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.