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.