Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 7, 1994)
V • July 7, 1994 ikes’ pping against a 3 his case for lis- th my insanity/ [t’s a jungle out ■ fruitful day.” jrybody’s got a ; quite well Buf- festo in “Fruit- talks about the )le force them- •se of their lives, way or another i out on the al- Library,” a song 1 felt amid the nd wishes come and” a remark- 1 as you can get sr of a standout Page 5 Hillary-bashing reveals sexism irst lady's skills, talents deserve ecognition, not public ridicule H! y new musical a, but he again of the musical ;h to touch, pro 's. lings are an on- 3uffett released Earth” in 1970 lent illary Clinton is one of the jost admirable Inomen in the Jnited States. She is intelligent, srticulate and . She also has !«en her family’s ELIZABETH PRESTON ; hydrant. ’son laughing- mpetitor that med in honor t-giver — “lit- remarks and ■e bountiful in lite strength, rts equal a in of the leg- Hardy come- mer dredges g end, head light read in ‘I Love Trou- ud isional sight- nes struggle Kevin Cost- iood” to find accent. The comes from ff’s real life ove’s uncle ns to for so res are grip- ikins’ direc- perhaps be- ry is equally is in the end tch Bridges hero, while •elies on his airrellyness cters are in to bits, but m a better this whole ay- ARP us lawman ore than a ith a scene past as he ne to fight es.” From rusts Earp od-fearing hardened trayed by ; story of a ith and in- le brought lodge City s the rival ig, leading ated gun : O.K. Cor- ilso where ot appears d by Den- e and elo- iled with mic relief, graces to at chroni- jgendary mger and West. nain breadwinner since her husband first won public . When he decided to run for president, she ittempted to keep her job AND help him, but this idea fiickly proved impossible. The country began lashing out. What’s this??? A political tife who works and does not consent to making her iiisband’s career her own? Unheard of! Soon, the public itlations people in charge of Bill Clinton’s campaign had her tutofher job and in a cookie bake-off with Barbara Bush, llis ploy apparently soothed the fears of the sexist ppulation and Clinton was elected by a narrow margin. However, as soon as he was in office and his plans to jive Hillary a - (GASP!) - vital role in his administration tame known, the conservatives were all over them faster ihnDan Quayle can spit out a logical sentence. Soon all was visible to the naked eye were thousands of Impeach Clinton - and her husband, too” t-shirts, posters ind bumper stickers. This reaction is ridiculous. A marriage is an equal jartnership between two people who have agreed to live igether and help each other as long as they both shall live. Bill Clinton chose to run for president, it was not a decision affecting him only. Hillary Clinton had to resign from ierjob at a prestigious law firm, even before he won the office, nd the entire family was uprooted and moved almost 2,000 ales. As lovers, spouses and equals, it was only fair that Bill nd Hillary agreed on a place for her in their future. It is rare that a woman would be willing to give up her ;obforher husband, without any security in the future, lutit’s almost laughable that after sacrificing her career whim that she would be expected to sit at home - even a dome as palatial as the White House - and take care of details. I am not ridiculing housewives. That is one of the toughest and most important jobs around, but if that is not pur calling, it can quickly become mind-numbing. An example would be someone who loved to hit baseballs since the day he was born, so excelled at it that leand his team eventually made it to the World Series, {ottothe.game of a lifetime and had to play soccer. Not mly would he most likely hate it and quickly become bored, he probably would be lousy at it. In addition, Clinton is renowned for her intelligence. Bill Clinton would have lost a useful tool in his idministration had he refused to allow his wife to use her skills of negotiation and leadership. This move does not “ make him any less of a president, nor does it mean that she is attempting to take over his job. She does not meet nth foreign leaders, appoint judges or cabinet members, address Congress about the state of the nation, or try to speak on things that she was not hired for. The popular argument that “we did not elect her” is ridiculous. We did lot elect George Stephanopoulos, Norman Schwarzkopf or Bentsen either. Clinton did not make a campaign promise that he would ask his wife not to think or work riiile he was in office, though it appears that the general Ipublic may have preferred that mistake. It is shocking and saddening that this is happening in the 1990s, almost three-quarters of a century after women !»on the right to vote and at a time when women are striving forward in their attempts to achieve equal pay and stop sexual discrimination and harassment. When rill the men and women of this country realize that a strong woman does not mean cuckolding, does not mean a stupid husband and does not mean a step backward for the human race? A strong, intelligent woman like Clinton should be telebrated and adored, as much if not more than her predecessors. She should stand as a symbol for how our tountry has moved closer to the day when equal work will mean equal pay, and no woman need worry about her boss requesting sexual favors in return for a job. When a woman does win the presidency I hope she has the sense, {race, and loyalty that Hillary Clinton has shown us all. Elizabeth Preston is a junior English major The Battalion Editorial Board Mark Evans, Editor in chief William Harrison, Managing editor Jay Robbins, Opinion editor Editorials at in The Battalion reflect appearing 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, cartoons and letters express the opinions of the authors. Contact the opinion editor for information on submitting guest columns. ‘Happy hour’ ban MADD plan infringes on rights of majority The Texas chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving has chosen the “happy hour” as its latest target in the war against drunk driving. Next month the Texas Alcoholic Beverage commission will vote on a regulation proposed by MADD that would ban happy hours across the state. This law would be yet another example of “big brother” govern ment taking away our freedoms because of the inability of a minority to take re sponsibility for themselves. Kirk Brown, head of the Texas chapter of MADD, argues, “Happy hour in Texas induces people to drink more, turn more drunk drivers out on the road and causes fatalities.” The proposed regulation would ban promotional advertising based on re duced prices of alcohol and require mer chants to sustain prices on alcoholic bev erages for week-long intervals. Brown’s logic is fallacious. Cheaper alcohol does not necessarily mean more people drinking or more drunk drivers. It simply means more people enjoying cheap alcohol. Brown’s state ment assumes that everyone who drinks gets drunk. Most people do “know when to say when,” and even those who do not generally know bet ter than to drive. However, MADD seems unwilling to give people any credit as responsible indi viduals who can control themselves. In stead, they push for paternalistic laws to save people from their own free will. Unfortunately, some people think it is fun to take the risk of driving drunk, and then brag about what a dangerous, stu pid thing they got away with. Fortunate ly, these idiots are few and far between. These incidents do not justify taking away the freedom of the many to prevent the misdeeds of the few. The appropriate way to deal with drunk driving is to stiff en penalties for those who do drive while intoxicated. MADD has already succeed ed in this area by supporting increased penalties for driving while intoxicated. Banning happy hour is not the an swer to decreasing drunk driving. Reg ulating the free market with behavior controlling laws infringes on the rights of those who can drink responsibly. MADD needs to refocus its efforts against those who truly pose a threat to society - drunk drivers who are a danger to themselves and others. Those who can control themselves should be free to enjoy a few drinks at low prices. ■iiMlIS %■.*. V ■ S V-. Liberal propaganda forms base of Fonda-North link This is in response to Josef Elchanan’s July 6 column. These days, too many students seem to have taken on to liberal propaganda. This seems very sad. I seem to recall something about looking at situations in an objective, educated manner, and applying a cost-benefit analysis to situations involving quantifiable lata. This “both sides just get along” and there is really not black and white, only gray areas” seems to be really out of hand. What ever happened to men being leaders and making decisions like men? I am absolutely perplexed that anybody eould draw any similarities to what Jane Fon da seems to have done versus what Lt. Col. Oliver North seems to have done. The Boland Amendment seems to be nothing more than an attempt by Congress’s liberals to try to control President Ronald Reagan. I have no clue why President Reagan did not go ahead and chal lenge Congress on this issue ... but, this amendment was and is not necessarily law. The Boland Amendment seems to have parti san politics written all over it! The Boland Amendment’s being Constitu tionally sound has yet to be challenged or proved-up, regarding the ability of Congress to control the actions of the executive branch of the U.S. Government. However, the words within the Boland Amendment, from the best I can tell, are questionable not only regarding Congress’s authority over the executive branch, but may not be constitutionally sound regard ing the liberals seemingly catering to the Com munists (who it seems to me, were “the enemy” at that time). Perhaps the constitutionality of liberals hav ing the appearance of being so close to both fas cists and communists should be challenged ... could these be considered “treason” or aiding “the enemy”? Too many people seem worried about the “religious right.” They would do well to worry about the loss of freedom and liberty of the American people to hyphen groups and perverted interests. Mark G. Clements Bryan Tenants should protest tax rate valuation increases Readers who share S.M. Roberts’ (The Eagle, May 21) concern with the ever-increasing Bryan- College Station rental rates need to voice those concerns to the Brazos County Appraisal Dis trict, since it is the single greatest factor in esca lating costs. Laws prevent the raising of the tax rate without being subject to a possible rollback. However, if the valuation of the property is raised significantly regularly, a rate increase is not necessary and the property owners are at the mercy of the appraisal district. As a rental property owner, I offer attrac tive, clean, desirable housing at an affordable price. I am able to hold most expenses in check, except one. I have absolutely no control over property taxes! My property taxes this year are 41 percent higher than last year. Before that, my taxes increased 21 percent. And, the tax hikes would have been higher had I not filed protests with the appraisal district! On June 28, the appraisal Review Board cut short my presentation of evidence and set its valuation on the sole recommendation of the appraiser (which was based on how much rent should be charged to the tenant). If any one entity con trols the rental rates in Bryan-College Station, it is the tax appraisal district. We property owners could use some help from tenants who are tired of having uncon trolled increased property taxes passed on to them in the form of higher rent. If you as a ten ant share this view, express it by calling and writing Buddy Winn, Tax Assessor, Deitrich Bengs, Duayne Sandel, and the Appraisal Re view Board (Alvin Wooten, Doyle Reed, Sam Sharp, Albert Newcomb, Eddie Mize). After my most recent battle on behalf of my tenants, lack of sensitivity for the general public is evi dent. Perhaps a “Brazos Tea Party” would get the message across! Steve Colson Class of ‘85 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor and will print as many as space allows. Letters must be 300 words or less and include the author'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 A&M can now rebuild image Students must pay price of administration's mistakes JIM PAWLIKOWSKI Columnist L ast week, five Texas A&M officials were indicted by a Brazos County grand jury. Former vice president for finance and administration Robert Smith was charged with soliciting gifts from Barnes and Noble while negotiating a lucrative contract. Wally Groff, Texas A&M’s athletic director, and three others were charged with tampering with government records for the purpose of disguising alcohol purchases as purchases of soft drinks, ice, and plastic cups. Four other Texas A&M officials were also accused of tampering with government records. If convicted, they could face fines and jail terms for their alleged misdeeds. Texas A&M professor John Bockris attracted national attention in 1993 for his experiments attempting to turn mercury into gold. This research, funded by a businessman convicted of fraud, prompted several of his colleagues to ask for his resignation. The Texas A&M Board of Regents considered a proposal earlier this year to stop granting tenure. One regent voted against granting tenure to everyone who was up for it because of “philosophical opposition to the idea of giving someone a permanent job.” Last football season, The NCAA suspended five football players for accepting pay from a Texas A&M booster for work that they did not perform. The Texas A&M football program was put on a five year probation and banned from all television and bowl appearances for the 1995 season. What do all of these charges, allegations, and improprieties have in common? That’s right, the name of Texas A&M University. The fact is that “Texas A&M” has become associated with NCAA sanctions, a Board of Regents that spends public money on alcohol and university officials who allegedly break the law. Meanwhile, the students of Texas A&M toil to give this university a better name. The academic reputation of A&M has been long on the rise. The average SAT score of each incoming freshman class has steadily increased over the past several years, as has the number of National Merit Scholars. Several undergraduate and graduate programs are ranked among the best in the nation. This is what should be making headlines across the state and nation: the emergence of Texas A&M as a world class university. Unfortunately, all of the students’ accomplishments are lost under the cloud of a seemingly corrupt administration. As students, we usually do not take the time or make the effort to concern ourselves with the actions of our administrators. After all, they don’t really seem to have any effect on our lives. We can effectively function as students without knowing or caring what the regents did today. We go about our business and they go about theirs. The recent improper practices of high-ranking university officials do have an immediate effect on students, however. The students have built up the reputation of Texas A&M over the past several years, while the regents and administrators have unwittingly been bringing it down. When you’re applying for a job and are interviewed by people who did not attend A&M and only know what they have read in the papers and seen on television about the university, be prepared to defend the school. You’ll already have one strike against you and will have to light the negative perceptions fostered by the University’s image. It is unfair that we, as students, have to pay the price for the mistakes of our administrators. However, rather that sit and whine about it, we must shoulder the burden of restoring A&M’s reputation ourselves. The quality of your degree depends upon how much you learn to get it, not on how much booze your school bought. The more well- educated, responsible, productive citizens that A&M has among its alumni, the more prestigious the school will become, in spite of its leadership. Jim Pawlikowski is a junior chemical engineering major
