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