Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 20, 1995)
im$| ect 'd divinJ total, have ] ceived f 0 | we didn'tl assistani d. “Hou e gotterl or y yearl it benefil i WrighJ 3s at thfl cooperaf ning and | id diving I orts anal the pro [ th go to- total ail WrighJ we work I am and| ve can.” s’ recent I there -earns to| Confer- i able to I bey ’ We moderates don t mind straddling fences Those who can take both sides of each issue find frustration in today's political world Erin Hill Asst. Opinion Editor T here ought to be a club on campus for us: Moderates Anony mous. We’re that body of students who can’t make up our minds (some say) or who choose to see both sides of the issue (we say). Gloriously open-minded or just plain empty-headed? It’s tough to be a centrist. First of all, as a moderate, everyone gets on my nerves. Those of you who love Clinton make me suspicious, while those who are grateful for Newt’s rise to power drive me nutso. When I am with liberals, I feel conservative; when I talk with Re publicans I defend Democrats. I hate be ing the devil’s advocate all the time, but I am not willing to jump off the fence and take a firm, extremist, zealous stand. We try to have it both ways—a near impossibility in politics. Since policy making involves choosing a position and fighting for it, there are few places for true moderates like me in politics. I’m not referring to people who are slightly right or slightly left of center and feel strongly about their ‘slightly’ positions. Those of us who need a 12- step plan cannot com mit to any particular viewpoint, no matter where it falls on the po litical spectrum. I don’t want knee-jerk liberals running Capitol Hill but I empathize with my fellow bleeding hearts. FVo-life extrem ists frighten all of us, including me, but I think that it’s okay to protest at clinics, in a non-violent manner, of course. I wish that Washington D.C. was just one big prayer breakfast with Mother Teresa, one big smiling press conference, one big happy bipartisan family. In high school I tried to get involved with both the Young Republicans and the Young Democrats. I thought that if I couldn’t commit to one, I would help both. That didn’t last long; I never at tended any meetings to be truthful. If I had attended one people might see me there and get the wrong idea. In college I joined Greenpeace, hop ing that my money could change the — world. I was quickly disillusioned when I realized that those folks were crazy about the environment. They were ex tremists and I didn’t feel good about be ing associated with such people. I decid ed that encouraging people to put bricks in their toilet tanks was a more reason able way to aid the environment. Recy cling cans was more my style, not ter rorizing polluter nations. The presidential election in 1992 re ally shook me up: one minute I was ap plauding Clinton, the next I was smil ing at Bush. Couldn’t they be Co-presi Those of you who love Clinton make me suspicious, while those who are grateful for Newt's rise to power drive me nutso. dents? I feel for Clinton’s packaging hook, line and sinker. I felt he deserved a chance to test his ideas. But out of fairness I watched the Republican convention and thought Bush deserved re-election for his four years of service. When people tell me they voted for Clinton, I get upset. After all. Bush lost and that makes me sad. But when I see those nasty anti-Clinton T-shirts some thing inside me starts to tense up. He is our president, not our national joke. I frown when I see “Impeach the Pres ident, and her husband too,” but “Ditto Rush” stickers turn me off as well. Could n’t we just be happy with “Texas Ag gies—Leaders in Agriculture?” Gridlock is the buzz word of late. Ugh— it drives us lowly taxpayers crazy. But mod erates don’t mind it as much as partisans do. In tensive and extensive de bate on an issue gives us a chance to waffle, vacillate and expound on our ex tremely rational positions. “What do you think of gun control?” “Well, I can really see both sides of the issue. On one hand you have the constitutional right to bear arms, but on the other you have wackos who need to be regulated.” “Should women be allowed in combat?” “Yes, and no.” I read the National Review and the New Republic. I believe in welfare. I believe in John Locke’s philosophies. I think the NEA should receive gov ernment funds, but I don’t want tax increases. More regulation? Less regulation? Sure. It’s not‘that I hate politics. Quite the contrary: the whole political thing interests me greatly. After all, a good debate (or rambling discourse from me) is satisfying. I just hate that in politics someone has to lose. There isn’t enough coopera tion or agreement to allow both parties to achieve goals. One group’s victory means defeat for its opponents. One party’s bill being passed means failure for the other folks. I think I am going to start Aggies for Powell instead. No one knows where he stands. He has no party affiliations and no cumbersome positions to reconcile myself with. There seems to be no zeal ous streak in sight. I’ll do well, at least until the first debate. Erin Hill is a senior English major Ps ! year, ew Gr id No. 1 ashing- ap line- the San r Sean e Pills- he ad 155 ed the nors aercent Player, '•owns, e, Mar- hits k, Rod :ers. ie, An •eland aokie Back ncisco :ek anger 1 fund irban ix in ix in irday, ey to The Battalion Established in 1893 Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect 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. EDITORIAL BOARD Mark Smith Editor in chief Jay Robbins Heather Winch Senior Managing editor Managing editor for Business Sterling Hayman Opinion editor Erin Hill Asst, opinion editor Not on Our Tab The federal government should stop mandating unfunded state programs The debate over how much influ ence the federal government should have in the affairs of the individual states is a long and engaging one. Since Washington probably will con tinue to mandate new programs to the states, it also should have to come up with the money to pay for them. The functions and benefits of a centralized government are many, in cluding standardized currency, na tional defense, and the interstate highway system. The federal govern ment’s intervention at times has been absolute necessary to correct injus tice. If it were not for the admittedly belated reforms of the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, the Civil Rights movement would have been likely to make appreciable gains for many more years. However, when the federal govern ment mandates a program to the states, it should also provide the fund ing for the states to carry out the pro gram. It is, at best, unreasonable and, at worst, unethical to mandate a pro gram if a state does not have the abili ty to effectively enact it. Texas boasted a budget surplus this past year, but is an anomaly for doing so. Many states simply lack the money to adequately fulfill these requirements. The unfunded mandated given to the states by the national government have continually grown over the past few years. With the national debt over $400 trillion. Congress has increasing ly looked to the states to pay for Wash ington’s legislative good deeds. Be cause of this financial burden that has been given to the states, many have had to institute a state income-tax. Programs like the mandatory emis sions test that has stalked Texas over the past few months are created with good intentions; however, good inten tions don’t help fund such initiatives. The financial burden for the pro grams ultimately becomes the respon sibility of the citizen. The proposed emissions testing would require an additional $25 yearly fee for all Texas automobile owners. This week the House and the Sen ate will debate the Unfunded Man date Act. Although this bill will not affect laws that have already been enacted, it will have a major impact on future programs. Congress would have to fund any new federal man dates to the states which cost over $50 million. This legislation also is capable of cutting down on the num ber of frivolous mandates, as now the federal government will be called on to fund them. The states are more connected with the issues that face them than is the federal government. It is only logical that the states are the best judges of their situations and thus how to most effectively allocate the money and pro grams needed to deal with them. Bert 4/vi Gme -Vo 4V\e Broken tradition only part of larger issue •It is sad that another racial incident has taken place in Aggieland because stu dents still have not learned to respect the cultural differences of other students. It is also unfortunate that instead of trying to create an understanding between stu dents, The Battalion fueled the fire. The real issue is whether or not stu dents have a right to attend Texas A&M, practice their beliefs, and remain free from attack and insults, even if they de cided to not participate in a tradition. The answer then and now, as the Univer sity’s Statement on Harassment and Dis crimination states, is “any form of ha rassment and any form of illegal discrim ination against any individual is incon sistent with the values and ideals of the University community.” Judging from the Mail Call letters, students are confused about why this was and is being construed as a racial in cident. Hopefully, in the coming days, students and administrators will develop an understanding that something is wrong when a student cannot practice his beliefs without being physically as saulted and verbally harassed. More ac tion should be directed towards doing something about the problem, including implementing the multicultural require ment the Faculty Senate passed more than a year ago. Finally, the Aggie Code says an Aggie shall not lie, cheat, or steal nor tolerate those who do. The two individuals who assaulted Shawn Williams cheated him of his dignity and stole his right to choose. They claimed with their actions and words to be upholding Aggie traditions. I say they are racist who used the hat as an excuse to harass a proud black man. Joseph Gourrier Class of ‘93 • History teaches us that minorities did in fact fight and die for this country. History also teaches us that minorities were allowed to work for this university long before they were allowed to attend this university. These two facts mean that there is the distinct possibility that minority workers of this university died in the wars the MSG commemorates. The MSC should recognize this fact. Research should be done to find out what minority workers of Texas A&M died in American wars. Then those men and women should be honored. Perhaps this action would help minorities feel a greater tie to this university. Last year the inscription requesting the removal of hats was changed to in clude “All Wars Past and Future.” Why are there no persons of color or women honored? Maybe this isn’t a racial issue. Maybe it is just about us not being white and male. Aggie pride aside, the MSC simply does not honor those it pro fesses to honor—at least not on its walls for all to see J. Frank Hernandez Class of ‘95 /hick , has itions arena ise of long- con- s villa case r are- Sister schools should not Ring, tradition and reputation are non reap many A&M benefits -transferable parts of our Aggie culture E very time I re turn home for a winter, spring or summer break, I run into someone who I had gone to school with. As is always the case, I ask the per son what he/she has been doing since graduating from high school. Many are working but most are attending college. However, too often when I ask what college they are attending, their reply is: “A&M.” “Oh really? I didn’t know you were going to A&M. I haven’t seen you up there. What dorm are you staying in?” “Oh, well, I’m going to Texas A&M-Corpus Christi.” (Or Texas A&M-Kingsville). While this may seem only trivial, it is representa tive of a much larger problem that began when the Texas A&M Board of Regents voted to allow four members of the A&M system to adopt name changes to include Texas A&M in their school names. The four schools, Texas A&M University-Cor pus Christi (formerly Corpus Christi State Uni versity), Texas A&M University - Kingsville (for merly Texas A&I), Texas A&M International Uni versity (formerly Laredo State University) and West Texas A&M University (formerly West Texas State University) began using their new names September 1, 1993. Since then much has been forgotten or down played about the events that occurred in the name changes. From the questionable methods in which the name changes (a last minute amendment by Senator Carlos Truan to a Senate finance bill) were ramrodded through the state legislature to the reports that surfaced of how the Board of Regents may have been politically blackmailed into voting for the name changes or risk budget cuts. Many have forgotten how vehemently opposed the A&M Association of Former Students and the Texas A&I Alumni were opposed to the changes, and their unsuccessful attempt to keep the name Texas A&I. You may ask “What does this have to do with me? This doesn’t affect me here in College Station.” However, we true Aggies here in College Sta tion are the ones who are affected. By allowing our name to represent these colleges, our reputa tion is damaged every time they do something wrong. For instance, just this past football season, when Texas A&M-Kingsville advanced to the na tional championships in Division II football, their starting quarterback was suspended for using steroids. This same football team has had prob lems in the past with drug abuse. A recent piece of legislation filed by Rep. Steve Ogden of Bryan named Texas A&M- Kingsville as one of 14 Texas colleges that ad mits unqualified students and then puts them in remedial classes “to bring them up to speed,” all at taxpayers’ expense. Texas A&M has had enough controversy over the last few years. Now we have to concern our selves with the actions of four other schools. Our biggest concern as Aggies about the name changes is the assault on the traditions we Aggies hold so dear. One of the schools has a senior ring that bears a striking resemblance to our Aggie ring; who knows how long it will be before the other schools develop a slight variation of the Aggie ring for their own. I have heard many students from these colleges in South Texas refer to themselves as Ag gies. We hope these schools identity crises won’t cause them to tread on any other Aggie traditions. Just think, in a few years when you have gradu ated and are looking for a job, you may be compet ing with someone else who graduated from Texas A&M — Texas A&M-Corpus Christ that is. But, hey, the employer won’t know the difference. Let’s face it, there is no comparison to the level of educa tion and competitiveness that one will receive here as compared to that of the system schools. Not long ago, when people said the name Texas A&M, every one knew who they were talking about. Now we have lost that singular identity so that four other schools could build a false one for themselves. Let us not be hesitant to remind those at the other schools that we are the one true Texas A&M, and we will not allow them to dis honor our name. As Aggies we must stand up to any more threats at changing our tradition, our way of life or our University by the Board of Regents, State Legislature or even from within the Administra tion. We have come too far and established a repu tation too great for us to throw it all away now. Zachary Hall is a sophomore mechanical engineering major
