Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 19, 1997)
fednesday • November 19, 1997 O The Battalion PINION iulf -SireiV ollow the leader orps of Cadets’ lifestyle offers example of strong work ethic, strict discipline AP)- he stanuoi;|L inton nrfWM 1 T// better is it to dare •S. firepotJ Mmighty things, To ruesdaypj win glorious tri- an acceleMphs, Even though check- :ic solutiotiP by failure, than to take Air Force[(■^ w ‘ ! h those poor spirits stealth fieri" neither enjoy much nor bombers ^entagi Len Callaway columnist fermuch, because they live 'hegray twilight that knows on wasbas 'victory nor defeat. ” — stateofale :odore Roosevelt. This quote adorns the door man Kent iorps Commander Danny columnist ither’s private quarters. It speaks volumes about Danny Feather, the rps of Cadets leadership and the ideals that per- ate the Corps of Cadets. Within a few years of A&M’s inception, it became ddent alsi ny Zinnia i in the Mi) |d0 other •15 andl 1 irilitaiy institution and has since produced more ftonal leaders in many fields than any other uni- lational«ftsity in the nation, ergersaidllhe Corps of Cadets is absolutely crucial to the [raft, pus 1 : djferation of Aggie ideals and emotions as well as ,an 300 ini he proliferation of Texas A&M as it is now known, recautios 1 that Clini lilitarvcli I (To rt to be 3 Tor anv [ise in the Iw'hiti II had ate in theft binst/ra As I sat on the back steps of the MSC last week I two things that disturbed me very much, st, two seniors in the band walked by and one two non-reg students mumbled “faggot jar- ad BQ’s;” the second was another male non-reg 10 iaring a button emblazoned with the words he Corps Sucks.” While it has been proven and accepted since the e’60s the Corps’ regimented lifestyle is not for ryone, their work ethic is for everyone. I re-as- Ithe fact that if the Corps of Cadets had not been owed to form, Texas A&M would never have had opportunity to become the institution that it is and is now. Last week, Corps Commander Danny Feather id Junior Operations Sergeant Adam Goren invit- me to have breakfast with the Corps. As I arrived the Corps guard room at 5:45 a.m. I expected to ida dorm of just-waking individuals scrambling [various uniform parts and upper classmen mak- gunderclassmen’s lives hell. Much to my surprise nsivew* irps headquarters was very much awake and cog- tant at this early hour. After venturing through esacred “HQ” hallway to Danny Feather’s room idsaying our hellos, I was invited to take part in a adorn morning inspection of a couple of dorms st to see that everything was in order, tewe entered the first dorm I was immediately minded of the movie Full Metal Jacket. Freshmen [rerunning for their lives and rabid sophomores 'rein hot pursuit with authoritative rebukes of couragement and correction. All were stopping id in their tracks to acknowledge that the highest iking officer in the Corps was now in their pres- te—with a guest. The freshman immediately got lilKlV'U V i work wth [,rth people / the to* |ial that com ; with He annuities |iy income ] planning, i and profit I'ormatioii I “on the wall” expecting discipline at any second but seemed to have an added edge of trepidation be cause they weren’t quite sure who I was and why the hell I was in their most sacred area. I soon learned that what appeared on the sur face to be chaos was actually disciplined, controlled order. We have all seen military movies and many stu dents can imagine what life in the Corps must be like, but until actually confronted with that life one cannot fully appreciate what value could be found in that lifestyle. Nor can one develop an intelligent opinion about the Corps of Cadets. The most impressive aspect of it all was that all of the young men and women that I encountered were there of their own accord in hopes of becom ing a better person. In hopes of growing and becoming disciplined so that they could one day exercise absolute control over their own collective destiny. It stinks of cowardice and poltroonery for people to sit back in their comfortable apartments or walk across our beloved campus and exhibit the the temerity to criticize the Corps of Cadets. I came to the realization that I personally do not have the intestinal fortitude to intentionally live in the manner in which the Corps lives. I like comfort and convenience and as a result there are lessons that I have yet to learn. Many of the Corps’ students four years my junior learned those lessons within the first five minutes of mom and dad’s mini-van pulling away from the quad. Because I realize what members of the Corps have confronted and overcome inside themselves they must have my respect. They also deserve the respect and admiration of the entire Texas A&M stu dent body. These students are intentionally making their lives more difficult and demanding so that they may accomplish more. There are approximately 2,100 students in the Corps of Cadets and approximately 42,000 students enrolled at Texas A&M. Through leadership, determination and tradi tion the Corps of Cadets often makes a more im pressive or more powerful statement than the other 40,000 students. When was the last time that a goose bump formed on your skin because a non- reg sauntered by with their shirt untucked smoking a cigarette? When was the last time that someone spoke about the tradition and honor of Texas A&M without mentioning or alluding to the Corps of Cadets or the Aggie Band? These two entities are rooted from a philosophi cal stand point in positivity and camaraderie. There are an infinite number of aspects, accomplish ments, people and ideals associated with these two organizations for all of us to be proud—yet some are too small minded to acknowledge them. Si mON SAJ^S VWOOP! AfrffiES Value of life determined not )y money, but by memories James Francis opinion editor ife is filled with any un- ileas- Mries ^eryone nust face. Here are Hnes in >ur lives Men a goal Snot at oned, times when we let those depend on us down and f ven times when we all en- fiunter death. To a parent, the death of his Jrher child can be the most ragic event to encounter. There ilways is the thought, “Parents >hould not live to see their own Ehildren leave the world before them.” But, as many of us know tod have come to realize, this al ways is not the case. People die Jefore “their time,” and those they leave behind are left with feelings of emptiness, regret and hopelessness. When this hap- >ens, people must realize the % way to determine that par ticular individual’s life value, al- hough unfortunately cut short, ho remember the good times hared with them, and not make h attempt to get back at others f ho may have had absolutely tothing to do with the incident. In an Associated Press re- iort out of Stamford, Conn., it [as stated “St. Joseph Medical fenter will pay $3.3 million to fttle a lawsuit filed by a Pring, Texas, couple who con- end their daughter died after Mncorrect diagnosis.” The young woman’s name as Beth Linnick, and on Jan. 13, h90, she was admitted to the nter’s critical care unit, suffer- j'gfrom “flu-like symptoms and [hw blood pressure.” After being diagnosed with septic shock from the result of an infection, Linnick died the next day. What her parents are suing for is related to what later re ports determined Linnick’s death to have resulted from. The AP report said, “An autopsy de termined the woman actually suffered from a buildup of fluid around the heart, which im paired its ability to pump blood.” This proves the hospital did not have all the correct in formation on Linnick’s case to admit her under the treatment for septic shock. This, in essence, would prove the hospi tal was wrong. But are Linnick’s parents right to sue the hospital for millions of dollars? Yes, they have endured a terrific loss, and their daughter will never return to them. But will suing the hospital prove the just actions needed to take? What Linnick’s parents are doing, and other people in simi lar situations or those of less life- altering events such as the prob lem with divorce court cases, is placing a monetary value on their daughter’s life. She was not born to them with papers stating her net worth, or how much in terest her parents could agree from her over a span of 21 years. She was born unto them for love, a symbol of their union in mar riage and a desire to further their bloodline in this world. It is sad the Linnicks had to lose their daughter, that they will never see her get to grow old and experience things yet planned out. It is even more sor rowful Linnick’s parents have to deal with such an unexpected tragedy. But what will millions of dollars bring them in the loss of their daughter? The settlement from the law suit will not bring their daugh ter back, nor will it provide a sense of satisfaction to "get re venge” on the doctors and the hospital where she died. The only thing the money will give the Linnicks is a constant re minder their daughter is no longer alive, thus, they will nev er be able to move on with their own lives. Instead, they will spend every day, with every dol lar from the lawsuit settlement, and always brood over their daughter’s death — they will not remember her life. So what can help the Lin nicks accept their daughter’s death? The one true aspect of living many people take for granted: memories. If the Linnicks choose to re member their daughter and all the good times they shared to gether as a family, this process should prove helpful in their ac ceptance of her death. She may not be around for them to talk to now, but they always can think back on better times, times when their daughter Beth was able to give and receive the love a family shares. It seems Americans have taken on an active role in the process of seeking revenge for actions that are sometimes unpreventible. Mistakes happen. It is not accept able a young woman died due to hospital error or miscommunica- tion, but it also is not acceptable for people to place dollar-value on someone else’s life. Life is undefinable. It is one of those particulars of being a human that is simply accept ed. We cannot control every action of life, and when un pleasant situations come our way, we have to deal with them in a respectable manner. James Francis is a junior English major. Vi iHoof, fco? UJKOOf Danny Feather once reminded me of the three main personality types that are available to us all from which to choose: The A type: one who sits on the fence griping and moaning with no positive input whatsoever. The B type: one that does nothing and is too lazy to even develop an opinion. The C type: one that rolls up their sleeves and attempts to accomplish something— one that is proactive in their own life and in the determination of their own destiny. Each and every member of these hallowed orga nizations has taken a proactive stance in their own development and the lack of respect that they are all too often shown is what “sucks.” These organizations continually graduate ac complished military and civilian leaders and they deserve our respect and admiration. Len Callaway is a junior journalism major. Mail Call Short speech offers usual offensiveness “Queer!” Tom Short screamed in front of Sully on November 17th around 3 p.m. At this point I could take no more of his rhetoric and left saying some explicatives of my own. I attend Short's soap-box speeches for two main reasons: one’s selfish, the other is not. I am selfish in that I enjoy see ing Short, whom I take to be poor in argumentative technique, get tied up in his own words and flounder in explanation. My other reason for attending is that I worry about those folks who Short may actually convince to s ^0KNl&, v\o *•* hate others. Legally, I agree that Short’s hate speech is, and should be, protect ed under the first amendment. While his language is offensive and his arguments are flawed, he is neither being coercive nor direct ly inciting violence. His speech is protected, but why is it promoted? This letter is not for Short, nor the Battalion Editors. I am writing to the student body at large and, most especially, to the student group which brings Short to cam pus each semester. In the past I have heard Short cite the adage, “hate the sin and love the sinner.” The word ‘queer,’ however, does not refer to a sin, but a person. It is like saying, ‘spic,’ ‘nigger,’ ‘kike,’ ‘mick,’ ‘honky,’ ‘giny,’ ‘kraut,’ ‘chink,’ ‘jap’ or the like. Again, these words do not refer to traits, acts or sins of a person, but instead, they refer to the per son, him or herself. To reply that the University should be a place where differing views are allowed to be aired will not help Short or his sponsors here. Though it is certainly the case that all views should be tolerated to the exhaustion of their merits, Short was merely engaged in hate ful name calling. His point could have been served by objecting to the moral permissibility of homosexual acts. Again, the word ‘queer’ not only adds nothing of merit, but it redi rects the moral issue in question from the actions of persons to the persons themselves. Finally, though I agree that usu ally sponsors are not responsible for everything that their speakers say, Short’s behavior today is not an isolated instance. In the past he has made other anti-homosexual remarks and anti-semitic com ments as well. Given this history, Short’s spon sors can no longer claim only gen eral support. Reinviting him to campus with full knowledge of his actions, in ef fect, endorses his positions. It is my hope that he will no longer be invited back; if he is, however, we will now be very sure of the position of his hosts. Simon Dembitzer Graduate Student 2ooo S'. \.U£W P<?L£