Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 7, 1993)
Opinion Wednesday, July 7,1993 OUd 3SQs The Battalion Editorial Board Jason Loughman, editor in chief Mark Evans, managing editor Stephanie Pattillo, city editor Dave Thomas, night news editor Mack Harrison, opinion editor Kyle Burnett, sports editor Susan Owen, sports editor Anas Ben-Musa, Aggielife editor Billy Moran, photo editor The Battalion TOO years at Texas A&M Editorial Splitting logs ity commis- estimony ypical de- 1 the text- ' Lindsey as under- ?91, after iroposed ined and e impor- informa- :ed preg- he health ?xas high , remem- EgypJ'"' ouncil ot can ruin ls, and it ipond to ; having Rudder nore i n ~ ■vino a t senting it Jas ra i 7:30p m - :all P ad ' r Sha shl Timber plan benefits both sides In March, President Clinton pre dicted that his timber plan would probably make everybody mad." Indeed Clinton was right; after he and his staff unveiled the plan on Ihursday, both the loggers and the ’environmentalists quickly lashed I oat with criticism. If people from both sides of the issue are mad at the Clinton admin istration, then the president. Vice President Gore and several cabinet ] members probably did something i light. Clinton's plan is a good example i ofhow a median can be found on an issue with two very separate sides 1 that possess two very different needs. On the environmental side, the plan allows for limited logging of some federally protected lands. However, logging on these lands isdependent on the impact it would have on wildlife in that specific irea. For example, buffer zones would be established around certain streams that are vital to the survival »f certain species of fish. As far as the spotted owl is con- terned, there are to be designated areas where timber cutting is only allowed for dead or sick growth, and the thinning of live growth. For loggers and environmental ists alike, this is a drastic cut from initial requests to either open or close all lands from logging. Neither side should view this as capitulation. The loggers are gain ing the use of some lands and the environmentalists are ensuring the protection of endangered species. This is split right down the mid dle of the argument and is a positive step toward resolution of the con flict. On the economic side of the issue, the plan asks Congress to assist the Pacific Northwest region with $1.2 billion over the next five years. This money would be used to en courage the development of other industries already located in the re gion. For example, job training and small business grants would be funded with the money. In addition, Clinton's plan urges Congress to promote domestic milling of timber by eliminating tax subsidies on companies that export raw logs. Again, this is a gain for both sides of the fight. The environmentalists get protected lands and the region stands to gain exactly what it wants — money. Spokespersons for the loggers have said time and time again that they are not pro-tree cutting, they are pro-economy. If that is the case, then money is the root of the prob lem and emphasis should be placed upon it. Clinton's plan is good example of how an answer to a heated debate can be found. Though on the surface neither side appears to be excited by Clin ton's plan, they need to realize that neither side can get 100 percent of what they ask for. The Battalion Page 5 Ratcheting regulations into place Adding onto flawed policies threatens our freedom Q uestion: which is worse, the right or the left? Answer: whichever is in power. Arthur Schlesinger was wrong: American government does not in fact swing back and forth be tween left and right, like a pendulum about some fabled "vital center." The more apt mechanical metaphor, the ratchet, better de scribes the incorporation of the worst elements of the left and right into our social institutions. Take Democrats and Republicans, roughly representing liberals and conservatives respectively, and com pare them on some critical issue, say drug prohibition. The conservative fires bullets into the problem, jailing happenstance survivors. The liberal approach is more re fined and sterile, genuflecting before "treatment." As psy chiatrist Thomas Szasz put it, "Giving oneself addictive drugs is a crime. Accepting addictive drugs from a 'main tenance program' is a treatment." The teary-eyed liberal therapist caresses his victims. These admittedly simplified approaches to the drug "problem" represent the the ratchet at work, as each party, upon coming to power, puts its own spin on policy, not so much by revoking the harmful policies of predecessors as juryrigging its own policies onto the existing edifice. The Clinton administration looks as if it might give the ratchet a couple of turns: I refer to Clinton's national service program and national health care plan, with the emphasis on "national." Nation al service appears innocuous enough — especially given its small beginnings. But what constitutes national service? Does cleaning up my neighborhood constitute national ser vice? Does passing out pamphlets for the Ku Klux Klan constitute national service? Obviously, what constitutes a service will be determined by whatever bureau has juris diction of the national service program. Because the national service program would subsidize labor resources; there will be a struggle for those labor re sources. Labor resources would be directed by politically astute operatives in much the same way the politically as tute Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Senator and undisput ed king of pork, directs tax revenues to his state. Given the fact that a number of the people working on the Clinton service program would like to make it manda tory — a service draft — we might have a real monster on our hands in ten or twenty years. Speaking of monsters, Clinton's national health care plan is presently thumping up the stairway. Not only is the Clinton administration's "managed competition" oxy- moronic balderdash that recoils from addressing the prob lems in the health care system — namely massive govern ment subsidies — but it is a threat to our freedom. It is in credible that the government can foist this plan upon us without a constitutional fight. Recall how another wonderful social insurance program. Social Security, was used to justify first mandatory seat belt laws and then mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, both victimless "crimes" by any stretch. Because some injuries attributable to not wearing safety equipment cost the Social Security program, Social Security payers demanded the right to regulate the behavior of those refusing to wear safety equipment. This was one of the leading arguments for the helmet law. Likewise, why should you have to subsidize the costly, unhealthy behavior of smokers or heavy drinkers? You should not; smokers should pay for their behavior. That is why, even under the current perverse health care system we now have, being a smoker jacks up the costs of life or health insurance. Under the national health care plan con cocted under czarina Hillary Rodham Clinton, it isn't "fair" for health care to cost some people more than others. In the case of a heavy smoker, paying the same costs for un healthy behavior represents a subsidy of that behavior. But this isn't fair either, and there will be a hue and cry to regu late smoking and the like, especially when some 25 percent of health care costs are attributable to behavioral choices. Some 50 years ago, economist Ludwig von Mises ob served that "Princes, governors and generals are never spontaneously liberal. They become liberal only when forced by the citizens." What amazes one is the American facility to take Clinton's health care program, among other things, lying on their backs. Perhaps Americans need a backbone transplant more than Clinton does. Nietzsche wrote of the "will to power." What character izes Americans more than the "will to vege"? We will al most certainly die under some version Clinton's health care plan because of the ratchet like nature of government pro grams. Once enacted, the program will almost certainly outlive us, with all of its flaws. You can almost hear the ratchet clicking into place. Dickerson is a sophomore economics major MATT DICKERSON Columnist L Jj ^ —* :ual Ag" a] m eet ' Z, wb ere ;ed ii 1 a rtive en ' nfori 113 ' 7-032 1 - na.y^ xten^ ve of to d of ; tyF y oW r ahe^ e exf 11 ' f5ig' “SS tion ^ Diversity appears in any A&M neighborhood Ithough Texas A&M is often re ferred to as a small city, I have always hken the simile a step further. Even *5 a freshman, the campus seemed dearly divided into "neighbor- taods" to me. As a member of ike Corps, my ^division was %emely defined ' either as an overtly oppressive prison compound Icvith time off for class) or a glorious kingdom of earned power and rever ence, depending on my' rank at the iicne. I always considered the adjoining Commons to be sort of a Miami-esque cetirement community for college stu nts. I could just picture them playing canasta on the patio, bitching about enthritis and having to live on the same 'beet as the Quad and those nutty CTs. However, friends of mine residing on the north side of "town" appeared to be enjoying one long, non-stop dorm party the entire year. Davis-Gary — a male dorm at the time — was always chock full of drunks, creative vandals, and drop-out cadets. They were con stantly in trouble with the university and frequently in the news. It was so unfair. Girls' dorms up north had their own distinct personalities as well, par ticularly those with balconies. They ap peared to promote wildness in women. Balconies facilitate dumping water and hurling blunt objects at would-be panty raiders (I still have a knot on my head). Cain Hall on the other hand, is some thing of a live-in country club. If it's not on the A&M guided tour, it certain ly should be. Large paintings, nice fur niture and a fireplace in the living room reiterate the notion that these residents are the university's bread and butter (rumor has it the butlers and valets hide when visitors are around). I find it dif ficult to begrudge those guys such lux uries however, as I've never risked my knees or pulled a hamstring for Ag- gieland. Although 1 did untie a ham string for Easter dinner once. Awareness of conduct-specific seg regation doesn't just end with student residences though; our burg breeds scholastic separateness also. 1 realize, of course, that most students are con centrating on academic concerns while cruising campus between classes, but have you ever noticed that semester af ter semester you walk the same paths — that classes tend to be in the same buildings — in the same departmental districts? After five years as an under graduate, the one class I had on the west side was in a building I never knew existed. "How recently was con struction completed on this place?" I asked my professor, assuming it must have been within the last month. "1978 1 think," he said. My point is that we rarely — if ever — have the opportunity or desire to wander outside of our academic arena and experience the other "cultures" on campus. Just the other day I entered one of the buildings in the techno-engi neering sector (home of x-acto knives, autocad, calculators and all that other math stuff), and being a liberal arts type, I felt like a tourist in another country. Not just because of a large number of non-native students, but I was also aware of a scarcity of male purses, male pony-tails, male earrings, and sadly, non-males. The architecture building was even more interesting, displaying fascinating drawings, intri cate models and planar sculptures. As long as you're not into architecture, every project looks like a masterpiece. Take your lunch sometime. Inter-departmental vacations aren't limited to right-brained students only however; I encourage trips for "for- • eigners" over to Liberal Arts Land as well. After all, the zoo in San Antonio is so very far away. Speaking of zoos, how many of you in Elementary Educa tion have actually stuck your entire arm up a cow's tail-end and tickled it's tonsils? Pack a bag, grab some sun screen and slide film, and head on over across the tracks to Animal Science World. Uh ... don't take your lunch this time. Even with many on-campus Spring Break possibilities, Texas A&M is al ways taking criticism for not being mul ticultural or diverse enough, even from FRANK STANFORD Columnist if you look me. And that may well be true, de pending upon who defines "enough." But with campus housing paralleling that of a small city, academics ranging from understanding Descartes to adver tising a golf cart, and students from many countries of the world. I'd say that a great deal of diversity and multi- culturalism is right in front of our eyes. Just take off your sunglasses. Stanford is a graduate philosophy student Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the editorial board. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other Battalion staff members, the Texas A&M student body, regents, administration, faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, and Mail Call items express the ppinions of the authors. The Battalion encourages letters to the editor and will G int as many as space allows in the Moil Call section. tters must be 300 words or less and include the author's name, class, and phone number. Contact the editor or managing editor for information on submitttnq guest columns. We reserve the right to edit letters and guest columns for length, style, and accuracy. Letters should be addressed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 01 3 Reed McDonald /Mail stop 1111 Texas A&M University College Station, TX 7/843