Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 24, 1996)
Pagt September 24,| :rosse Club: Prat j from 4-6 p.nu! 'Ids. Everyone is no experience ;B” r information call it 764-8561. ^ k T^ he Battalion : ! N I ( » N Page 11 Tuesday • September 24, 1996 iugby: Come perience necessi om 6-8 p.m. onS eld. For more t Lara at 696-69J' hould Perot be excluded bird party adds variety sters of Toastni!) ial: There will be ttention all future third party candi dates for president: Any attempt to at 8:30 p.m. in: breach the public is futile and will be public speakingn vith resistance. A non-partisan com- ion recently enforced this idea by irre- sibly excluding H. Ross Perot from the dential debates this fall, peir one success from this decision is dvancement of the two-party system Life: Everyone is* otype in America. 1 and hear a [i liydid they vote to exclude Perot? )r details cal at 822-0566. /ednesday the Brazos tcy Center frc': 402 Rudde! tion contact!) 593-0289 oi )803. iusiness Student There will be a m esume workshof in 136 Wehner. nation contact C: >179. ive Coalition: It neral meetingati Rudder. RA will speak a ■sabilitation at 7 er. For more info ct Casey Barto Dr check the webs o-www.tamu.edi ub. from presidential debates? Exclude circus from debate Columnist don’t think he can win. heir assumption is for the most part :ct. Perot currently boasts about a 5 Jon Apgar Sophomore journalism major nt standing in the polls with the election less seven weeks away. owever, this decision is a terrible one. Just because thas litde chance of winning doesn’t mean he Id be denied the right to debate. After all, he is a dential candidate representing a legitimate party, liat happened to Perot’s First Amendment rights? !rot has threatened a federal lawsuit to allow him bate Dole and Clinton, but experts say it will little effect on his chances. oleand his Republican cohorts are overjoyed that harp-tongued Texan is being banned from the ites. Perot’s involvement would most likely bene- ieDemocrats and hurt the GOP erot,like many informed folks, is critical of Dole’s ogical Society: F; rased 15 percent tax cut. And seeing as Perot’s ipaign is built on economics, this issue would be a tile one for Dole in the course of a debate. 'erotis down but not out. The decision reached by lommittee is non-binding, meaning that the Clin- and Dole campaigns are in negotiations over Per- involvement. Jot surprisingly, Dole wants nothing to do with it. If it were up to Dole, Perot would probably be s a Battalion seftitled to the nether regions of Siberia until Nov. 5. on-profit student an linton, on the other hand, would like to include Dtinthe debates, for the obvious fact that Perot ild be submitted! id probably trip up Dole at some point. And Perot hree days in advaiK* iingvotes from the Republicans wouldn’t hurt red run date, ippli iton, either. Moreover, Clinton has made the shaky lines and noticesafflmthat he actually enjoyed debating Perot in the and will not ben® W-elections. I wonder if he would say that had he i. If you haieavittoGeorge Bush. olease call tin* |T\\enear certain fact that Perot will garner less 5-3313. l&nlOpetcent of the vote should have no bearing on f inclusion in the debates. foviously, not every presidential candidate can be allowed to debate. There are simply too many. Yet Perot did something in 1992 no other third party candidate has done. He proved he can run with the big dogs in a national debate. If Perot has ex perience like that, then he should be al lowed to participate. Perot usually has more one-liners than legitimate political stances. But one must admit, he provides a little comedy in the overly-dramatic presidential race. He might even get Dole to crack a smile. Another downside to this decision is that Perot will have to resort to other means of campaigning. Y’all know this means a barrage of infomercials on the major networks, scores of colorful charts that whiz across the screen and his familiar yet piercing voice. This can be avoided if the Republi can and Democratic campaigns agree to allow Perot to participate in the debates. However, the prospect of that is dim. Meanwhile, Perot is left to fend for himself because the commis sion violated his rights and made it even harder for third-party candidates to reach the American people. W alk away. Let it go. Please step away from the podium, Mr. Perot. The Mayor of Munchkin- land was denied participatory privileges in the upcoming presidential debates by a bi-partisan panel last week. The panel’s decision was the right one, no matter how much any of us would like to hear the backwoods anecdotes that endeared Perot to the nation in 1992. Now, fact of the matter is, now you see, now, how ‘bout this, Perot’s got a snow ball’s chance on a sizzlin’ Texas day on a hot tin barn roof under a 1,000 watt light bulb, of winning the election this November - is the only reason needed to exclude him. In the last election, in which Perot was included in the debates, he consistently received 20 to 25 percent in the polls but finished the election with only 19 per cent of the vote and no electoral college votes. This year, he is only getting about 5 percent in the polls (and not much more in Texas, where voters are usually stupid.) That substantial drop was rea son enough for the debate panel not to include him. He is on the ballot in enough states to garner the Columnist Mason Jackson Senior marketing major which 270 electoral votes necessary to be elect ed, but so are other minor party candi dates. If you include Perot, do you exclude them just because they aren’t billionaires with outgoing personalities? No, that would imply that money buys power, and no one believes that. If you include everyone who technically has a chance to win, would the debates turn into a circus act unfit for deciding who will be lambasted by the media for the next four years? Yes. Some people say including Perot would make the debates more lively, but to quote the debate panel, “Participation is not ex tended to candidates because they might prove interesting or entertaining.” As far as the vice-presidential debates go, Perot’s current running mate, Pat Choate (rhymes with fat goat), would bring more to the debates than Perot’s last sidekick, “Colonel Gridlock.” But the debates don’t need to be more lively or en tertaining. They need to be less so. Fewer sound bites and more complete thoughts. Less rhetoric and more substance. And no more easily manipulated pie charts. This brings us to Perot’s infomercials. It is said that everyone gets 15 minutes of fame. But Perot has pur chased his fame in several half-hour installments. In 1992 (the year he got no electoral votes) Perot’s infomercials were watched by many millions and aired during prime time. This year his spots have only been seen by dedicated masochists and have aired after reruns of “Welcome Back Kotter.” It all adds up to having debates exclusively with the Democratic and Republican contenders. And how do the chosen ones feel about Perot? Clinton wants him included so he will siphon off some of the Dole voters who only support Dole because he isn’t Clinton. In a move that would have reeked of shameless self promotion, Dole was not quoted as saying, “I was scared, but I fought on, just like I did in World War II. By the way, have I told you I’ve got two purple hearts?” Cheap shots aside, Perot has no business being in cluded in the debates. He should continue to gather support in other ways. Then maybe the two-party sys tem will take notice of what it is the Perot supporters want (other than a power-hungry, borderline psychot ic leader who isn’t very aerodynamic.) But let’s not make this election into more of a cir- cns than need be. It’s a two-clown race, and don’t pretend otherwise. Mail i running les this I routes IEE!! is. The routes 2 lours af teI sts of Bonfire Homosexuals don’t tweigh benefits deserve equality no years ago, I was called to mergency room of St.Joseph’s Ital to pick up a friend of .Because of an accident at ire cut site, he had his upper itched back on and five of his replaced. inday night, I was again called Joseph’s, this time to see a d of mine who lay uncon- tsinthe ICU, hooked up to life iort because of an auto acci- that occurred while he was ning from Bonfire cut site, hink that Aggie tradition and are wonderful, but I’m get- tired of seeing my friends in- in the name of tradition. Is ire really worth the blood is spilt? Maybe it’s time that top cutting trees and start ng our losses. Danny Holwerda Class of’97 PU T VIE DOW. SADDAM 1 'Ip FIX be forced to contain Ton eTeiri further,.. Regarding Bryan Goodwin’s Sept. 17 column, “Congress takes step back in time." In my opinion, Goodwin’s arti cle on same-sex marriages was way off base. His statement that “homosex uals are fundamentally the same as heterosexuals,” shows the backward beliefs and ideas of lib erals in this country. Homosexuality is not normal, and homosexual couples certain ly should riot be granted the right to marry legally, raise children or receive federal financial aid. The facts are simple — God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I feel that Bryan’s ideas would be more warmly embraced a few miles down the road at that other school in Austin. Thomas S. Meriwether Class of’00 Lady Aggie volley ball moving on up Dig ’em! The Lady Aggie Vol leyball Team is blockin’, settin’ and spikin’ its way to the top of the polls this season. The Lady Aggie Volleyball Team is set for conference play next week. What better way to start off the brand new, Big 12 Conference than against t.u.? If you watched some of the Post Oak Mall Invitational, you know how thrilling and exciting it is to watch these girls dismantle their hopeless opponents. I hope to see all you Ags at G. Rollie come Wednesday, Sept. 25. Scott Trcka Class of'98 Nice girls put on endangered list The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 300 words or fewer and include the author’s name, class, and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Let ters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1.1.11 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: Batt@tamvml.tamu.edu For more details on letter policy, please call 845-3313 and direct your question to the opinion editor. I have long been on a quest more noble and more difficult than finding the Holy Grail, with, apparently, a poorer chance of panning out. Can anyone tell me what caused the disappearance of the nice girl? “Hey, now,” thousands scream in unison, “I AM a nice girl!” Well, perhaps. Perhaps you even exist in greater numbers than I imagine. But those who are bravely go against the im age the media has provided for them. According to current popular culture, I (as a male) should be smart, witty, charming and driven. Females should be good-looking and, shall we say, agreeable to my any suggestion. Before the line forms to burn me in effigy, let me say that’s not how I think it should be. But our biggest female celebrities are people who have posed for Playboy and those who act like them. Turn on the tube and go channel surfing. The mother of all waves is MTV Try watching for ten min utes and not finding some utterly disgusting stereo type. For example, who’s the big female star of MTV these days? Kennedy, with her glasses and witticisms and not-universally-drool-worthy appearance? No. Miss Success is Jenny McCarthy. Great. She’s in telligent and funny and unannoying... not. She’s in sightful and courteous ... nope. Her only “qualifica tion” is a chest size that rivals the national debt. Her job is flailing around, cracking not-funny jokes and making guys’ body temperatures shoot up. But giving her the benefit of the doubt, it’s entire ly possible that, in person, she’s clever and well-in formed. So much the worse, then, that she plays out the dumb blonde stereotype on television. As a reward, she’s about to get her own show. Un til then, she co-hosts the modernized dating game, Singled Out, in which guys regularly judge gals based on the size of their endowment (I’m not talk ing finances here), and women judge men based on their... “Members Only.” Anyone remember that old adage about nice girls Editorial Roundup Columnist Bryan Goodwin Junior English major not kissing on the first date? Out the win dow. Now nice girls provide the condoms. If I see that “I’m a Trojan woman” commercial one more time, I’m going to throw my set out the window and join a monastery. At the movies it’s unavoidable as well. Jenny’s fellow Playmate, Pamela Anderson Lee, has her own feature film. Doubtless, she wasn’t cast in Barb Wire for her accom plishments as a thespian. Even actresses who live up to the title have given in to stereotypes. I’m sure we’re all aware that Demi Moore starred as a mother-turned-showgirl in Striptease. There’s a movie for the whole family. No wonder things are so awry: The message here is one that equates nudity and sexual accessi bility with real-world success. When did it become uncool to be a conservative, nice girl? It’s long been worthy of heckling to be a tradi tional nice guy, but the development of females follow ing suit has occurred much more recently. We sit and search for the causes of moral decay in our country, the things that have made casual sex a virtue and led the way to the epidemic of violence one can witness on our streets. Ironically, the answers were prophesied long ago. Television, rock and roll, men’s magazines — the list goes on and on. In retrospect, everything people warned our parents and grandparents about has in deed come to wreak havoc on our society. The way females are portrayed in these medium cre ates a role for the masses to fill. But perhaps women actually want to be portrayed that way. Perhaps all the dumb blonde characters on TV aren’t acting. Is Miss McCarthy a product of negative stereotypes, or a collaborator helping to perpetuate them? Perhaps the answer is more complex. And per haps someday we’ll look back at this period in the same way people now look back at blaxploitation films. I certainly hope so. For now, I’ll keep plod ding on, ever on the lookout for the rare nice girl. (AP)—A sampling of editorial opinion from Texas newspapers: Beaumont Enterprise on Perot and presidential debates: The Commission on Presiden tial Debates was absolutely correct to recommend that Ross Perot be excluded from the showdown be tween Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Simply put, Perot has no realistic chance of winning in November, and as such, should not clutter up the stage holding the only two men who could prevail. The debates should be focused on the candidates who could win in November, and unlike 1992 when he got 19 percent of the vote, Perot isn’t in that group this time. The important thing is to let Clinton and Dole face each other one-on-one in a fair format. For many Americans, the presidential debates are the single most im portant factor that helps them make up their minds. The Victoria Advocate on Gulf War chemical exposures: Were U.S. troops exposed to Iraqi chemical weapons during the Persian Gulf War? And if they were, is that exposure responsible for the post-war illnesses report ed by thousands of American men and women who served in the region during the conflict? In June, the Pentagon’s Persian GulfVeterans Illness Investigation Team reported, on the basis of surveys by U.N. weapons inspec tors, that 400 soldiers could have been exposed to chemical agents when the United States destroyed an Iraqi forward-area munitions storage site in March 1991. As important as the question of exposure is the medical issue of what, if any, long-term health ef fects can occur from nonacute con tact with chemical agents. A1994 Defense Science Board task force, led by Nobel Prize scientist Joshua Lederberg, and the Gulf War investi gation team have both reviewed scientific studies on exposure to chemical agents. Those studies, in volving both controlled trials and accidental exposures, show no evi dence of long-term health effects. Taken together, the evidence so far suggests that chemical expo sure won’t turn out to be the major explanation for the illnesses Gulf War veterans have suffered. But the Pentagon owed it to those who served in the war, and who are now sick, to chase the possibility much more diligently than it has, even if it turns out to be a dead end.