Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 10, 1998)
par, isday • February 10, 1998 The Battalion OPiNiOH Jandir potoi M’s |ande; tional a “tel b F-i! pel: doNc tesla mm ’arental guidance suggested iternet proves a dangerous playground for unsupervised children John Lemons columnist jhtv |ar, n ned* To parent would allow their child to play in a park I I where a kid had a signifi- hance to get hurt. One i never see parents dropping uds off on a playground lit- with broken glass, razor s or dangerous chemicals, t, when it comes to the In- t, kids are often left to do as ■ )lease. Although children ilikely to come across bro- lass on the Internet, it can nt a physical danger. As r . s over the last few weeks have shown, the Inter in be a dangerous playground. It is a playground iceds to be safer for children, ifoftunately, the Internet’s ugly side has raised .. : ly hi rad in Texas A&M University’s own back- Two weeks ago, Obed Sanchez Matus, 29, a late student and teaching assistant in the De em of Mathematics was arrested on charges of yassaulting a child. Matus is accused of se- g a L5-year-old girl from Limestone County, an interview in the Bryan-College Station , Limestone County Sheriff’s Capt. Dennis Wil- id Matus corresponded with the girl via the et| then traveled to Limestone County to have ithlher. viously, these charges are disturbing. The idea xual predator, from A&M no less, stalking a 15- Idigirl is despicable. at these events should happen at A&M should make Aggies concerned with the consequences of the almost anarchic freedom on the Internet. Sadly, the Matus case is not the only re cent story where contact with the Inter net resulted in accusations of a 15- year-old being harmed. Last month, Michael Swailes, a teenager from Glendora, Calif., committed suicide by laying down in front of an oncoming train. Police in vestigating the case found print outs from a Web page called the “Sui cide FAQ” in Swailes’ room. The “Suicide FAQ”, found on a Web page owned by Duke University student, Chris Economakes, details the ins and outs of 40 suicide methods. Method number 14, “Jumping in Front of Trains” suggests that it is “probably bet ter to put your neck on the lines, since a glanc ing blow would probably break your spine (and cripple you).” Although the Internet cannot be solely blamed for these terrible occurrences, they probably never would have happened without it. The Internet is a wild frontier with few rules or conventions. Any attempts at regulat ing it have met with harsh com plaints of censorship and fascism. Indeed, freedom of speech is the corner stone of Americans’ rights. But, what is freedom on the Inter net cost ing us? It seems these days, Americans are living under the tyranny of freedom. We have become so free as a society, that we have left ourselves open to be abused by others. Freedom has gone too far when maintaining it entails sexually abuse. That is not the pursuit of liberty, it is the pursuit of stupidity. Protecting children from the Internet will require two things — responsibility and regulation. Responsibility must start with individuals who post material on the Internet. There are some ma terials which should not be made easily available to children. For example, Economakes’ posting the “Suicide FAQ” on his Web page borders on criminal negli gence. Obviously, its posting led to tragic results. Regulation begins in the home. The dilemma of regulating the Internet is reminiscent of the the de bate surrounding the implementation of the V-chip, a device which filters out sex and violence from television shows. Despite the innovation of the technology, the best V-chips are parents who turn the television off rather than expose their children to objectionable material. Likewise, the best regulation of the Internet for children comes from parents who monitor their chil dren’s Internet use. The crucial question of these cases is where were the parents when these events were happening? Sure ly if the parents of the 15-year-olds involved in these cases had known what was going on, they could have avoided these tragedies. The Internet is a dangerous playground for Ameri ca’s children. To protect those children, it will be nec essary for Americans to sacrifice some of their rights. After all, sacrificing rights is preferable to the alter native of dead or abused children, when one lives un der the tyranny of freedom. John Lemons is an electrical engineering graduate student. AMPUS CONNECTION ggie culture akes students sily recognizable David Johnston columnist espite the furor 2 cases, A&M own di cam - iggies from id the i and r back- id imaginable. ) one can define what consti- an Aggie. A&M students share a non culture, but at the same they often have nothing in non with each other, lough anyone who has a con- on with College Station knows cani be described from the e, looking out, here are a few dines to help identify a true f you’ve ever spent more time ng before class than studying ass, you might be an Aggie, f your campus votes over 80 per- ■Republican but you still think it’s * eral, you might be an Aggie, f you get more emotional over iader runoffs and Reveille :s than student body presidents catalog changes, College Station 5 place for you. fyou have to change buses twice t from your physics class to your , cal science class, there’s a good ] Ice you’re an Aggie. " fyou get a better workout be- n your car and the Rec Center you do once you’re inside the Tenter, you’re probably a fight- pxafc Aggie. fyou think the rainbow leads to Campus and not a pot of gold, nust go to school in the Bryan- :ge Station metroplex. (|tf afrifle salute on campus is not > but you get excited when the s’ mound of dirt is relocated, telong at A&M. fyou think your university s a law school because every- r else has one, but you think your j srsity doesn’t need cheerleaders te wave” because eveiybody else me, you could be an Aggie, jlf you’re not surprised to see oth- >e well-mannered people chant- urse words at other schools’ ts teams because it’s part of a ” you just might be an Aggie. If you've ever missed Thanks- ig dinner with your family to watch some friends set dead trees on fire, you must be at A&M. • If you’d rather see your sports team beat t.u. than win a national championship, you’ve got to be an Aggie. • If the letters “PTTS” make your blood pressure rise and fill your mind with conspiracy theories, you might be an Aggie. • If you can’t understand why Mc Donald’s doesn’t deliver any longer, you could be at A&M. • If the word “bat” brings to mind something besides New Mexican caves, you might be an Aggie. • If you sign up for credit cards just so you can push back laundry day, you could be an A&M student. • If you’ve gone to a job inter view and worried more about how to present your ring than how to present your resume, you’re proba bly an Aggie. • If you’ve seen more than two U.S. Presidents on your college campus, it’s a good bet you’re in College Station. • If you’re not surprised when total strangers greet you as they walk past, you’re probably an Aggie. • You might be an Aggie if you own as many pairs of boots as you do ties. • If you know how to pronounce Beutel and the word brings to mind at least two horror stories, you’re an Aggie. • If you can recite urban legends about the steam tunnels and the in tended height of the library, you could be at A&M. • If when you go to class you can tell which way the wind is blowing by which livestock you smell, welcome to the College Station campus. • If you’ve ever gone to a football game just to see the band but you don’t know why the other school wastes part of half-time, you could be an Aggie. • If you use the phrase “old army” to describe anything other than your father’s military experience, you’re an Aggie. Of course, Aggies may show none or all of these traits, but they all share an infinite number of other ties. Ex periences at A&M are unique and memorable. Many are enjoyable, and laughter — as well as grief, excite ment or anger—is a completely proper reaction to many of the events that help build an Aggie. David Johnston is a senior mathematics major. PERSPECTIVES Party lines should not determine choices Caleb McDaniel columnist W hen the Found ing Fathers weren’t busy shopping for powdered wigs or chopping down cherry trees, they often passed the time by bash ing political parties. George Washington called political factions a form of “frightful despo tism.” To Alexander Hamilton, partisanship was synonymous with “poison.” And Thomas Jefferson swore, “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” But less than two decades after the Dec laration of Independence was signed, Ameri can politicians had pitched their tents in two partisan camps: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The same Jefferson who swore off heaven in the name of political unity was the leader of one of the country’s earliest political parties. And Fisher Ames, a Federalist under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, had taken to calling Jef fersonians “fire-eating salamanders” and “poi son-sucking toads.” And them’s fightin’ words. Today, more than two centuries after the same Declaration of Independence was signed, little has changed. Sure, today the Democrats believe that “Newts” are the derogatory am phibians of choice, rather than “salamanders” and “toads.” But the point is, when it comes to politics, Americans are just as factious as they have ever been. Perhaps James Madison was right. He be lieved that the “latent causes of faction” are “sown in the nature of man.” Today those la tent causes have become all too potent. Factions have become a political fact of life. And judging from the celebration on Capitol Hill every time a bi-partisan initia tive is passed, one would think crossing the aisle to shake the hand of a partisan is as onerous as crossing the Delaware. But the fact that Americans have historical ly gravitated toward opposite ends of the po litical spectrum should not be surprising. Peo ple like to relate themselves to a larger group; they prefer to think of themselves as parts of some larger cause. That’s why, in many ways, the middle ground is “no man’s land" in politics. It is easy for people to categorically identify themselves as “Republicans” or “Democrats,” because the parties already have platforms that they can simply agree with or object to; they don’t have to make a platform of their own. It is much easier to call themselves “con servatives” or “liberals” than to admit that sometimes they aren’t sure exactly what they believe. It is much simpler for members of Congress to give a standing ovation only to the parts of the State of the Union Address when Al Gore leaps to his feet, or to remain stoically seated only when Newt Gingrich smiles sar donically from his chair. In other words, it is easier to follow the leaders, and it is harder for individuals to think for themselves. This factious thinking can be destructive. Most policy is too complex to be tidily divided along party lines. Society is too heterogeneous to be summarily judged by partisan standards. And ethics are too valuable to be confused by political rhetoric. Complex issues require more complex thinking. Partisan debates are usually anything but complex. Party politics simplify issues into bandwagon bickering. Too often, one party opposes the plans of the other only because they are the other party, rather than because the proposal is really against the interest of the United States. Case in point: how did our illustrious Congress spend its first week in session? Tackling Social Security problems? Laboring over education reform? Divvying up predict ed budget surpluses? Nope. Debating over whether Ronald Reagan should have an airport in his honor. The debate, however, was not rooted in any really serious ar guments about the Republican proposition — it was part and parcel a partisan dispute. But politicians are not the only Americans who are guilty of factious thinking. Citizens follow their lead. Rather than thinking analyt ically about what a politician is saying, people focus on who is saying it. But no truly con cerned citizen should be a pure Republican or a pure Democrat. Instead, Americans ought to weigh policies and opinions based on their own merits, rather than on their classification as “conser vative” o r “ liberal. ” Americans ought to reason before they en dorse the Republicans and carefully deliberate before they support the Democrats. Both par ties have good things to say — neither is whol ly evil. So Americans should critically review the proposals of both. Approve plans because they are right, not because they are Republi can. Defend policies because they are desir able, not because they are Democratic. Our political ideal should not be bi-parti sanship, but non-partisanship. Freedom of thought means freedom from factions. No one would advocate the abolition of political parties. But Americans must stop us ing them as instruments of division. The Founding Fathers who despised the idea of factions did not practice what they preached. But their mistakes do not have to perpetuate political disunity. Americans can work towards a government whose leaders are neither Republicans or De mocrats, only thinking citizens who refuse to be classified as either elephants or donkeys, salamanders or toads. Caleb McDaniel is a freshman history major. MAIL CALL Bracelets act as form of ministry, not as fad In response to Joe Schumacher’s Feb. 5 column: Sometimes it is best not to speak publically of things we do not know anything about. The “fad” What Would Jesus Do bracelets do not serve only as fair-weather Christians’ outward display of “sainthood.” Has it ever occurred to you that some of those “fair-weather Christians” are people who asked what W.W.J.D. stood for and thus received a bracelet? These bracelets are a means of ministry to those who might not know Christ and His teach ings. In a way, you are correct, not everyone who wears the bracelet is a Christian, but then they never claimed to be. Believe it or not, some of us do practice we preach and are anxious to share our faith with those who do not know Christ. I base my judgment of others on the Bible which says the Lord does not look at outward appearances, but at the heart. What do you base your judgment on? Also,Christianity is not based on trying your hardest to be “perfect.” Ana Garcia Class of’99 Accompanied by 6 signatures. Bracelets act as reminders for wearers In response to Lucas Wagner’s Feb. 6th mail call: I am very sorry you have had a bad experience with someone who wears a What Would Jesus Do bracelet, but please do not assume that the majority of people who adorn these are hypocrites. In fact, your letter helps us re member the purpose of these bracelets: to be a reminder, and symbol of Jesus’ love, and to re mind us of the faith we should have in Him. Just because someone puts on one of these bracelets, they do not transform into a Christ-like exam ple. That is what the bracelet is for: to help. So instead of condemning peo ple, maybe you should also re member these bracelets’ purpose. If you adorn one, and your wrist is singing of “goodness, moderation, and praise”, maybe you need to listen more closely, and try to help others. Because that’s what Jesus would do. Amy Thiessen Class of’00 The Battalion encourages letters to the ed itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in clude 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 Mc Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: batt@unix.tamu.edu For more details on letter policy, please call 845-3313 and direct your question to the opinion editor.