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.