ty 13,1993
slavia in
accepted
ions from
dan Milo-
t officials
stationed
ne 60,000
neighbor-
n Serbia,
'n people,
da has an
limited
ngs
acknowl-
that Doody
mber of his
told friends
s war game
m.
ucson men
•oody's who
might have
as Arizona's
?d the local
in Thailand,
i Arizona by
i States.
'uesday, July 13,1993
ent
ays
ne the na-
mitting 22
0 states, a
988, when
the report
ish organi-
said.
? suprema-
is, so noto-
o the skin-
skinheads
on and the
hese older
oort said.
3 skinhead
as Ameri-
.eague and
committed
blamed on
f the skin-
:an-Ameri-
vn players,
the position
Cox of Al
most among
ingston will
iTs Marquis
place of in
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5
How Tib Detect IP A Package. A
? 1
Wn)oce«3r
01X00
FHort iOXFUjOR-OS
tlcrirtS -f
Ljotl ‘T2> ^
rirtO t c* from a-
coo*irAy
The Battalion Editorial Board
The Battalion
Jason Loughman, editor in chief
Mark Evans, managing editor Kyle Burnett, sports editor
Stephanie Pattillo, city editor Susan Owen, sports editor
Dave Thomas, night news editor Anas Ben-Musa, Aggielife editor
100 years at
Mack Harrison, opinion editor Billy Moran, photo editor
Texas A&M
arder: Gris-
ds If,
uk lb, Barry
e DH, David
Daulton c
■der: Alomai 1
Griffey Jr. cf,
Kirby Puck
s, Wade Bog
Editorial
Restoring order
U.N. must use force to ensure aid
Marriage as a basic human right
Homosexual unions deserve legal recognition also
MATT
DICKERSON
Columnist
The United Nations attack on a
omali warlord's command center
londay was a necessary step to re-
}in control over Mogadishu, which
as reached a level of lawlessness
parable to that which prevailed
ire the U.S.-led military force in-
lirvened last December.
In the last five weeks, warlord
Miamed Farrah Aidid and his
[tinmen have killed 35 U.N. sol-
iiers and wounded 137, making the
iiirrounding countryside unsafe for
slief groups delivering aid to the
smali interior.
More than 800 tons of food des-
ied for the interior are rotting in
tort because the U.N. has been
arced to reassign units normally
ised for convoy duty to secure a
afeenvironment for aid workers.
It is important to note that these
id workers cannot operate with-
mtU.N. protection, as all routes
m Mogadishu are extremely
iangerous.
The dangers are not limited to re-
efworkers and U.N. peacekeepers,
(allowing Monday's attack, two
Jumalists were killed by an angry
lob of Somalis, two more were in
ured and two are still missing.
Wien the citizens of a country take
the streets and kill foreign jour
nalists, it is evident that the U.N.
must take some military action to
top this kind of anarchy.
Relief groups are concerned that
lese military objectives are taking
Priority over humanitarian ones.
but these groups fail to see that
these military objectives must be ac
complished before food can be de
livered safely.
It is unfortunate that so much
food must be wasted while the U.N.
concentrates on stopping Aidid's
terrorism, but until the warlord is
apprehended, he and his gunmen
will continue to interrupt relief to
the interior and endanger the lives
of U.N. peacekeepers and relief
workers.
It would seem that fighting off
the warlord's attacks while continu
ing to escort aid convoys would
waste less food and combat the
symptoms of Somalia's starvation.
However, immediately eliminating
the cause of the starvation — war
lords who hoard food — would lead
to a quicker solution and cause less
waste in the long run.
In addition, there have been con
cerns that disarray in the U.N. mili
tary operation and command sys
tem is fueling instability in Mo
gadishu and hampering relief ef
forts. If the U.N. is to fulfill its hu
manitarian aid mission, it must take
whatever steps necessary to get its
act together and eliminate the cur
rent anarchy in Somalia.
The U.N. attacks on Aidid have
thus far failed to create a reasonably
safe environment for relief groups
to operate. The U.N. must establish
order in Somalia as quickly as possi
ble to prevent the waste of more
food and the loss of more lives.
M arriage is an important right
in our society, protecting
couples and their children. A
form of contract, marriage enhances
the stability of relationships by legally
binding together the parties' financial
relationship.
Unfortunately, even though the
Supreme Court has described the
right to marry as a "fundamental
right," homosexual marriages are not
yet recognized by the courts.
Marriage, a legal status thick with
entitlements, effects inheritance, so
cial security, adoption, taxes, medical
benefits, immigration, welfare pay
ments, the separation of property at
divorce and even testimonial privilege. No wonder then
that homosexuals would desire these rights.
Despite changes toward a more tolerant society, homo
sexuals still bear substantial discrimination. Aside from the
right to legally marry the person of their choice, homosexu
als are excluded from many important jobs in our commu
nity, including military service, government jobs dealing
with national security, federal judgeships and many public
elementary and secondary schools.
Most federal and state anti-discrimination laws do not
protect homosexuals against discrimination for sexual ori
entation. About half of the states have anti-sodomy laws
that criminalize — and thus marginalize — homosexuals.
On the whole, homosexuals simply wish to secure for
themselves the same rights most heterosexuals take for
granted. When homosexuals understandably ask for these
rights, they are denounced for "demanding special treat
ment."
The irony is that, as federal judge and legal-economic
theorist Richard Posner points out, "forbidding homosexu
al marriage raises the cost of monogamous homosexual re
lationships (and so increases promiscuity), because mar
riage is a subsidy to monogamy." Because of real discrimi
nation against homosexuals, there is a real incentive for
them to "stay in the closet." To hide sexual orientation,
they will tend to substitute private sex for lengthy public
courtship.
Furthermore, because of the need for concealment, ho
mosexuals are more likely to be "mismatched" with anoth
er homosexual with whom they know little about other
than sexual orientation. Mismatches, whether homo- or
heterosexual, decrease the durability of of sexual relations.
The upshot of all this? Excluding homosexuals from the
"fundamental right" of marriage encourages instability in
their relationships and encourages promiscuity at the mar
gin. Adding insult to injury, homosexuals are then derided
for unstable relationships and promiscuity.
Because some 20 percent of all male and over 30 percent
of all female homosexuals were previously married, most
of the children bom to homosexuals are the fruit of failed
attempts at a heterosexual marriage, not in vitro fertiliza
tion or other arrangements for homosexual households.
This would imply that those who disapprove of homo
sexual parenting performance have an interest in encourag
ing homosexual marriage: All else equal, homosexual
unions will have less children than heterosexual unions.
There would also be fewer broken marriages due to ho
mosexuals attempting the charade of a heterosexual
lifestyle and less children thrown into the turmoil of anoth
er broken home.
Homosexual marriage and adoption are legally distinct
matters, and should be treated as such. Very little is
known, either way, about male homosexuals' parenting
ability. Studies of lesbian mothers' children show little dif
ference between single heterosexual women's children.
Either very little is actually known, or what is known
demonstrates little difference between heterosexual and ho
mosexual parents. Altogether, this raises doubts over con
fident dismissals of homosexuals' parenting ability.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my
nose. That is, the exercise of freedom does not extend to
harming others and extinguishing their freedoms. In a free
and civil society, those demanding the restriction of others'
activities bear the burden of proving some palpable harm.
It is not enough to say homosexual marriage "offends"
or "repulses" you, and therefore ought to be disallowed. If
it does offend you, welcome to open, democratic society.
Rush Limbaugh often offends and sometimes repulses, but
his speech ought not be restricted on those grounds.
Marriage, a fundamental right, ought to be extended to
homosexuals because disallowing homosexual marriage
creates a number of social problems. It promotes unstable
homo-heterosexual marriages, unstable relations between
homosexuals and homosexual promiscuity.
Marriage isn't a special "homosexual" privilege or right,
it is a basic human right.
Dickerson is a sophomore economics major
ad pitch-
on chose
?am Team'
was quoted
ed in two
1 days rest"
the team. If
n't we put
■ all, he hit
es game,
those who
half of the
■ Bip
Fhe All-
ier-known
>r their ac-
Schools need voucher system to ensure quality education
ho de-
o doesn't,
lerved in
very other
week anoth
er study
“tnes out report-
ig that American
todents are the
f orst in the
f orld.
Our universi-
^s, however, are
toong the best in
to world. Stu
nts from 86 dif-
ftent countries
torently attend
exasA&M. Why
" We do such a
of educa-
GUEST
COLUMN
CHRIS
MARQUETTE
pe throws l% natthe univer _
expects ° jty level and not in public schools?
fter traini™
y in Austin,
as-area train
The answer is simple: with our uni-
torsity system, students can choose
Johnson putWh school they go to.
To correct the deficiencies in our pri-
of the dail] W education system, we need the
free choice that exists in higher
t time watch Wation. The best way to do this is to
^titute a school voucher system.
. School vouchers were first proposed
this back iha >11962 by Nobel Prize winning econo-
)f," he joked Sist Milton Friedman. Since then, the
red sprints i
idea has been gaining popularity.
Here are the details of the system I
am proposing:
First, schools that want to accept
vouchers will apply to an accreditation
board set up by the government.
Every student will be issued a
voucher by the government each year
that he or she will give to the voucher
school of his or her choice in exchange
for receiving one year of education.
The schools will then submit the
vouchers they receive to their state gov
ernments and be reimbursed the cost of
educating one student for each voucher
they submit. The amount will be deter
mined by the board with input from
taxpayers and community leaders.
The accreditation board will ensure
that every voucher school adhere to the
following regulations:
A voucher school can accept only
vouchers; no school can demand a
voucher plus extra money.
Every voucher school must provide a
designated core curriculum determined
by the board. The schools would be
free to provide additional classes and
programs of their choosing.
Accreditation would be revoked
from schools that teach material injuri
ous to the students or the community.
This system will make schools more
efficient by injecting free market forces
into our educational system. If schools
don't meet their customers' (students')
needs, they will go out of business.
Right now schools continue operating
whether or not they do a good job.
Opponents of a voucher system say
it will subsidize "the rich"attending
elite private schools. However, because
the voucher schools can accept only the
voucher and no additional funds, "the
rich" would be unaffected by the
change of systems. They will have the
same choice under the voucher system.
This plan will help the poor. Cur
rently, they have no choice in where
their children go to school. They can't
afford private schools, so they have to
send their children to their local public
school. If it's a lousy school, too bad.
Two of the biggest problems with
our current system are disparity of
funding and isolation of inner city
youths. The voucher system will ad
dress both these problems.
Disparity of funding will be eliminat
ed because each student, wherever he
or she may live, will get the same
voucher, worth the same amount. Iso
lation will be reduced because inner
city families can choose to send their
children to schools outside their neigh
borhoods if their local schools are
crime-ridden and ineffective.
All that would matter in the accep
tance decision would be the potential
and ability of the student. Also, as in
private businesses, voucher schools
would be subject to federal anti-dis
crimination laws.
Also, high schools could specialize in
the type of education they give above
core curriculum. One of the biggest
problems facing American business to
day is the lack of good vocational train
ing and college preparation.
Our public schools do such a poor
job in these areas because they have to
cover the whole spectrum of students,
rendering them unable to meet the indi
vidual needs of each student.
Under a voucher system, vocational
schools will develop that will teach
valuable job skills in addition to the
core curriculum. College preparatory
schools will teach advanced subjects
such as physics and calculus. Students
who plan to go to college will choose
the prep schools and those who intend
to enter the work force after high school
will choose a vocational school.
Educating our children and provid
ing a trained work force are necessary
to keep America competitive in the
global marketplace. Our current school
system is doing neither of these things.
If we fail to improve our schools, we
will doom ourselves to an ever decreas
ing standard of living. The best way to
improve our schools is by providing
choice through a voucher system.
Chris Marquette is a finance graduate
student
Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views
of the editorial board They da 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 opinions of the authors.
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor ond will
print as many as space allows in the Mail Call section.
Letters 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 submitting guest columns.
We reserve the right to edit letters and guest columns
for length, style, and accuracy.
letters should be addressed to:
The Battalion - Moil Call
013 Reed McDonald /Moil stop 1111
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 7/843