9,1994
ups
■apped at
id being
ologist,
1 white:
you feel
,o tell
: is good,
. than
io find
lis end
noyance
lecause
[her
=t delicate
are not on
always
takes a
riendship
ith very
tly
:ing tested,
nd
ther is all
on of
oblem
ierson
the
the other,
.ships crop
rom an
xt to you
vho won’t
nd that
■ound with,
ippened
hen there
rtunately it
nature and
with these
, simply
, and are so
on is a junior
English major
rnmmmmmrnmmmmmmmmMmm
^PINION
Natural born killers found where least expected — at home
WILLIAM
HARRISON
HSitl NsnTlV'il
V Jr J
Guest Columnist
jpf
A s I was leaving the
theater that looks like
Beetlejuice’s warehouse,
three guys in a jeep drove past
and shouted, “Don’t see
‘Natural Born Killers.’”
Maybe small-town residents
never saw anything as senseless
to them as actors Woody
Harrelson and Juliette Lewis
playing two viciously screwed-up
inhuman beings as real life cartoon caricatures. But
killers are mostly experienced secondhand, via CNN,
Time Magazine or an Associated Press story in a
local newspaper.
They don’t have to be any more real than just
black print on a gray sheet of paper. Gruesome
crimes usually don’t happen down the block. And
don’t often happen across town.
I felt plagued by haunting memories after
watching the movie. I had been reintroduced to
Woody and Juliette’s Mickey and Mallory.
I had met senseless sensationalism before.
^ + ^
I first met them at Sharpstown High School in
Houston. When the Sharpstown subdivision opened
in the 1950s, it was hailed nationally as the
blueprint for a perfect neighborhood.
Texas Monthly magazine wrote an article in their
25th anniversary issue on how much Sharpstown
had changed since those times.
In the film, Mickey and Mallory kick off their
relationship by murdering Mallory’s parents, who
had abused her. They bludgeoned her father with a
tire iron and set her mother on fire.
One day in Algebra II class, a voice on the public
address system announced that a guy from my
neighborhood had been killed
by his older brother. I knew
the two. They grew up with
some of my best friends, and
we had hung out together.
The younger brother
taunted the older brother
when the older said he was
going to get Dad’s gun to kill
_ the younger. The younger
brother said he didn’t have
the guts. After killing Kenneth, Charley turned the
gun on himself and fired into his abdomen.
When Kenneth’s friends called 911, Charley and
Kenneth’s father answered the phone.
Their father was the 911 operator.
That story made the front page, not the movie
screen. Kenneth died, Charley survived.
Months later, I saw Charley in a group on the
handball court at the high school, sitting on a bench
with a scar running the length of his belly. Although
I could not say whether he was enjoying himself,
there was a smile present on his face.
I pretended not to know who he was. I just
walked on by.
While I was waiting one morning to travel to
Dallas to attend my grandfather’s funeral, I looked
at the front page of the newspaper. A story stood
boldly underneath a big headline with a mug shot of
a football player I had played with. Brandon
Elledge’s face was the only thing I could see.
My first thought: “What the hell did he do?”
Brandon and I were not friends, and when I
first met him, I hated him. He was a football
prospect from a football family. He was bigger
than I on the football field, and he held a certain
amount of disdain for me and my size. He picked
fights, and when they were with me, all I could
do was hold ground and hope he didn’t get mad
enough to kick my ass. At his worst, Brandon
was a braggart and a bully.
Later, Brandon softened up around me, and
we could laugh at the same jokes, even carry on
a conversation.
He transferred to Clements High School for his
senior season. Clements had a much better team
than Sharpstown’s and Brandon, at around 6-3 and
230, stood a better chance to attract scholarship
offers at a winning program.
One day after a spring practice session, Brandon
gave two younger football players a ride home. After
the two turned him down a secluded road, they had
him stop the car. One drew a gun and shot him in
the head. The other helped throw his body in the
back of his truck.
The two tried unsuccessfully to pry Brandon’s
$5,000 stereo from his truck. They gave up, and
witnesses saw them run off. The newspaper I read
said the family of the 16-year-old who planned
Brandon’s murder and pulled the trigger could and
would have given their child the stereo if he had
asked for it.
Apparently, he just wanted to earn it.
I think of Brandon every once in a while and see
his face smiling, hear his laughter one day after I
cracked a joke during a break of football practice. I
know he didn’t deserve to die, no matter how much I
hated him. I grudgingly but honestly miss him.
In an interview with Mickey in “Killers,” I
became reacquainted with how pliable the rational
mind can be; how rationality is the license of
criminality; the justification of insanity. In Mickey’s
mind, he and Mallory stood as a purer, better
species than the interviewer and the duo’s victims.
Everybody’s got to die; everybody’s got sins they
should die for; everybody is part of the natural order.
Natural bom killers live and thrive in a same-
species food chain; praying mantises eat their young; ,
spiders eat their mates. Murderers take loved ones
away from their families. It’s logical at the least.
Oliver Stone’s familiarity with the dark side of
human nature has served him well in past movies,
but he places the media and the power brokers — the
establishment - as the true villains in the film.
Stone offers sympathy for the Mickeys and Mallorys,
for those that commit murder not as an act of their
conscience’s transgression, but as a natural impulse.
Stone does not blame “the purer breed” who
commit murder — his obtuse moralizing instead
blames the scavengers that feed off evil deeds.
This is surely a grievous, flamboyant oversight
on Stone’s part - after all. Stone himself is
feeding off these deeds by portraying and
glorifying them on screen.
I hope movie viewers consider what they have
seen after leaving the film, especially those who
push aside the film’s implausible events and horrific
imagery without a backward glance.
After a lot of thought, I recommend people see the
movie, not to agree or disagree with Stone’s
arbitrary statements, but merely to experience an
uncomfortable film. There are people out there who
kill “in bulk” and without thought.
Maybe you’re close to them. Maybe you’ve
even met them, shaken either their hands or
their victims’. Or maybe you will later.
William Harrison is a 1994 journalism graduate
I
U.
of Former
luating seniors
t up tickets
l Nov. 1, 2 and
Wednesday,
don Hilton,
r dress for
inance Center,
;m up in person
them faster,
e (845-1234), a
muld get a
o 5 p.m.,
>t by your name,
it you get an
sons- an F or
>ut by Jan. 20
ft interfere with
or official
in these days of
uat.
Vhoop! Bring
not be respectful,
t a longer wait
neck at the MSC
it least E. King
ng graduation,
after you walk
e at the door will
No joke! You
on 105 the
ition, but if you
st a relative on
o them after you
Fhen you can
rly scheduled
Mail
Principles establish value of life
Julia Stavenhagen wrote on August 2 in support of
couples who choose to remain childless; her most
salient arguments being that the world is overpopulat
ed and that it is full of pain and suffering. We vehe
mently reject her position and offer the following princi
ples in response:
1) Human life is sacred, neither to be destroyed nor
rejected. This includes abortion, artificial birth control,
euthanasia and capital punishment. (Too difficult? Re
fer to principle 4.)
2) Remember that life includes joy as well as suffering.
Human beings regularly transcend suffering and evil and
live to lead upright and joyful lives. For many, suffering is
even made a vehiglg fpr^o^al grpyvtfi. We must allow our
children the chance to work through adversity rather than
assume they are incapable of doing so.
3) There are many ways to reduce suffering in the
world. Not overpopulation but evil political regimes
cause famines in many nations (e.g., Rwanda and Soma
lia, China under Mao, the Ukraine under Stalin, etc.);
reform these systems. The environment is important;
consume less and teach your children to do the same.
Address overpopulation while keeping the previous prin-
iples in mind; practice the discipline of periodic or total
c dibacy if you decide not to have children.
4) Once we determine the good, we must be willing to
w >rk toward it. We must not try to escape responsibili
ty by setting ourselves apart from those who work
courageously, even heroically, toward goodness. These
people are not superhuman or different. We can do the
I same.
These principles strive toward a better life for every
person. They lead us to a life of challenge and hope.
Jean Lavery
Class of ’93
Amy Tremblay
Class of ’94
Longhorn cattle deserve respect
Each year hundreds of tacky jokes are made up sug
gesting that Aggies are dumb. While in most cases I feel
that this is just a mean-spirited t.u. plot, in one instance
I fear that there may be a grain of truth in it. Aggies
generally ridicule Texas Longhorn cattle (in spite of the
fact that the A&M yearbook was called “The Longhorn”
up into the 1950’s).
During the economic collapse following the Civil War,
Texas’ only source of new capital was the endless herds
of cattle that roamed the state. Out of the era of the
Trail Drives, our Texas cowboys, Mustangs and Long
horns wrote pages of history that have made this state
an international legend.
Today our pure blood Texas Longhorn cattle are still
the lowest in saturated fats, highest in fertility, highest
in disease and parasite resistance and least expensive to
raise of any cattle in America. Texas Longhorns are the
living symbols of the Lone Star State and have earned
every loyal Texan’s respect; though the pure bloods are
getting rare again, sad to say.
The confusion that some Aggies seem to be suffering
iftrom is between our great native breed of cattle and a
iboor old steer over at t.u.’s Austin campus. One steer
does not a breed make. It’s not even certain if Bevo is a
true Longhorn, or a Longhom-Hereford-Brahman cross.
Either way, he’s just a steer (and for you city-slickers, a
liteer is a former bull that’s had the things that make
male Aggies MEN chopped off). Considering what Bevo
was forced to give up in order to fairly represent the oth
er eunuchs at t.u., I feel that he deserves a lot more
sympathy from Aggielanders than he gets.
\ Anyhoo, I do hope that in the future Aggies will re
member to separate our fine old Texan breed of cattle
from one SOB (Sad OT Bevo). Squeeze ’em hard, ’cause
Bevo can’t anymore.
do is pass those
. trying to talk me
dfway through
’ve had four great
like one of those
,’s about time for
stuff off my
inner Students
ssw
2nd Spanish major
The Battalion encourages letters
i the editor and will print as many
s space allows. Letters must be
00 words or Jess and include the
tuthor's name, class, and phone
umber.
We reserve the right to edit letters
>r length, style, and accuracy.
Address letters to:
The Battalion - Mail Cat!
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-1111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: 8att@tamvmt.tamu.edu
Should the U. S. government
admit the Cuban refugees?
jOSEF
ELCHANAN
"TW "T Immigrants are
I /~V the power behind
JL ^1 • this country.
Without the influx of new peo
ple with new ideas and drive,
America, like many other
countries, would have become
stagnant long ago.
Being able to immigrate to
the U.S. is a privilege and
honor, not a right. It is a gift
given to peoples of both sexes, all religions and all ethnic groups ftom
around the world that are perceived to have something to give to this
country in trade for its freedorhs and values” It is not, never has be&n,
and never should be a right demanded by any country for any reason.
Many times America has allowed more political refugees in than the
quotas allowed, not always employing the proper background checks.
Many times catastrophe struck when the United States refused people,
and they were left to suffer or die because of it. This is not the case with
the Cuban refugees.
The United States has been trying to control the Caribbean, Central
America and South America for decades. Sometimes there were truly
valid goals for these activities, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Many
times, however, reason was tossed away in favor of passions. The cur
rent Cuban situation is one of these times.
Yes, Fidel Castro is a dictator who has logged a poor record for hu
man rights, but does that mean that the U.S. should run over and
start letting in every single Cuban who wants to immigrate? What
about the Rwandans, or the Bosnian-Serbs, or the Ethiopians, or the
Afghans, or the Somalians? What if the President had ordered that
all black South Africans could immigrate to this country? Would any
thing have changed? Would the majority of the population of South
Africa have finally pushed the government into accepting them if
they all had left?
For a country to mature into a democratic or free society, there must
be some sort of unhindered opposition. Without this opposition, a coun
try has not become free, but simply homogeneous. Castro and his min
ions cannot control the country forever, especially if people of opposing
viewpoints stay in their country and prod the government for change.
Leaving changes nothing
It must also be mentioned that America must maintain its own se
curity and well-being. Letting in every Cuban that can get a boat to
gether constitutes a security risk for this country. As we all saw from
the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, U.S. immigration
policy is too lax as it is. Allowing the Cubans to skirt around even
the most basic immigration checks could allow undesirable elements
into our society.
Lastly, there is an argument concerning fairness. Circumstances in
Cuba may not be great, but compared to many other places around the
world, anywhere on the two American continents looks good. There are
people that are literally going to be shot to death in the streets if they
cannot get to the U.S. These people must be allowed to enter this coun
try before those who are simply uncomfortable in their surroundings.
The Cold War is over, and with it, our dispute with Cuba. As long
as Castro continues to violate his people’s
civil rights, America must take steps to
show its disapproval, but allowing free
immigration is not the answer.
Josef Elchanan is a senior
business management major
FRANK
SCHROEDER
STANFORD
Columnist
yT As if the Ameri-
f~\ can govem-
JL V_x 1^5 • ment’s dealing
with domestic problems weren’t
enough, here come a bunch of
Cuban refugees.
This statement seems to be
the general consensus among
isolationists and many staunch
conservatives in our society re
garding the recent influx of
Cubans to the United States. It is an understandable concern, but, ft is es
poused primarily by those who also shout, “Americans first!” (concerning
employment) and “we don’t need other countries’ problems — we have too
many here at home.” If these thoughts are similar to your own, I urge you
to consider this:
Although intended as a noble sentiment, “Americans first” is a very
self-interested and primitive way to shape immigration policy. It has the
same ring to it as, “White people first” or “Catholics first,” etc. If “Ameri
cans first” is the way this country should be run, Chief Sitting Bull and his
elders would have run the United States government instead of being run
over by it. Ninety-eight percent of Americans’ ancestors either jumped a
border or landed on a shore somewhere. So the traditional meaning of
“Americans first” has usually been, “Me first.”
As for other countries 1 problems — OK, I agree, no one NEEDS other
people's problems — but are Cubans really a problem? No. The situation is
quite the contrary. South Florida, the home of most Cuban Americans, has
had a very positive influence from its Cuban population through politics,
big and small businesses and culture. I witnessed this influence firsthand
when I lived in Miami. I was commonly told that Floridians consider
Cubans to be a very hardworking, prosperous asset to the state. Almost all
of these Cubans were refugees at some point.
Obviously, the government doesn’t want to just throw open the
door and allow anyone who wants to be an American do so. At the
very least it would be chaotic. And we can’t discriminate against cer
tain nations regarding immigration policies while welcoming others,
can we? But we do.
The U.S. allows individuals from officially undemocratic governments to
seek what we’ve all heard called “political asylum”. Because America has
always hated Communism so much. Uncle Sam gives special privilege to
those wishing to leave a Communist nation. Not Mexicans, however, or
Haitians either - they’re just poor - they only qualify as “economic
refugees” and are immediately deported. Even though these governments
are ridiculously corrupt, we still regard them as democratic and therefore
okey-dokey. Lucky for the Cubans, Castro is a communist.
Now, however, Cubans are coming over in droves - risking their lives on
rafts in the open ocean for days — only to be told America has changed its
mind based on, “Gee we didn’t know there’d be THIS MANY of you.” The
irony is that Florida can always use more hardworking people; so can
America for that matter. Cuba and Castro are expected to fall soon and
Cuba will begin to rebuild itself. Allowing the refugees sanctuary isn’t go
ing to be a losing battle.
And all that stuff about taking “our” jobs is a crock. These people are
begging for work — doing anything. This country has always had PLENTY
of jobs for those who really want them.
Let the Cubans in, and they will HELP
the economy.
Frank Schroeder Stanford is a
philosophy graduate student
Mike Leathers
Bryan