Slates won. Let's make the $200 billion
for the space station part of the peace
dividend — and fill up a small part of
•lie $4 trillion black hole known as the
national debt.
Critics will tell
you the space sta
tion is an unnec
essary and costly
project; America
faces pressing
problems here on
Earth.
Such myopic
thinking ignores a
fact apparent in
the broader view
— America has
always faced and
will always face
"pressing prob
lems." Poverty,
crime and war are
certainties of our
past, present and future.
If anything, now is a more opportune
time than ever to fund such an "extrava
gance" as a manned space station.
Our most dangerous foe, the Soviet
Union, collapsed.
More than 20 years of failed policies
have clearly demonstrated government
inability to reduce poverty with in
creased spending.
The real extravagances, then, are mis
sive defense spending to fight a foe that
no longer exists and huge outlays for
"entitlements" that often perpetuate the
poverty we seek to combat.
And though a station is not at present
an urgent need, we will at some time in
the future want to travel in space.
Space travel need not be the province
of astronomers searching for signs of
alien life.
A permanent presence in orbit or on
the moon would enable us to conduct,
year-round, the sorts of research possi
ble now only during brief shuttle flights.
This research has shown concrete bene
fits in the here-and-now perspective to
which space station critics seem to be
limited.
Examples such as meteorological and
environmental monitoring of the Earth,
new pharmaceuticals, advanced com
puter chips, pacemakers and even velcro
are tried but true.
If we are to establish a foothold in
space, a 20th century station is a neces
sary stepping-stone toward that 21st
century end.
And if Space Station Freedom is
plagued with delays and unforeseen ex
penses, its biggest hindrance, in the
words of Aviation Week and Space Tech
nology, is "shallow popular support, not
scientific, technical or economic prob
lems."
The space station does have prob
lems. As of 1990, the program had gone
through six successive directors and 11
major program reviews under four
NASA administrators.
Funding, upon which the size, objec
tives and timetable of the station de
pend, changes every year but is often far
less than NASA requests. As the Na
tional Research Council wrote, "It is too
costly for the nation to rethink its objec
tives in space on an annual basis."
It would be far more costly for Amer
ica to take the shortsighted view that
scrapping the space station is better than
solving its problems.
Let the critics ask themselves: Will
our descendants, on a backwards and
stagnant planet, point to the United
States of 1993 and revile us for our lack
of foresight and courage?
JASON
LOUGHMAN
Managing Editor
Doolen is a graduate. Class of'91 Loughman is a senior
and former editor of The Battalion journalism major
Witorids appearing in Ttie Battalion reflect the views of the editorial board only. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other
fottolion staff members, the Texas ASM student body, regents, administration, faculty or staff.
Columns, guest columns, and Mail Call items express the opinions of the authors only.
He Battalion encourages letters to the editor and will print as many as space allows in the Mail Call section Letters must be 300 words
“less and include the author's name, class, and phone number.
tbe to space restrictions, guest columns will not be accepted unless the author contacts the opinion page for prior approval before
tubmitting columns.
We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy,
letters should be addressed to:
The Battalion • Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald /Mail stop 1111
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
Ageless woman stands test of time
Fountain of youth found in backyard, country lifestyle
I guess Eunice Davis was just like
any other grandmother. She
cooked. She cleaned. She was good
to her grandchildren. She told stories.
There was nothing too remarkable
or unique about her. She never did
anything that historians would deem
worthy of saving for posterity. She
didn't travel to many exotic lands. To
my recollection, she didn't meet any
heads of state. She was a simple
woman who led a simple life.
Yet something set her apart from
the rest of the world. Eunice knew the
secret to success in life. I never real
ized this until after she died last week.
The secret is simplicity. Keeping
life simple. Keeping problems simple. Keeping everything
simple.
Eunice exemplified a simpler way of life that seems to be
lost in today's hectic race to succeed. Not everyone can re
late to that doctrine, but all can learn from it.
She spent almost all of her 92 years living quietly in the
heart of rural America - "the sticks," I always called it. 1
loved to visit Eunice, but I hated traveling to "the sticks" to
get there. I'm a city boy. I can't help it. After visiting her
for a couple of days, I used to complain that I wasn't getting
enough carbon monoxide in my lungs.
There was nothing to do. There were no tall buildings,
no bright lights, no shows, no glitz. It was a tolerable place
to visit, but 1 wouldn't want to live there.
I never understood why Eunice had such a fascination
with the wide open spaces and such a contempt for the city.
Every time we would drive her back to our safe, smoggy
suburban neighborhood to visit, she would be like a fish
out of water.
But Eunice was a product of her environment. She had a
persona that resembled the country way of life. She always
had her share of "chores" to do, but she never let the tur
moils of life keep her from living it. And that didn't mean
striving for mediocrity. But it also didn't mean making
things too complex.
Perhaps it was an attitude that fit the past more than the
present. For my sister and I, two children of the '80s who
were thrown into the back seat of the car every so often and
forced to sit together for four hours without ripping each
other's hair out, going to Eunice's house was like going
back in time.
In her dilapidated mobile home by the lake, you found
very few symbols of status and that was OK by her. Give
her a television set to watch the nightly news and "Young
and the Restless" and a telephone to call Aunt Ila now and
then, and she was happy. She had a fairly nice air-condi
tioning unit, but she hardly ever turned it on, which made
for quite a few summer nights suffocating in the heat.
Looking back on all my complaints, however, I guess I
was the one that missed out. The wonders of nature were
everywhere to be seen, scarcely tampered by human inter
vention. Yet there always seemed to be a football game on
TV that caught more of my attention.
I never stopped to notice the people around her who fol
lowed the same approach to life and maintained a healthy
existence into their 80s and 90s. The county, where she
used to live, had a median age of 55.4 — the oldest in the
United States. Down the road from Eunice lived a woman
whom, I thought when I was younger was the oldest
woman in the world. 1 found out recently that same
woman is still alive and kicking at 101! And there are more
like her. Willard Scott would go nuts over this place.
Eunice did what Ponce De Leon spent his life searching
for — she defied the aging process. Her low-stress exis
tence kept her healthy and independent into her 90s. In
fact, if Ponce hadn't frantically tromped across Florida and
instead had settled down in a nice little villa in the Pyre
nees, he might have lived that long, too.
I can't say that I would trade Eunice's lifestyle for my
own, but I also can't say that I will live to be 92, either.
Eunice never wanted to change the world. She never
wanted to climb up the corporate ladder. She never wanted
people to immortalize her.
She wanted to make sure the green beans were ready to
be picked in the garden. She wanted the pecan pralines to
taste just right. She wanted to make sure and save the table
scraps for the stray cats that would occasionally drop by.
In a way, Eunice outlived her era. She was not a woman
of the 1990s. She was a woman content to live life on no
one else's terms but her own. That's how such a simple
person could attain far more success than most of us will
ever know.
No, Eunice wasn't any different from any other grand
mother. Except she was my grandmother.
Whitley is a junior journalism major.
CHRIS
WHITLEY
Columnist
Gun control issue
sparks reader debate
• I am writing in response to Michael
J. Carroll's letter entitled "Guns only 10
percent of crime problem." Carroll stated
that if guns were outlawed in America,
"criminals" would "rob our houses, rape
our wives and children and murder us
all." This is all great, except that it re
flects a mentality of paranoia and irra
tional thought.
Wouldn't it be great if every "criminal
was the savage depicted by Carroll? But
that is not the world we live in. We can't
despise the teenager who kills because he
has watched all his friends die since
grade school and because he can't sleep a
night without the sounds of sirens, gun
fire and shouting. Do they deserve Car-
roll's "death" penalty? Is this the "crimi
nal" that Carroll hates so much? Though
any characterization does not accurately
depict every situation, we cannot be so
naive to think that we are so righteous.
If every "criminal" is not the savage, is
every "law abiding citizen" the American
hero with love in his/her heart and God
on his/her side? I have yet to define the
"Good Murderer" and the "Bad Murder
er." Either way you slice it, a murderer is
a murderer and if you can feel good at
the end of the day and say "I'm really
glad I killed that person," then maybe it
wasn't worth it. Our world is a shade of
gray, and it's quite a gamble to buy a gun
and say "Someday I'll kill someone and I
won't be a criminal. Maybe, at least, I
won't feel like one."
As for his statement calling the media
a "biased-liberal" entity, that is really get
ting old. Even if the media tends to print
less of the "law abiding citizen kills crim
inal" stories, there seems to be plenty of
"Child shoots child" and "Child shoots
himself" to go around. Is it worth it to
preserve this precious second amend
ment right?
People like Carroll are preparing us
for war. A war between ourselves and a
war in which no one is right. People to
day are purchasing weapons in stagger
ing numbers. By the inherent nature of
these weapons, like guns, they will be
come criminals, if not by law, by associa
tion, psychologically. It takes two to
fight, the "criminals" and the "law abid
ing citizens."
The "law abiding citizens" are uncon
sciously perpetuating their own pain by
fighting back. Guns are only part of the
problem, but half the problem is people
like Carroll. Either way, guns are a great
place to start for peace.
E. Anthony Martinez
Class of'95
• I'm writing in response to Dedric
Walker's letter on reducing the number
of homicides through a government ban
on guns. The ban would be impossible to
effectively enact, and many of those mur
derers would still be committed with oth
er weapons. Also with citizens complete
ly disarmed, criminals would be less fear
ful to commit more crimes.
Calling people's fears unbiased that
governments of civilized nations will
abuse their authority is neglecting histo
ry. While gun controls are more stringent
in Canada, guns are not illegal there as
Walker stated. Switzerland has a gun
ownership rate comparable to the U.S.
and has a low murder rate. In any type
of violent crime the United States leads
far ahead of any industrialized country.
The only way to change this is to attack
crime with realistic programs that can
work.
Michael Werre
Class of'94
Plaza