Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 10, 1997)
The Battalion hursday # July 10, 1997 d natural disaster Jniversity repairs must stop unnecessary destruction less Igthe bnt Jan be Is/c/aii \plty Lstic [lege Ipath tjcian Bweet 3.m. ; cov- 3ryai> James Francis Opinion Editor Junior English major here once were a few trees with mil lions of branches. Their leaves would provide shelter for people and animals ike looking for a place to escape the sum- swiulerheat rays. Birds would flutter to small rigs and enjoy a brief respite from a hard ay's journey of finding food for their young, juirrels would scurry up the trees’ trunks to make in an afternoon snack of nuts and iher goods found on the ground. Smokers sum-j id non-smokers would gather on the enches under the trees, rest in the shade id make conversation about things going it in their lives. These trees were givers, natural creations latonly existed to provide help to individu- sseeking solace from the rain, beautify the exasA&M campus and give others some- more artistic to admire than brick, mcrete and asphalt. Yesterday these trees were cut down, ichered to the bottom of their trunks, and oivnothing is left to remind us that it was ferthere — except the empty benches that oonewil) sit on because of the unrelenting .People also do not want to take a break utside and have dust particles from con- iruction fly into their eyes, mouths and all vertheir clothing. This time, the University and its ever- rawing construction has gone too far. Its op priority should be to complete one ob- lacle before starting another. And the Uni- ersitycertainly should not cut down trees neither harmed nor hindered anyone it anything. Officials said the trees were obscuring the locker Building’s name and causing prob lems with the roof. Other reasons stated for moving the trees were that the roots had become too large and were beginning to push the concrete upward, and the the trees had grown too close together. So far, 1 don’t see any viable justifications for destroying these trees. Although I do not consider myself a tree-hugger or nature fa- Mtic,ldo enjoy seeing splices of greenery intermixed with the grand-scale architecture fthis University. What I do not enjoy, and insure others agree, is being put into an- hersituation of inconveniences. Let’s face the truth: Ross Street will never topen, and people will have to continue to ■ctour around the lane which was once two- (ay.The construction on Texas Avenue learly should be entitled, 2001: An A&M Re- tiirOdyssey, and the Sterling C. Evans Li- iary expansion project won’t be completed Mil"Yee haw!” replaces “Whoop!” as the known A&M yell, or some innocent teserby becomes injured by a loose-can- #11 cinder block. Surely the University has the money to inish its innumerable projects of mass de duction and construction — just think 'Lout those summer fee statements that ain every ounce of money from students iach session. And A&M also has the time to versee the completion of these projects. If students can balance two summer terms consisting of 14 hours, a full-time job to support their residence hall payments and still find time to eat at least once a day, spend time with a significant other and have a little bit of fun on the weekends, the University can hire enough workers to pave a street. As far as cutting down trees, A&M seems to have its schedule of important improvements turned upside-down. I wouldn’t be surprised, with all of the ongoing activities, if A&M de cided to remove a floor or two from the O & M Building because it blocks the view of the sun from President Bowen’s window. It used to be said that A&M had one of the most beautiful and well-kept campuses in Texas and across the nation. The trees and bushes were overflowing with green leaves and blooming flowers, design and place ment of campus buildings were admired for their originality and department divisions by polar directions were appropriate in their creations. When students and faculty peer out of windows now, however, they are bom barded with visions of orange cones, scat tered debris and rubble and an Eiffel Tower sized crane blinking its red eye among the nighttime stars. A&M’s construction has continued to de velop as each semester comes to an end and another begins. The sad thing is that no one can remember when it all started — I know I can’t and probably don’t want to find out when it did. People should come to realize that we are going to be surrounded by this mess for a long time. On the other hand, A&M should make an attempt to ensure that we won’t be victims of this destructive construction der by until the day we get a real mascot that knows how to bark and won’t collapse in an episode of violent shaking and spasmodic whimpering. As we all know, this may be a long wait, indeed. Although the concern over cutting down a few trees might seem trivial, this “small” is sue expands into a bigger picture. Here’s the sad scenario: In the spring, I sat on a bench outside Blocker and took a break to study and relax. I looked up into the overhanging leaves and marveled at a caterpillar I knew would one day transform into a rainbow of wings on a tiny butterfly. Today I walk around campus and see the same insect, only in a mechani cal form. CATERPILLARS are everywhere on this campus, and they are becoming an ever growing eyesore to everyone. This is defi nitely not the type of “natural habitat” I want to see sprouting up like brush fire. A&M must put an end to the senseless construction on this campus. Every project the University starts should be completed before beginning work on another. But most importantly, nature’s trees which provide more oxygen to the atmosphere and a place for students to congregate for relaxation from the stresses of college life should not be cut down. v V"! ;sil li®® 5 ^ r- i .,1! 4 .ikt 1 € Graphic: Brad Graeber low 1p.m. jcomf 111 ifrof ■Electoral college should be abolished Chris Brooks Columnist, Senior physics major he citizens of the United States do not elect the pres- m j- ident. In fact, as the Consti- itl Ution was originally written, the pi itnerican people only had a di ed say in the House of Repre- entatives. The framers of the lonstitution believed that the av- rage person is not intelligent ‘Hough to have a say in more han one-sixth of the govern- tient. Eventually the Constitu- ionwas amended to allow the People to elect the Senate. It is line to expand democracy one iep further — the electoral col- ege system should be abolished. The Constitution says, “Each late shall appoint, in such tianner as the Legislature there- ifmay direct, a number of elec- ors, equal to the whole number . f Senators and Representatives |a sSil owhich the State may be enti- ^ led in the Congress.” By the pelfth Amendment, these dee ds meet and vote for the presi- lent and vice president. The 'erson who gets the majority of lf1, ! tase votes gets the position. ^is is all the Constitution has to say about electing the presi dent. Traditionally, the manner in which the legislatures have chosen to appoint the electors is the “presidential election.” But nothing requires this. In the beginning, most states appointed the electors, a prac tice that did not die out until the latter part of the 1800s. This sys tem was put into place because a few educated rich men thought that the average person was too stupid to vote. The electoral college system is a horrible remnant from an age of intellectual elitism, but the worst part is the abuse it allows. Under the right alignment of conditions, a president could be elected with only 22 percent of the popular vote. According to the National Archives and Records Adminis tration, there have been three elections in this nation’s history where the winner of the presi dency received fewer popular votes than his opponent. These presidents cannot in any way reflect the will of the people. They probably felt even less a tie to the American people than the rest of the men who have held the office. No president will feel truly bound to the people that he or she is meant to serve until the citizens directly elect their president. Another abuse that is all too real and potentially very danger ous is that most of the electors are not required to act as the peo ple of their state have indicated — or even as they have agreed. Only 24 states require electors to vote as pledged. Time and again, electors have taken advantage of this fact. In 1796, the first con tested election, a Pennsylvania elector pledged to Adams voted for Jefferson. Why? In his own words (with the spelling of the old days), “What, do I chuse Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be Presi dent? No! I chuse him to act, not to think” — no ego there. The election of 1876 was de cided 185 to 184. If an elector had not voted as pledged, Samuel Tilden would have been the 19th president instead of Rutherford B. Hayes. Electors have contin ued disregarding their pledges (and the wishes of the people of their states) into this century. According to Avagara Produc tions, located on the Internet at http://www.avagara.com, Henry Irwin, a Republican-pledged elec tor from Oklahoma, tried to con vince the other 218 Republican electors to vote for Robert Byrd, a conservative from Virginia, be cause he “could not stomach” Nixon, and because he believed the founders of this country did not intend for the “indigent, the non-property owners” to have a say in the presidential election; only Irwin actually betrayed the Republican ticket. In 1988, Margarette Leach, a Democratic elector from West Vir ginia, in an effort to bring to light the weakness of the electoral col lege system, tried to convince her fellow Democratic electors to vote for Lloyd Bentsen as president and Michael Dukakis as vice pres ident — this is exactly what she did. Certainly most of the electors vote as they pledge, but the ma jority of them do not have to. If they wanted to, they could all elect Tom Cruise as the next presi dent of the United States. The solution to this mayhem is simple. House Joint Resolution 43 calls for an amendment to the Constitution so that the president is the person who receives at least 50 percent of the popular vote. If no one receives a majority, there is a runoff between the two candi dates who received the most votes — what a democratic idea. The electoral college system is an outdated attempt at keeping the people from controlling their own government. It is time for it to be eliminated. Some people disagree, but they’re wrong. Peo ple should take to the streets, march on Washington or at the very least, write or call a couple of Congressmen and tell them that it is time to replace the electoral college system with democracy. Advertising does not force people to smoke cigarettes General Franklin Columnist, Senior history major A merican and anti smoking advocates take alert. The pro posed multi-billion dollar settlement with tobacco is not only an affront to per sonal responsibility, but it is suspicious and dubious be cause collection of the fund depends on future prosperi ty of the tobacco industry. In essence, officials must ad dict another generation of smokers to guarantee in- firmed smokers any of the $360 billion settlement. Recently, the tobacco in dustry averted legal Ar mageddon by agreeing to a $360 billion settlement with 40 states seeking compensa tion for smoking-related health care expenditures. It seems illegal, if not ex tortion-related, for a con sortium of power-greedy at torneys general to manhandle the tobacco in dustry, a legal and publicly sanitized business. The settlement wrongly assumes that smokers are “helpless individuals” who in spite of the known dan gers, are coerced unwillingly by cunning advertising. This view by lawmakers is puz zling since it shifts account ability from those who en danger themselves, smokers, to those who provide the product. If this agreement stands, perhaps Smith & Wesson should be held ac countable for all gunshot fa talities in which their weapons were used. The log ical extension of this would be to sue McDonald’s for damages after developing a stomach ulcer from years of eating Big Macs. If smokers are inclined to participate in conduct harm ful to their health, they should accept the conse quences regardless of the harm and severity. The states and their legal vipers seem to dismiss this, since they obviously believe people lack the free will and com mon sense to avoid poison ing themselves. Perhaps Joe Camel has a subliminal effect, forcing re luctant smokers to light up in spite of the choking, hack ing, coughing and wheezing associated with smoking. It seems totally wrong for the states to blame the to bacco industry for the ex pense of providing health care to smokers. The states had many av enues at their disposal for dealing with upward health costs, not the least being to im pose stiff taxes on cigarettes. Furthermore, heavy taxa tion of cigarettes would have the twin benefits of lowering the potential bur den on public health care while providing extra rev enue through those who continue to smoke. Another alternative, in perhaps a fu tile attempt to resuscitate personal responsibility, would be to deny public health to those who willing ly abuse themselves by smoking. It seems more ap propriate for smokers to pay for their own cancerous future, instead of allowing their vice to drain funding away from more pressing matters of public health. It is absolutely unfair for smokers and non-smokers alike to subsidize a danger ous habit of individuals too weak to suppress the urge. Yet another flaw in the ill- fated agreement is the ques tionable limitations it places on free speech by banning further use of certain char acters such as Joe Camel in cigarette advertising. It is ludicrous to believe that the removal of cartoon characters in advertising will diminish juvenile smoking. In keeping with the motif of anti-responsibility, the states are absolving parents and themselves from culpability of increased juvenile smok ing. Children primarily smoke out of peer pressure and experimentation. The best way to diminish juvenile smoking is to promote awareness about the filth and dangers of smoking. Unfortu nately, this seems unlikely, be cause people like Mississippi attorney general Michael Moore believe the government needs to protect us from our own lapses in judgment and personal responsibility. It seems unfortunate that smokers do not possess the courage and strength to ad mit their own complicity in whatever negative conse quences may arise from their smoking. Additionally, the states have minimal legal stand ing, since smokers pose only a minor burden on the health care system. Because of their lower mortality rate and life expectancy, smokers save the state in pension and nursing home expendi tures. Finally, smokers sub sidize their own health care to a certain extent by a mul titude of excise taxes levied on cigarettes. Before we all applaud the death of the tobacco com pany, we must clear the smoke on why they eagerly agreed to this settlement. This settlement threatens to undermine efforts to reduce smoking, because a pros perous industry translates into a hefty settlement. Quite frankly, it is disturb ing how children in under developed countries will succumb to and even die from lung cancer, to subsi dize the habits of those un willing to accept responsi bility for their own actions. Also, while the settlement attempts to narrow the scope of domestic markets, it has no bearing on foreign markets as tobacco compa nies look recover losses over seas. The enormous poten tial for nearly two billion people in Asia “lighting up” is the motivation behind the industry’s willingness to re linquish its American mar kets. It would seem the ciga rettes are “greener on the other side.” Specifically, tj^e settle ment makes industry pay ments tax deductible as tax payers will unwittingly pay a whopping 35 percent of the billion dollar agreement. The outlook seems fright ening for the American pub lic and the rest of the world, as we attempt to scapegoat our responsibilities through the court and the legisla ture. Regardless of how problems are initialized, it is ultimately the smoker’s chief responsibility to deal with addiction. The settlement, or pay off, ironically pleases to bacco advocates, since they have a vested interest in the industry and hope of seeing unprecedented growth for a big pay day. This will come at the expense of someone else’s illness and suffering. So, for the sake of those smokers before you, have another puff. Somebody has to pay. Even more peo ple must die so others might live and wheeze comfortably next to the oxygen tank.