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
â– 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.
â– iiMlIS
%â– .*. V â–  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