lne 30,1994
rt of
J ears
' ^fe." The
5 make the
ature song
eners.
■a,” possibly
sat tunes in
nslates into
. Combined,
into an en-
— “no wor-
slight Ian
lelody is ad-
1 lyrics irre-
istrumental
-ion King'
ct for those
mimer road
c landscape
oe.
r hat Disney
)e complete
the Love
istenerona
•on via an
with royal-
ing” sound-
s crown.
Thursday • June 30, 1994
-
m
mm
€ B I. l iN X v_X TN
^^
Page 5
►*«!
Oja
® %
■
Should Paula Jones be allowed
to s ue President Clinton?
P ftula Jones recently accused
President Clinton of making
unwanted sexual advances
towards her on May 8, 1991. She
contends that while Clinton was
Arkansas’ governor, a state trooper
approached and asked her to meet
Clinton.
When she arrived at Clinton’s
hotel room she alleges that he made
advances and exposed himself to
her, requesting that she perform
oral sex. She claims she left
immediately, distraught. The White
House responded that Clinton “does
not recall meeting her.”
msm
mm
yeneric base
“Little Bij
or you.
a of quirk;
ers and spe
:es.
Big League'
ijor league
be goodtoi
; entertain
. 693 M’ 3
Pizza & |
g Pizza *
I
is Include: fl
iausage Lov«[^ ■
ese Lover’s Plutf |
Lover’s* pi# 3 ' ■
DINE-IN I
OUT
nrty per visin' I
when ordenna
$20. Not voW K
er offer.
ilue. I
wm *
XT The most
Y _ powerful man in
X America is
involved in a sexual harassment
scandal. But sex has always been
about power. It’s about a bunch
of other stuff too, but power
seems to attract sex and things
sexual at least as much as
physical attraction or emotion.
Few Americans would be
shocked to learn of any public
figure’s infidelities.
There are really three issues
surrounding the decision concerning
Paula Jones and her legal ability to
file a lawsuit: Did she and President
Clinton really have some sort of
sexual encounter whether or not her
rendition is completely true? If the
allegations are true does it really
matter? And if it does matter, should
she be able to sue him?
As far as the interaction between
Clinton and Jones is concerned, no
one will ever know the whole truth
except those two parties.
Unfortunately, this is one of those
legal cases where it’s basically one
person’s word against another.
Because of the nature of our justice
system - with the exception of out-
of-court settlements - a trial never
ends in a tie. Either the “good guy”
wins the case or the victim gets
shafted. All too often, particularly in
sexual assault or harassment cases,
a guilty individual gets off scot - free
simply because of a lack of evidence.
On the other hand, an innocent
defendant’s name is almost always
irreparably damaged when wrongly
brought up on charges.
Although we might assume at
least SOMETHING marginally
unethical occurred at that motel
in Arkansas - because of a state
trooper’s testimony - any evidence
short of a lurid video tape is
difficult to use.
~ If, hypothetically, we know that
FRANK
STANFORD
Columnist
Clinton is guilty of everything
Paula Jones is charging, we have
to decide if a non-violent incident
with Jones’ questionable motives
is worth taking down the most
powerful leader in the world. Even
though exposing oneself and
propositioning an employee who
willingly comes to a motel room is
a crime, it should hardly be made
to affect the entire world.
This allegation is extremely
important from a humanist
perspective, and according to our
justice system’s credo: “No one is
above the law.”. A person who is
treated wrongly should be vindicated
- at the very least by seeing that
justice is served. If Jones was your
sister or grandmother you might see
this powerful leader in a different
light... as a common pervert.
Regardless of Jones’ possible
ulterior motives in this case — fame,
financial gain or political sabotage -
she is just as American as the
president and therefore due legal
consideration just like anyone else.
Our country was founded on the
principle of all men being equal and
the law working for everyone
regardless of wealth, connections or
political power.
Jones deserves not only to be
heard and taken seriously in this
issue but also a day in court under
the same laws that apply to you
and me.
Frank Stanford is a graduate
philosophy student
UNIVERSAL
COVERAGE FOR
HEALTH COSTS
..But I’d
compromise
and settle for
universal
coverage of
LEGALTcosts..
ELIZABETH
PRESTON
Columnist
The Battalion
Editorial Board
Mark Evans, Editor in chief
Viliiam Harrison, Managing editor
lay Robbins, Opinion editor
Editorials appearing in The Bat
talion reflect the views of the editor
ial board. They do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of other Battal
ion staff members, the Texas A&M
student body, regents, administra
tion, faculty or staff.
Columns, guest columns, car
toons and letters express the opin
ions of the authors.
Contact the opinion editor for infor
mation on submitting guest columns.
TK T 7 Whether or not
/'"'V _ President Clinton
X X V-/ made sexual
advances to Paula Jones is a moot
point. The question we should be
answering is what are the
boundaries of the office of the
President of the United States.
Bill Clinton is responsible for
the foreign and domestic policies of
the most powerful country in the global community at this
time. He does not have time to deal with personal problems of
little or no importance to this country’s well-being.
An incident that supposedly occurred over three years ago
should hot be allowed to tie up our president’s time, energy, and
money. Jones’ lawyer will argue that any American should be
allowed to sue any other American, which is true in principle.
However, the reality is if the president conducted himself in an
unethical or even illegal manner before he even was elected, the
time to call him on it is not while he is in office.
The appropriate time for Jones to react was immediately,
or even while he was campaigning in 1992. Because she has
chosen to wait until she can get the most publicity, fame and
“No Excuses” Jeans contracts, she is doing more to harm the
office of the presidency than good for the pursuit of justice. In
an interview with Harold Johnson in National Review, Jones
stated that she only wants to clear her name, but her actions
belie those fiercely spoken words.
One consequence of this lawsuit is that the United States
is losing face in the international community. In
France or Italy, people don’t care who their
leaders are sleeping with. America’s obsession
with the Jones case is beginning to look
ridiculous. Clinton’s legal defense fund looks to
the world as if our president is not only
spending precious time worrying about lawsuits,
P but also that he is desperately poor.
This case could set a dangerous precedent,
encouraging people to file suit against a
president merely for publicity and fame. As Clinton’s lawyer,
Robert Bennett, was quoted in Time, “one can readily
imagine [further claims], especially involving unwitnessed
one-on-one encounters that are exceedingly difficult to prove.”
The president cannot be above the law, but he should have the
right to be free from responsibility while in office for his actions
before he was in office.
In the presidential race, opportunities to point out flaws in
the candidates abound. The press is always eager to follow
any dirt that may come up about the potentials, and any
claim is reported exhaustively. The public was given a chance
to judge for themselves before electing him. The presidency
cannot be made into a farce where Americans whittle away
the time and resources of the office with various lawsuits,
and distract officials from important issues.
As Michael Kramer aptly stated in Time, “Clinton himself
may not deserve the break he seeks, but the presidency does.”
mmmmmmrn
Elizabeth Preston is a junior English major
Vegetarian tired of food jokes
Decision not to eat meat shouldn't matter to others
ELIZABETH
PRESTON
Columnist
W hen I
decided to
become a
vegetarian, I
thought that it was
a personal decision,
affecting only
myself. This idea
has been disproved
again and again. At
every dinner or party I attend, the topic
comes up. People feel an instant need
to express their feelings on the subject,
and to defend themselves against my
expected attempts to convert them.
A popular defense against our
influence is the Vegetarian Joke. At a
recent dinner party I had just sat down
to enjoy my twice baked potato when I
heard a familiar version. A friend
began ecstatically reviewing the
quality of the meat and laughing while
sending pointed glances my way. I
laughed and made a good-hearted
effort to change the subject, but once
begun, a Vegetarian Joke is hard to
. The other guests began animatedly
discussing all the aspects of the
glorious meat they were eating. Only
when I resorted to threatening them
with bodily harm from my newly
acquired self-defense tactics did the
discussion move on. My father’s
favorite joke - the one he has told at
every meal we have shared in the past
five years - is to point to the meat dish
an the table and say, laughing jovially,
"Of course, this is vegetarian turkey!”
•Vo matter how many times I tell him
be has tired that poor joke out, he feels
compelled to tell it.
When I was a new vegetarian, I was
defensive and missed the opportunity
to laugh at these perfectly good jokes.
Vow that I can see some potential
bumor in a good Vegetarian Joke, I
regret that people use the same ones
over and over. What we really need is
better jokes. My favorite at this point
involves a T-shirt
with a picture of a
cow which is
saying, “Eat your
vegetables.” The
problem with the
joke is that most
1 non-vegetarians
| have to have if
— ^ “““ explained to
them. I have faith that in the land of
10,000 Aggie jokes we can create some
original vegetarian humor.
The worst Vegetarian Joke is the
“Oh my gosh! Didn’t you know there is
a meat by-product in that (fill in
with whatever the vegetarian is eating
at that moment).” This usually gets an
immediate response, especially if what
I am eating is something that might
have meat in it. If the person really
thinks there might be meat by-products
in the food, the vegetarian does
mhi ..
My father's favorite joke - the one
he has told at every meal we have
shared in the past five years - is to
point to the meat dish on the table
and say, laughing jovially, "Of
course, this is vegetarian turkey!"
appreciate the warning. This is how I
discovered there were meat by-products
in gelatin, certain candies, and other
foods. However, when done in jest this
causes alarm - not to mention
indigestion — and it is still not funny.
We can do better.
Another popular response is the
angry/you must be an idiot one. When
vegetarianism comes up, invariably
someone will turn to me, glare, and
say, “Oh please, tell me your dumb
reasons for being vegetarian. I’m just
dying to hear another bleeding-heart
liberal.” This is a hard one to react to.
Some of the best jokes I have heard are
bleeding-heart-liberal jokes. They
abound at reunions where my family, a
large group of conservative t-sips, can
humorously put down almost anything
I believe in. However, the assumption
T as a vegetarian I am automatically
jrested in a political discussion is
mistaken. When the person realizes
this, they usually switch themselves to
the people-who-tell-bad-vegetarian-
jokes category. What a vicious cycle.
People also seem uncomfortable
eating meat in front of a vegetarian.
When I eat with friends, I usually must
listen dutifully to the excuses of those
around me. “I would eat vegetarian,
but I really like this chicken.” “I sure
am sorry to eat this in front of you.
Would you prefer that I move?” It is
not necessary to explain your reasons
for eating meat to vegetarians unless
they express curiosity. Since
we know that we are right to
do what we do, we are not
interested anyway. No need to
whine dr apologize.
While we may appear
superior and smug,
vegetarians are generally not
out to convert, lecture, bore or
otherwise disturb you. It is a
personal choice that we have
~ made and live with on a day-to-
day basis. When you have to make
special allowances for me, I apologize. I
usually try to provide my own food at
functions, or eat before I go. So the next
time someone mentions they are a
vegetarian, please refrain from
explaining, joking, cajoling, or yelling.
Try nodding your head, saying “hmm,”
or, if you are interested, asking them
why they made that choice. You might
even be surprised by what you discover.
Elizabeth Preston is a junior
English major
Ignore Elchanan's view
of women in movies
Well, it finally happened. Josef
Elchanan’s June 27 column on sex in
films has done something miraculous;
angered me enough to write to The Bat
talion, and this is some accomplishment,
believe me. Could Elchanan explain why
the only women in films today that he
could respect are those that would be
subservient “props” for the “big macho
man” to rescue, or the opposite women
who would only emulate a man? If.
Elchanan thinks that a film like “The Pi
ano,” which uses beautiful symbolism
and images of compassion to convey a
woman’s discovery of her true sexual
identity is “lowering” the standards of
America, and bloody action flicks aren’t,
then I’m proud to be a low-life. I hope
that many Aggies do not share
Elchanan’s vision of the “perfect” film so
ciety in which “Pretty Woman” would
have been elevated to greatness had
Richard Gere pulled out a .45 and
pumped Julia full of lead for leading him
to a (gasp!) sexual encounter, the sicko!
I’ve heard that Hollywood may make a
film with Elchanan’s superior film taste
and compassion in mind. It contains
“bodies piled to the skies and filled with
lead.” It’s called “Rwanda: Witness the
Massacre.” Enjoy!
Todd M. Rennels
Class of ‘96
National defense rests
on ability, not 'image'
In a letter appearing in the June 28
Battalion, Jim Fyffe states that the cen
tral problem in the issue of homosexuals
The Battalion encour
ages letters to the editor
and will print as many as
space allows. Letters
must be 300 words or
less and include the au
thor's name, class and
phone number.
We reserve the right
to edit letters for length,
style and accuracy.
Address letters to:
The Battalion
Mail Cali
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Fax; (409) 845-2647
in the military is one of image. He states
that homosexuals should not be allowed
to serve because of the “images associat
ed with them.” He goes on to say “In de
fense, image is everything.”
While I agree that image is impor
tant in a wide range of instances — in
the promotion and marketing of beer
for instance — what is truly vital in na
tional defense is nothing more than
ability. Besides, what image is associ
ated with Alexander the Great, one of
the greatest military leaders in histo-
ry-and a homosexual. By Fyffe’s faulty
reasoning we could easily ban blondes
from entering the military because of
the “dumb blonde” stereotype.
The absurd example of the toy poo
dle and pit bull has no value. ANY
ONE with a weapon and the ABILITY
to use it presents an aggressive and
threatening image.
Actually, the main point in this is
sue is that uninformed people are
afraid of the homosexual serviceman
“who takes a submissive position”. It
is traditionally acceptable for a male
to stare at and objectify a female be
cause women have been repeatedly
viewed as the submissive sex to be
dominated by men. The true fear in al
lowing gay personal (they are already
serving whether you “allow” them to
or not) to be recognized as homosexual
is that now men are quite possibly the
object in the submissive position or to
be overpowered.
The only image that disturbs me is
one of our government issuing
weapons to people so tragically igno
rant as to believe that homosexuals
are not capable or deserving of serving
in the U.S. armed forces.
David M. Hamada
Class of ‘95