Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 25, 1998)
n ?dnesday • February 25, 1998 The Battalion OPINION TATE OF THE UNION conomy's boom aves Clinton om sex scandal PERSPECTIVES Stewart Patton columnist Ihemost recent of Clinton’s sex scandals has taken a hiatus, and the public is left wondering ex- what Clinton and Lewinsky did le dozens of occasions she visited ffice following her term as White seaide. Through the media bash- nd the renewed questions of era president’s private life af- hisjob performance, some mys- sremain: why did the president’s oval rating continue to rise even e scandal unfolded? and why is candal over when the truth has — ome out? re popularity rating has been a device long used by poll- to supposedly gauge the ebb and flow of the public’s ion to the president’s effectiveness. It usually consists of pie, amorphous question along the lines of, “Do you islike, or have no opinion about how the president is ing the country?” e answers to this question do not indicate the public’s oval or disapproval of any certain policy by the president. ier, the decision to like or dislike Clinton could be based mething as mundane as a respondent’s favorable reac- othe rosy glow of the president’s cheeks in a televised in- w. A negative reaction could be based on that same part first lady in the clandestine video showing the swim- |clad couple dancing on a private beach, en as the first stories of Clinton’s alleged wrongdoing , ewsstands, the presidential popularity rating hit record band continued to escalate. When these polls were tak- linton did not have any extraordinary policy victories |would explain the increase in his rating, e “standoff” with Iraq remained stagnant with renewed ts of violence by both sides, and the State of the Union ess sounded like it was cut and pasted from all of the it Svious State of the Union Addresses. The economy, how- is booming, and many Americans are enjoying in- :ed prosperity and hope for the future, ericans have long given the president more credit for omic progress and more blame for economic disaster is warranted. rely one man cannot spur a creature as large and un- ictable as the U.S. economy into action. The French isopher was correct to write that “bread and circus” are lent for a contented populous. Americans obviously do are what the president does as long as there is plenty of on the table and the Super Bowl on the tube, e usual life-cycle of a scandal (e.g., O.J. Simpson trial, a Harding, Rodney King) is that it is born, lingers for a |e, then culminates in a verdict or in a definitive, accept- tsion of the truth. In the “Clinterngate” scandal, howev- e press seemed to believe Ginsburg, Lewinsky’s attor- when he announced the scandal had run its course, the scandal really is over and Starr does not pursue legal iurse against the president, then Clinton would get off out answering to the American people. Even if Clinton Lewinsky did not have sex in the Oval Office, Clinton is itely guilty of something. leas much admitted guilt in his first released statement the press caught wind of the allegations. “There is no oper sexual relationship.” Come on, Mr. President, ricans know we ain’t smart, but we know verb tense. The ment looked even worse after white house spokesman McCurry repeated a dozen times, “I will not character- ie relationship beyond what is written in the statement.” he president’s guarded statements show a flawed scan- [handling strategy. If Clinton was innocent of any wrong- g, then his first statement should have covered all the is, “I did not, would not, could not, should not, and will [do anything with Monica Lewinsky beyond the normal ident-aide relationship.” f Clinton was guilty of all or any allegations, he should emade the same statement. No one is going to accept «rb-tense loophole if the case goes to court; he would be in trouble for misleading the public. If he was going e, he might as well have gone all out. herefore, Americans love ole’ Billy because the economy riving, although his own statements show he definitely something unethical with Lewinsky. The moral of the y for you presidential hopefuls out there: as long as the lomy is good, Americans will play the three monkeys n a little sexual shenanigans come along. Stewart Patton is a junior sociology major. Robot armageddon Humans must strike back to stop technological war Chris Huffines radio producer I t’s official. The end is near. CNN reported last week that sci entists in Switzerland managed to program a ro bot to learn from its mis takes and not run into boxes. After this cru cial step up in artificial intelligence, the scientists went on to say that ro bots could be as smart as humans within 10 years. Within 20 years, they may be wondering why they should be putting up with humans, leading to what CNN, one of the most credible shows in the news business, called a “Robot Armageddon.” This is silly. There will be no Robot Ai - mageddon. Despite everyone’s best ef forts, and no matter how much we may deserve it, robots are not going to destroy humanity and take over the world. Right now, and for the next nine years or more, human beings are smarter than the robots. Not only that, but we are programming them. It would be stupidity of the highest order (not that mankind hasn’t gotten that high before) not to program in some thing like “Love human beings. Serve human beings. Do not destroy human beings and take over the world.” Or, we could do something like rig up explo sives or run the entire system offWin- dows ’95 to destroy the humanity killing, world-conquering robots before they destroyed us. In case that’s not enough, it would be easy to make sure humans had a monopoly on things the robots need ed to survive, or at the very least the things that would make their little electronic lives miserable. Like elec tricity. Super-intelligent robots should, if any sense of reason still ex ists, use a lot of power. If you turn off the power, sure, it’ll be hard to mi crowave burritos for a few days, but the robots will all stop working as their batteries run down. And then it will be very difficult for them to kill us all and take over the world. If shutting off the power doesn’t ap peal to someone, there’s always nuclear weapons. The Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) off a nuclear warhead puts off enough radiation to, at a couple of miles, see right through one’s arm and at distances of several hundred miles, fry any and all electronics without harming people. Robots are electronic. And no one is dumb enough to give nuclear weapons to the only other be ings who would be able to rationalize using them. Meaning we humans will have a monopoly. Finally, people are smarter. We’ll probably always be smarter. Super-intel ligent robots may be able to come to a logical conclusion to destroy humanity, , i ii Jlmm & but only human beings can come to that same conclusion while simultaneously delivering the mail or driving a cab. De spite robots’ super intelligence, they will not have professional wrestling, high speed pizza delivery, or football. We will be totally incomprehensible to the ro bots, and they will know that, no matter how logically and carefully they plan to destroy us, it only takes one lunatic hu man to ruin it all. Or those meddling kids and their talking dog. Super-intelligent robots may be the next generation of technology. But there is no reason to believe this advance in technology will lead to the destruction of humanity as we know it. Chris Hujfines is a sophomore speech communications major. CAMPUS CONNECTION Aggie sayings promote image of stupidity ... John Lemons columnist A s the old saying goes, kids say the darndest things. Well, if that is so, then Aggies say the dumbest things. If there is one thing common to all Aggies, it is their knack for coming up with genuinely stupid phrases and then repeat ing them endlessly. What is far more embarrassing, though, is we treasure these statements. We say them with reverence. We even print them on T-shirts to be sported in public. The time has come for Aggies to reevaluate the often silly, frequently illogical and some times asinine statements that are the lingo of Texas A&M University. Of course, any study of the dumb things Ag gies say starts with the dumbest Aggie phrase of them all — “Fhghway 6 runs both ways.” It is a phrase so painfully obvious, one might as well point out the sky is blue or Sully looks a lot like Lenin. Yes, Highway 6 runs both ways, it is a high way. If it did not, it would be most inconvenient to get around town. As an example, let us imag ine Highway 6 runs in one direction, say north. If one were traveling on the highway and hap pened to miss the last exit into College Station, one would have to circumnavigate the entire world just to get back to school. That task alone would make our hypothetical driver late for his 8 a.m. class. Stupid phrases in Aggieland are not limited to descriptions of the local roads. The Corps of Cadets has their fair share of dumb sayings. The Corps, for example, sometimes identifies itself as the “heartbeat of Aggieland.” Meanwhile, the Aggie Band often claims to be the “pulse of Ag gieland.” Apparently, the Corps has discovered some type of circulatory system within A&M. Well, if that is true, why stop at merely being the “heart beat” or the “pulse” of Aggieland. I say the Corps is the platelets of the blood of the pulse of the spirit of the heartbeat of Ag gieland. Without them, Aggies would cease to bleed maroon, and merely bleed to death. All this talk about A&M’s circulatory system does bring up one question, though. Who is the fat ty plaque on the arteries of Aggieland? I’m placing my bets on Parking, Traffic and Trans portation Services. Unfortunately, this silliness does not limit it self to the Corps. Many Aggies who build Bonfire are fond of spouting off the phrase “see ya when it burns” to students who do not approve of their Bonfire-building ways. For those of you who have been on the receiving end of this master piece, here is its only logical response — “Good luck, you’ll be so drunk at the Bonfire that you’ll have trouble making out the 55 foot-tall mass of burning wood, much less finding me.” Alas, ridiculous phrases are not the private domain of students. A&M’s administration in dulges in them, too. Consider, Dr. J. Malon Southerland’s “Chat and Chew” program. Every couple of weeks, Southerland, the Vice President for Student Affairs, shows up some where on campus with cookies and punch to talk with students. It is admirable program, but it has one fatal flaw. Surely, somebody has told Southerland it is impolite to talk with one’s mouth full. Perhaps the program should have been call “Chat or Chew.” But, “Chat and Chew”? Why that is just plain gross. Imagine this hypothetical scene from a “Chat and Chew.” Student: “Hi, Dr. Southerland. I’m Joe Aggie. There’s something about A&M that’s been wor rying me lately.” Southerland: “Nice to meet you Joe, what’s the problem?” Student notices Southerland is chewing on a chocolate chip cookie while chatting. Student: “Blech. Um, no problem. I’ve, um, got to go.” What a frightening breach of manners. Emily Post must be rolling in her grave. Finally, let us consider the 12th Man Founda tion, which is a misnomer in itself. After all, if you put a 12th man on the football field, your team will get penalized. This year, the 12th Man Foundation is run ning its 12th-Mania campaign to promote Aggie athletics and the Big 12 Conference. The prob lem is, 12th-Mania is a dumb name. The only word that I want to see appended to mania, is wrestle. So, unless the 12th Man Foun dation plans on running a steel cage death match between Hulk Hogan and R.C. Slocum, 12th-mania will have to go. Here is a tip for you, Aggies. When you speak, it helps to say things that make sense. The day A&M learns this lesson will be the day that ush ers in a new era for this school. In the mean time, we all need to be careful to stop saying stupid things. As for those of you who are prone to stupid statements, well, Highway 6 runs both ways. John Lemons is an electrical engineering graduate student. MAIL CALL cCorvey’s speech nores sexual realities attended Norma McCorvey’s ech about her conversion to istianity on Friday night. As oth- Were, I was disappointed that identified this conversion as the Reason for her appearance. When audience members chai ned her on her beliefs about ^ion, she stated that “debate” not her reason for being there. ; r McCorvey attacked Planned e nthood as “Planned Death,” young woman asked a legiti mate question about her efforts to educate young people about sexu al responsibility. I believe anyone who does not see the value of efforts to prevent young people from having to choose abortion or frill-term pregnancy is short-sighted and naive. Indeed, I might consider them a part of the problem, not part of the solution. McCorvey also reported “no parents come out of Planned Par enthood,” and they give you all manners of contraception. Who’s to say those who seek as sistance from Planned Parenthood only want to become parents? In an age when abstinence is of ten not young people’s choice on sex, Planned Parenthood is to be congratulated for at least encour aging responsible sex. Otherwise, what’s the need for a Sexual Responsibility Week at A&M? I didn’t hear any such encour agement from McCorvey While she stated that she’s completely re versed her position on abortion and implied that she can no longer be held accountable for the deaths of children, McCorvey’s case changed history; I’d argue for the better. Making abortion illegal would jeopardize the lives of women who would seek abortions regardless of regulation or creden tial. As such, the “new and im proved” McCorvey and other pro lifers have a long, hard road ahead of them, because we pro-choicers won’t go down without a fight. To McCorvey, I’d also say “you were right 25 years ago.” Sonia R. King graduate student Inspiring debate not the point of 'Roe' visit Frank Stanford’s column on Feb. 23 illustrated a blatant misun derstanding as to why Norma Mc Corvey did not came to speak on our campus. Stanford expected an “infor mative debate” on abortion, but McCorvey did not come here for that reason. She did not come here to argue with more intelli gent, more articulate college stu dents. There is a time and place for such debate and there are plenty of people on this campus willing to argue the Pro-Life view at any lever. Those people who tried to engage in debate with McCorvey were out of line. McCorvey did, however, come here for a very important reason. She came to share the experiences that caused her to change her stance on abortion. While working in a Planned Par enthood Clinic, she became ac quainted with a young woman named Ronda Mackey and her 10- year-old daughter, Emily Mackey worked next door to the Planned Parenthood Clinic in the office of a national pro-life organi zation. As she got to know the Mackey’s, she realized that they had something that she did not have. Through their loving witness, Mc Corvey became a Christian in 1994. Later, McCorvey found out that while pregnant with Emily Mackey had considered aborting her. It was then McCorvey came to the pro found realization that unborn chil dren are real people like Emily. It then became clear to her that all people deserve protection and there fore mothers do not have the right to harm their children during or after pregnancy. Norma McCorvey came here to convey this message as best as she could. Perhaps Stanford would not have been disappointed had he looked past rhetorical short comings and listened to the real theme of McCorvey’s message. Timothy Thomason Class of'98 Chivalry still lives on Texas A&M campus I just wanted to inform you about an incident that occurred on Friday, Feb. 13. While I was prepar ing to leave from the parking lot behind Kyle Field, a student in formed me that I had a flat tire. Two freshmen Corps members were passing by, and they offered me their assistance. They replaced my flat with the spare and would not accept pay ment. I would like to commend these two individuals (David from Dallas and Jay from Las Vegas) for taking time out of their busy day to help a stranger in need. Their act of kindness has proved to me that chivalry is indeed not dead here at Texas A&M. Nicosia Herink graduate student 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.