3nday • February 2, 1998
The Battalion
ENDERSCOPE
Citerary women
.essons and advice in women’s magazines insult, deceive
U,
"Ihey are everywhere. They
stare at you in the grocery
. store checkout line. They
v up at parties on coffee ta-
. They hide in waiting
orcns.
Women’s magazines. They
he Bibles by which women
i out their lives. As a public
ice to those who do not
advantage of these fabu-
publications, I will pro-
a guide to understanding
orld according to
en’s magazines.
Manisha
Parekh
columnist
iff
. Money is no object (unless it comes to finding
isband).
^ his is the most important thing women’s maga-
s have to teach the masses. Forget about buying
i :eries. Go ahead and spend $218 on a black dress
: 1 le from $ 10 worth of fabric. (Actually, by spending
:ery money on clothes, you won’t eat and you’ll
weight. This will kill two birds with one stone),
lothes are not enough, you must also have
ching accessories. A pair of $90 Calvin Klein sun-
-1
ses are absolutely necessary for today’s woman.
r all, according to Cosmopolitan, “They reveal the
rrows and eyebrows are so crucial.”
low that today’s woman has created a debt to rival
Gates’ net worth, she must find a way to pay for
t season’s wardrobe. (Remember, it is so wrong to
r last season’s fashions). Therefore, it is time to
a rich man to take care of the credit card bills. As
mo says, “If life costs a king’s ransom, I'm finding
ig.’'Words to live by.
. Looking good is a 24-hour pursuit.
)f course it has to be. There are meetings with the
(IS - natherapist, the personal trainer, the masseuse,
erbalist, the psychic friend, the color consul-
, the plastic surgeon, the personal buyer and the
psychiatrist.
A woman has to look
absolutely perfect when
she wakes up, when she
goes to sleep, when she
takes out the garbage.
Even while changing a tire.
(Although if the woman
really looked good, she
would have some knight
in an Armani suit getting
his driver to change the
tire for her). It only takes a
split second of looking like
a real human being to ruin
a woman’s life forever.
3. “Talent” is a subjective
word.
A truly modern woman is
well-rounded and multi-talented.
This month’s Cosmo includes the
top ten talents you should master
in order to “make this new year
your best and bravest ever.”
Among the awe-inspiring tal
ents are “a fabulous flirting
technique.” One tip for creat
ing this technique is to leave
the last couple inches of
your dress unzipped.
The theory is that you are
simply more approachable
when under the pretense of
needing assistance.” Appar
ently, most women make
the mistake of looking
like they actually know
how to dress them
selves without help.
That is a no-no.
Other Cosmo talents are mak
ing the perfect martini and learn
ing how to levitate people at par
ties. This should come in handy
the next time James Bond drops
into town and needs a litde lift.
4. The meaning of “fearless”
is different for women.
Cosmo not only gives advice
about fashion, but doubles as a dic
tionary. According to Cosmo, Being
“fearless” means red lips and
messy hair. Allure defines “brav
ery” as taking a picture without
wearing makeup.
“Perhaps it’s not like flying
into Iraqi airspace or enduring
childbirth without drugs, but it’s
brave nonetheless.” Who could argue
with such a truthful statement?
5. Messy hair is sexy.
Not only is messy hair fearless, it is also
sexy. Page after page in women’s magazines
show models with hair that looks like it was
done by Edward Scissorhands. What man could
resist a woman with hair that rivals Don King’s?
6. The greatest controversy.
Glamour answers the question that trou
bles the sleep of many women: what’s the
difference between a slip and a slip skirt?
With this knowledge, the women of the
world can all sleep soundly tonight.
7. The dreaded disease that can
strike at any time.
The warning signs are so subtle.
A heavy purse. Too much time
spent at the Clinique makeup
counter. But at the first sign of
these symptoms women need
to run — not walk — and get
help for a disease of epic proportions. This dreaded
disease, according to Allure, is being a lipstickaholic.
Most lipstickaholics get hooked at a young age.
Their infatuation with finding the perfect lipstick
color grows into an obsession and rules their lives.
Thankfully, there is help for the millions of lipstick
aholics out there. Sadly, though, there is no known
cure and those afflicted can relapse at any time. If
you know someone who might be a lipstickaholic,
please, get them help. Their future fashion sense
depends on it.
8. How to succeed in the workplace.
Cosmo offers advice on getting noticed by your
boss. “Leave messages at midnight. The next time you
wake up to pee call your boss’s voice mail and leave
an important reminder — it’ll give the impression
that you’re thinking around the clock.”
Or it could give the impression that you are some
sort of psycho with no life, but, hey, everyone has to
take chances.
9. The greatest problem affecting the world.
“As if we didn’t have enough to worry about al
ready — air pollution, disease, war, crime, financial
uncertainty, the hole in the ozone layer — there’s al
ways the added stress of being exposed to those ditz
borne beauty habits known as Annoying Beauty
Habits.”
Finally, a magazine is brave enough to take on the
epidemic of annoying celebrity habits. Who cares
about the government, foreign policy or the environ
ment when every single day Kirstie Alley flips her hair
more times than Parking, Traffic and Transportation
Services tows a car. What would today’s woman have
done without Allure’s undercover expose of celebri
ties acting like normal people.
So, put down that Newsweek and pick up a real
magazine. It could change your life.
Manisha Parekh is a sophomore journalism and
psychology major.
•• r{
ATE OF THE UNION
mmigration remains a vital
isset to American economy
o
r r e y
Streamed
through
rerica’s
ilden door”
the mil-
ns, fleeing
nine, perse-
tion, tyran-
or simply
?king a bet-
life in a new
tion teem-
;with
Donny
Ferguson
columnist
undless opportunity. Three hun-
iC id years of American immigra-
n, from English Puritans seeking
igious freedom to Vietnamese
ugees escaping a Communist
pme, built a nation unlike any
jOC ier in history, rich in variety and
! en to anyone seeking prosperity
d freedom.
Bu However, the American tradi-
c0 ye'n of strength through diversity is
danger. Once-dead anti-immi-
int sentiments are resurrected
d 52 percent of Americans sup-
rt a five-year moratorium on im-
gration. As negative opinions
iw, accusations that legal immi-
its steal jobs from citizens and
. ihon off government services are
N^dng more action than a White
•use intern.
/Such claims are, however, false,
gal immigrants are a boon to the
lited States, and efforts to deny
'em access to the American
earn are no more discriminatory
[BlOfd immoral than the anti-immi-
yint laws of late 1800s and early
)0s. Anti-immigrant activists are
' ective because they blur the line
tween legal immigrants, who
le to America seeking work
d a better life, and those immi-
ints who come here illegally. Ef
ts to restrict, or shut off, immi-
Ution to the United States, are
ong and should be opposed.
Economically speaking, immi-
ttion does no harm to the econ-
ty. Legal immigrants create, not
•al, jobs and pour money into,
t out of, social programs. In
t, legal immigrants pay over
$55 billion in federal income taxes
alone, add $10 billion to the econ
omy and pay $28 million more in
taxes than they consume.
The common belief immi
grants take good-paying jobs away
from American workers is another
myth. Many immigrants come to
America to start businesses they
could not start under the massive
regulations of their home coun
tries. They create jobs and start
businesses in America which
would otherwise benefit other na
tions. It is rather ironic that those
who complain the most about
American industries moving over
seas are the quickest to deny for
eign labor from coming here.
According to the Census Bureau,
of the 800,000 immigrants who en
ter the United States annually,
140,000 come to “fill jobs for which
no Americans are available,” refer
ring to jobs such as picking fruit
and washing dishes many immi
grants seek and Americans refuse
to do. Ohio University researchers
find “no statistically meaningful re
lation between immigration and
unemployment.”
The availability of inexpensive
immigrant labor (in industries
which Americans do not work) al
lows produce and other goods and
services to be produced at a lower
price. Restricting immigration
would make crucial goods such as
food more expensive and out of the
economic reach of the poor. Immi
grants do not come to America to
rob Americans of their jobs and
take advantage of the welfare state.
They find employment in busi
nesses and farms Americans would
not work in and pay much more in
taxes than they consume in social
services.
Above all, America has a moral
obligation to open its doors to im
migrants. Of the 800,000 annual
immigrants, 480,000 want to re
unite with family in the United
States and another 110,000 are
refugees fleeing political and reli
gious persecution. To shut off our
borders to those seeking family or
suffering inhumane treatment
would be immoral, unforgivable
and anti-American.
All people, not just American
citizens, have a God-given right to
seek liberty, prosperity and a bet
ter life. Foreign-born Americans
are just as vital to the nation as the
native born. In fact, they often ap
preciate America’s blessings more
than those whose families came
over on the Mayflower and fought
Redcoats at Bunker Hill. To turn
away immigrants would fail our
obligation as the world’s most
prosperous nation and greatest
bastion of liberty.
Millions of Americans watched
as Coast Guard boats turned back
boatioads of Haitian refugees flee
ing violence and bloodshed in
1992, but few were angered. Even
fewer noticed when the Clinton
Administration deported pregnant
Chinese women who came to the
United States to avoid compulsory
abortions. The United States can
not close down its borders while
despots still rule and human rights
are violated in nations such as Chi
na, Cuba, Tibet and Nigeria.
The current national anti-im
migrant sentiment is just as much
the product of stereotyping and
xenophobia as it was 100 years
ago. Legal immigrants stimulate
our economy by creating jobs,
lowering prices, infusing money
into the marketplace and con
tributing to the tax base. Immi
grants are a blessing, not a curse,
and to deny them entry into the
United States would betray a na
tional history written by immi
grants and forfeit our national
duty to support the cause of free
dom worldwide.
In a era in which global interac
tion is increasing exponentially and
cultural boundaries are falling, to
adopt a national closed-door policy
on immigration would cause seri
ous, permanent damage to our na
tion’s economy, culture and stature.
Donny Ferguson is a junior
political science major.
LONE STAR LOWDOWN
Free tuition proposal leaves
financing issues unanswered
John
Lemons
columnist
H ere’s something
that might bright
en your day —
John Sharp wants to pay
for your college educa
tion. This is not a mis
print, he really wants to
pick up the check on your
degree. Now before you
take to the streets in cele
bration, read on, as there
may be a catch.
If the the state comp
troller has his way, students
that attended high school in Texas will receive schol
arships to pay for their tuition and fees at any state
university, community college or technical school.
It is a deal that sounds too good to be true. Un
fortunately, it probably is.
While Sharp’s proposal to make public higher edu
cation virtually free is deceptively attractive, it leaves
many lingering questions about its practicality.
Sharp calls his proposal the “Lone Star Schol
ars” program. Under the program, the kind tax
payers of Texas would cover the cost of tuition, re
quired fees and books for up to 120 credit hours of
an undergraduate degree.
Furthermore, Texas students in private universi
ties or colleges would be eligible for scholarships
amounting to the average cost of tuition, fees and
books at a public university.
To be eligible, students must maintain a 2.8 grade-
point ratio. They would earn one-year scholarships
for each year they spend in Texas high schools.
Sharp certainly deserves an A+ for creativity on
his proposal. What he will receive for its practicality
remains to be seen. Sharp, though, seems confident
that Texas can swing the cost of paying for its chil-
drenOs’ college education. He claims that it will only
cost $485 million a year to fund “Lone Star Scholars.”
It is money the comptroller says Texas already has.
Indeed, lowering the price of college to one’s cost
of living would be a tremendous asset to college
students. Many students who must work a job to at
tend school would be freed of that draining com
mitment. The “Lone Star Scholars” program ap
pears to be a dream come true for college students.
The question that needs to be asked, however, is
will it be a nightmare for taxpayers.
After all, as the old saying goes, there is no such
thing as a free lunch. As attractive as “Lone Star
Scholars” is, it has some dangerous ramifications.
First, there is a name for programs where the
government compels its citizens to support the
livelihood of others. It is called socialism.
It is akin to communism, which the United States
spent the last 50 years fighting during the Cold War.
Unfortunately, if students are the benefactors of so
cialism, they probably will not complain about it.
Of course, if you do not have a philosophical ob
jection to socialism, there are still several practical
reasons why the “Lone Star Scholars” program is
dangerous. For instance, making the taxpayers al
most exclusively pay for college education gives the
state undue control over students.
Sharp’s proposal only covers 120 hours of course
work. Many undergraduate degrees require more
than 120 hours to be completed. An engineering
degree, for example, requires on the order of 135
hours of course work. The extra 15 hours amounts
to an entire semester the program will not under
write. So, under this program, the state will not pay
for the last semester of your engineering degree be
cause it is “excessive.”
Similarly, when the state is footing the bill for
students’ education, it will have the ability to exert
control over that education. The state will not pay
for the extra hours a student will accumulate if he or
she changes majors or earns a teaching certificate.
Any student who has parents forking the wad for
their education will testify to the fact parents can
have a drastic effect on one’s class choices or even
one’s major choice. Imagine the consequences of
having the state meddle in one’s educational choices.
Perhaps the most frightening question created
by this program is what will it do to the demand
for higher education.
As the price for a college education approaches
virtually nil, the number of people who pursue a
college education will increase.
This may not become significant at the universi
ty level where admission is competitive and limited.
It will, however, become significant at the commu
nity college level, where admission is open to any
body. As more people pursue a college degree, the
burden on the taxpayer will increase.
If the cost of the “Lone Star Scholars” program
becomes too high, will Texas be able to extract itself
from it? Likely, Texas will have great difficulty doing
so. Consider the federal government and its dilem
ma with the Social Security, a system that domi
nates the federal budget but cannot be diminished.
Creating entitlements may be easy, but halting
them is nearly impossible. Before Texas embarks down
the road of virtually free college education, the State
needs to look long and hard at its potential failings.
John Sharp may be the savior of Texas college
students. Frighteningly, for Texas taxpayers, he may
be the devil himself.
John Lemons is an electrical engineering
graduate student.