Thursday • April 20, 1995
Sterling
Hayman
Opinion Editor
1994 elections
gave public taste
of Republicans
On Nov. 8, 1994, after the election re
sults were in, I spent much of my time
cussing, coring, drinking and throwing
as many tantrums as I could. It was a
dreary day for yellow-dog Democrats like
myself. I kept thinking over and over,
“This cannot be happening. How stupid
can people be? We lost.”
In retrospect, however, by losing, the
Democrats actually won.
Sure, Texas lost the most eloquent
and charismatic Governor it has ever
had — a person who has done more for
this state than anyone in recent history.
Sure, Democrats lost control of the U.S.
Senate. Sure, Democrats even lost con
trol of the U.S. House, which had been in
their possession for 40 years.
The Republicans came out of the ’94
elections victorious. But their current
performance is sealing their fate for the
1996 go-round.
The Contract With America, the elec
tion gimmick that was used to lure in
swing voters, fared very well in the
House. To Speaker Gingrich’s credit, the
majority of the items of legislation was
passed. Wooo-hooo, the Republicans ful
filled their promise.
By doing so, however, the American
public was better able to analyze what
the Republican party is all about. Their
conclusion — many of the things that Re
publicans want appear good on the sur
face. But when these proposals require
that details be revealed, the Republican
agenda once again takes on a sour taste.
For one, the Republicans want to halt
the growth of social programs in America.
Well, OK. That sounds good. Some
programs are growing uncontrollably,
and many social problems are not get
ting any better. So what is the Repub
lican answer?
Cut the federally subsidized school
lunch programs, which were created so
that no children in public school systems
would go undernourished.
Cut the federally subsidized college
loan programs — the ones that help a
countless number of college students
achieve a higher education. The ones
that are responsible for creating a more
educated society.
Well, the Republicans also want to ad
dress the problem of violent crime in
America today. Wow. That’s a new idea.
How creative. How can that be accom
plished?
“Simple,” replies the Republican par
ty. “We’ve got lots of ideas.”
To solve the crime problem. Republi
cans want to repeal the assault weapons
ban that was passed in the last session of
Congress. If you have more guns, there
will be less crime. It’s that simple.
Oh, and as far as last year’s crime bill
is concerned, those 100,000 new cops
won’t be needed either. Instead, states
should be given the money in the form of
block grants. That way, each state can de
cide the importance of citizen protection.
Hold on, Republicans also desper
ately want to change the tax system
in America.
Good. We all hate to pay taxes —
It’s no fun at all. What changes
should be made?
First of all, Republicans think that the
rich are being taxed way too heavily. The
poor wealthy ... we should all feel sorry
for them. They pay too much money in
taxes ... and they generally vote Republi
can. Let’s give em’ a break.
Now, the popular idea within the par
ty is a flat tax — one standard tax rate
for all Americans. Remember, this was a
bad idea when it was Michael Dukakis’
idea. But now with supporters like Dick
Armey, it can’t fail.
Unfortunately, the idea is bad — no
matter whose it is. A flat tax does noth
ing but lower taxes for the upper muck-
ety muck, and increase taxes for the mid
dle- and working-classes.
Besides that, most analysts predict
that Republican proposed tax cuts will
more than likely increase the federal
deficit, which has constantly been de
creasing since Clinton took office.
Fortunately, all of these things are be
coming clear before the 1996 election. Re
publicans are defining themselves, and
the public is watching.
This is not to say that the Republicans
haven’t accomplished anything over the
past few months; they have. Their new
lead in Congress has paved the way for
many needed reforms.
However, they now realize that being
the majority is a tad harder than being
the minority. And the Democrats are
now able to sit back and enjoy the show.
And oh, what a show it will be.
The Presidential players have al
ready taken the field, and the game
is about to start.
It’s a different game, though. No
longer will Republicans be able to run
against the “nasty status-quo establish
ment.” Democrats have that advantage.
And chances are good that, come Nov.
1996, I’ll be drinking, laughing and re
joicing in the fact that America is once
again in the hands of a better party.
Sterling Hayman is a junior
political science major
PINION
The Battalion • Page 13
Active dialogue crucial for understanding
P luralism. Tolerance.
Open mindedness.
Contemporary liber
al thought espouses these
values above all others, in
cluding the value of truth.
Liberal thinkers are
often very hostile toward
anyone who makes an
assertion of truth. By
claiming a normative standard of
truth, a universal statement of what is
right and what is wrong, one is suppos
edly acting in a closed-minded way.
Any attempt to convince others of the
truth of a particular belief is met with
accusations of intolerance.
Moral relativism, the idea that there
are no universally true propositions, is
dangerous and wrong because it does not
allow for any discussion to attempt to dis
cern what is true.
It is true that individuals have differ
ent conceptions right and wrong. Every
body develops an individual moral code
and applies it to their own life. However,
this does not mean that all moral codes
are equally valid or equally true.
Societies also develop moral codes and
base their civil laws
based on what people
agree to be true and
just. The United States
outlaws slavery because
all reasonable people
agree that humans own
ing others humans and
denying rights based
only on skin color is un
just. Many people believe that abortion is
immoral and unjust, but it remains legal
because there is not widespread agree
ment that this judgment is true.
However, people who support making
abortion illegal are often accused of want
ing to impose morality by the force of law.
If the basis for outlawing abortion is that
it violates a particular religious moral
code, then this criticism is valid and abor
tion should not be made illegal solely for
this reason. However, if viewed as a hu
man rights issue that all persons possess
the right to life and the freedom from be
ing unjustly harmed, them abortion must
be made illegal. If the fetus is a human
person, then abortion must be illegal for
the same reason that slavery is illegal; it
is unjust to deny people their rights.
If we had abandoned the debate over
slavery, that injustice may have contin
ued. If relativism had prevailed, we might
not even think of slavery as an injustice.
If the laws of a society are not guided by
transcendent standards of justice, then no
society can ever be condemned by another
as unjust. We would have no basis for the
claim of human rights. We could not con
demn Hitler or Stalin. They violated none
of their own laws and are accountable to
no others.
Hypothetically, say a small band of
white men gathered in the forest long
ago. Recognizing their existence as nasty,
brutish, and short, they formed a contract
with each other to create a system of laws
to protect their lives and their property
and punish those who transgress the law.
These men have never seen a black
man but have heard tales of the savagery
of the African jungle, so they deem it in
their best interest to subjugate and en
slave any black which they might en
counter. So they make it the law. They
think that homosexuals pose a threat to
their social order, so they decree that all
known gays be put to death.
The cultural relativist has no philo
sophical means of condemning this nation
as unjust. One must posit some standard
of justice that transcends individuals and
societies, or he is forced to say that there
is nothing wrong with the society in our
example. Surely this offends our common
sense. Yet relativism leads us directly to
that conclusion.
By recognizing that normative stan
dards of justice govern our moral code, we
must attempt to discern what is right and
be intolerant of what is wrong.
It is important to note, however, that
such intolerance is strictly a private
matter. In the absence of general agree
ment within a society, opinions about
what is true and false must not be en
forced by law. False opinions should not
be suppressed; people should not be con
demned for believing false doctrine.
All that is required is continued dis
cussion. While we should be intolerant of
false ideas, people of all opinions should
engage in a vigorous, healthy, construc
tive dialogue in an attempt to understand
each other and to understand the truth.
Him Pawlikowski is a junior chemical
engineering major
Oklahoma tragedy evokes
feelings of fear, insecurity
Elizabeth
Preston
Columnist
O klahoma City.
The site of the
latest tragedy
in the United States
is not a city that any
one would have
picked as a likely tar
get. New York City or
Los Angeles it is not.
Somehow, this just
makes it that much more tragic.
When the World Trade Center was
bombed, the nation gasped in fear and
shock. However, after the dust had
settled, it was easy to dismiss the fear
aspect of the reaction.
New York City seems so removed
from the rest of the country. Most
times, people who aren’t from there
talk about it as if it were a foreign
country.
“I went to New York this week —
man, those people are weird.”
“New York — not even a nice place
to visit. What kind of insane people
would live there?”
In our middle and southern Ameri
ca suburban comfort, we all sat back
and thought about the tragedy in
,erms of “There” and “Here.”
“That is terrible about whafehap-
pened up There. Thank goodness we
live down Here where we are safe.”
Then, seemingly out of nowhere,
Oklahoma City was hit.
A car bomb weighing more than 1000
pounds exploded during the peaceful
morning in front of the Alfred Murray
building, killing children and adults
and injuring hundreds of others.
Innocence lost.
Suddenly, no place is safe. The pic
tures of a bombed-out building bore re
markable resemblance to the pictures
we have seen of war'-torn cities in far
away places — Sarajevo and Beirut
come to mind.
Federal buildings around the coun
try were quickly evacuated as bomb
threats and panic spread like wild fire.
Some Dallas and Fort Worth federal
buildings were frantically emptied, as
were buildings in Portland, Boston
and several other cities.
The insanity has reached compla
cent middle America, and there is no
place left to hide.
The tragedy monopolized all of the
networks. The story even beat out
the O. J. Simpson trial — at least for
one day.
The problem with these bombings is
that no one can foresee them. There is
no way to control or prevent them.
Anyone could walk into a building
with a homemade bomb, leave one in a
car or throw one through a window.
Every teenage kid with a chemistry
set can easily discover how to make a
simple bomb. Put gun
powder in a snuff can,
add a wick and cover the
whole thing with duct
tape: Suddenly you are
holding a murder
weapon.
The transition to a
complex bomb is not
that difficult, and too
many people know this. There is even
an easily found “Anarchist’s Cook
book,” detailing how to make hundreds
of bombs of varying levels of complexi
ty in minute detail.
Obviously, you don’t even have to
be smart to be a terrorist. In the New
York incident, the first terrorist ar
rested was found when he tried to get
his deposit back on the rented van
that they had actually carried the
bomb in. We are not dealing with rock
et scientists.
Even scarier are the connections be
tween yesterday’s bombing and the
Branch Davidians’ fiery ending in
Waco. There is too much they have in
common to be dismissed entirely.
The Oklahoma City bombing oc
curred exactly two years to the day
later.
The Murray building housed the Ok
lahoma Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(ATF) agency whose Texas branch was
in charge of the Waco fiasco.
A student at Texas A&M told a
frightening story. Her uncle works for
the ATF and was involved in the Waco
incident. After the tragedy, he was
transferred to Oklahoma City and cur
rently works in the Murray building.
The uncle said that many of the
agents involved in Waco were trans
ferred out of Texas and to the Murray
building in Oklahoma.
Luckily for this student, her uncle
was not in the building Wednesday
morning and is safe at home. But for
most of the hundreds of workers there,
the morning was anything but lucky.
These criminals always leave clues
at the scenes, so the ever-diligent FBI
and CIA will probably discover soon
whether there is anything to these ru
mors. They will probably begin mak
ing arrests very shortly.
They always do a very good job on
this part of tragedies — cleaning up
the mess and arresting the bad guys.
Sadly, they have almost no ways to
PREVENT these tragedies.
We as American citizens have noth
ing to learn from the Oklahoma City
horror except fear.
No one can pretend that they are
safe in their cozy world anymore.
Elizabeth Preston is a junior
English major
WE
WERE
WRONG
IN VIETNAM
V *«**« fell •
Goodbyes to The Post
L ast June, I
walked into the
huge, sprawling
building where The
Houston Post is
housed. Immediate
reaction — total fear.
The newsroom
seemed to span for
miles, a far cry from
the cozy dungeon of The Battalion. I was
amazed to see the miles of paper every
where, fingers flying on the computer
keyboards at a furious pace and the gen
eral feeling of urgency and importance.
There I was, an intern reporting for
my first day. The scene was so intimidat
ing, I almost ran to the parking lot to go
back home.
But the Post gave me opportunities
that I never thought possible. From writ
ing major stories on AIDS and health
care, to rushing out to interview Dan
Rather at a Astrohall gala, I often found
myself in disbelief of the phenomenal sit
uation I was so lucky to be in.
Perhaps the best part of the job was
the interaction between the reporters
and the interns. They had been where
we were, and had found their way
through the insecurities that hounded
us each day.
Two reporters became mentors of
sorts for me, and showed me the way.
When I needed help with a story, or just
advice on this journalism career I’m get
ting myself into, they were always there
for some words of wisdom.
They helped instill a sense of pride in
what I was doing. To work for The Hous
ton Post, to know that 281,000 people
had the opportunity to read something I
wrote was simply mind-boggling.
Needless to say, I was horrified Tues
day when the news broke of the Post’s
abrupt departure from the
newspaper world. What dis
turbed me wasn’t the money
involved, or that the Chroni
cle would now control the
Houston print media.
I just kept seeing all the
people that had helped me
during my internship at the
Post. Their words, their
guidance, their generosity. All I saw
were those people clearing out their
desks and saying goodbye.
Careers were suddenly in uncertain
waters, economic security was in serious
jeopardy and an era was over. The histo
ry of 115 years of publication was just
that — history.
Considering the San Antonio Light
and Dallas Times-Herald suffered simi
lar fates in past years, this doesn’t come
as a total shock.
But tell that to the 1,900 Post employ
ees who suddenly found themselves un
employed on Tuesday.
This is big business, and money talks.
So now Houston finds itself with
one newspaper. Perhaps the pain
could have been eased by printing a fi
nal edition — a goodbye of sorts after
115 years. It would have been a
source of dignity and pride for all the
years of service to the city.
But the Hearst Corp. cleaned house,
and the dignity of the Post employees
wasn’t high enough on the priority list.
I suppose just having the chance to
contribute to the Post is enough for me.
It was an amazing experience, one I will
never forget.
But now those reporters that helped
me need help themselves.
What a shame.
Rob Clark is a senior journalism major
Freeing The Planet, celebrating 25th Earth E)ay
one your mother, it
says. This particular
bumper sticker cleverly
states the message that pro
ponents of Earth Day would
like to get across.
• Think globally, act locally.
•Live simply so that oth
ers can simply live.
•Hurt not the earth, nor
the trees, nor the sea.
These other slogans, found on bumper stickers, T-
shirts and pins are also thoughtful, certainly, but
useless unless acted upon. The sentiment behind
them must motivate us to solve the problems plagu
ing our environment. Finding a sustainable way of
life is our greatest challenge for the 21st Century.
Not all of us agree on the Environment problem.
Some groups feel that the government has no reason to
put its nose into protecting the environment, though
tum-of-the-century politician Teddy Roosevelt certainly
had no problem fitting environmental protection into
his moderate, albeit socially conscious, politics.
Some groups, like Greenpeace, will stop at nothing
to protect the environment and the creatures therein.
Sometimes it feels as though human life is even put
on the backburner in the world of Greenpeace.
In any case, whether or not you believe the govern
ment has reason to intervene, or believe that Green
peace members are terrorists, there are problems.
And the problems are bigger and more important
than any political ideology or party affiliation.
The problems begin at a small level, with things
we use every day: paper, cans, glass.
“On campus, there are problems with recy
cling, like in dorms. We’ve proposed a bill for
better recycling, though, and we have Target —
a brochure that directs you to the various loca
tions where you can recycle,” said Shelly Nash,
Earth Day chair for MSC Environmental Is
sues Committee.
So things are improving somewhat at A&M,
but awareness of the issues is still low, and par
ticipation is far short of what it ought to be, considering
the resources here: the population of the school, the
emphasis on the sciences, Aggie enthusiasm.
“We have a special situation at A&M — we want to
activate, but right now we are still educating. Ulti
mately, we want to activate people into the movement
towards a cleaner, safer environment,” said Carrie
Thompson, Earth Day director for TEAC.
Hence the Earth Day celebration and the week of
activities designed to raise awareness and motivation
levels. The festivities and programs are more exten
sive than ever before.
“This year. Earth Day is getting bigger,” said
Nash. “The whole point of this Earth Week is to in
form the student body of the issues and problems.
People don’t know about animals close to extinction,
for example. We are trying to get people excited, and
hopefully get them acting.”
Get them excited, get them acting. Get them edu
cated, get them activated.
It’s a tall, but necessary order.
We depend on the Earth, obviously, but often behave
as if the Earth depends on us. One particularly suitable
saying on the A&M Earth Day T-shirt is “The Earth
doesn’t belong to us, we belong to the Earth.” A subtle
difference, perhaps, but a powerful one.
Certainly, we are losing our grip on protecting the
environment. Losing it quickly, and fiercely.
Every major piece of environmental protection leg
islation drafted and passed during the ’70s is being
challenged in Washington, as we speak.
Without the government to enforce standards, the
free market will quickly devour, and destroy.
As a result of the fight against that protective leg
islation, local groups are placing increased emphasis
on the national environmental situation during this
week’s celebration of the upcoming Earth Day.
“We’ve decided to take a political stance this year,
which we haven’t done in the past,” said Thompson,
‘lout our concerns aren’t being represented by our
politicians. Students need to let leaders know that we
care about the environment and endangered species.”
It’s all about calling, writing, making a fuss. It’s
about doing something in a way in which you feel com
fortable. This isn’t an issue that affects a special inter
est group, or alternative lifestyle classification.
We are all leasing a small part of this planet, and
rent needs to be paid.
No matter what your ideological leanings, you
have to live here for the rest of your life, and your
children after you, and theirs after them.
Too numerous to fist, too frightening to ignore — our
environmental concerns will only become more pressing
as we continue to populate, harvest and use the Earth.
Erin Hill is a senior English major