The Battalion
ay * Marc!:..
sday • March 31, 1998
status Ute|
ian |l
AMPUS CONNECTION
iian officials
erned the Um
to modihiis
eii pressure.
■I this is a ret|
political
withstand Israc,
said Hanan
i Cabinet mi
cation.
'’s marches it
held to marU
e origin of
THE SMELL
alodorous manholes plague A&M campus
moration of
I comes,
wafting
from
depths
ofA&M
like a dark
fcaise. It
spreads,
tied by
winds.
Chris
Huffines
columnist
ute. S tude'
s uuith
llns la "f‘ Kat is it?
a-t Israeli 1*,^
aeli iroop, geu.xha,
mutated, unholy odor that crawls
|t of manholes and random pipes
oss campus. The smell is evil, and
as caused much pain and nausea,
d, it is the smell that is behind
fery great mystery at A&M.
For example, Ross Street. Those
of you who do not know, Ross Street
■slowly sinking. But, don’t pay at
tention to the reports that come out
lithe Physical Plant. The smell,
■th the highly corrosive gas that
■tries it, has been undermining
Ross Street for years. It is destroying
■e infrastructure of A&M. The
n perform snie11 is smart. It is patient.
’ your cho: Also, the Smell has been seeping
ttend an out of the ground at night, polishing
Hall Wort statues across campus. It hasn’t
Ren freshmen, but the unminty-
OO amR sh scent °f the smell, polishing
• O pm ifrd d ama gi n g statues across our
®impus. The smell is destroying tra-
tion. It knows where we are weak.
The effects of the smell have not
|^eii limited to physical damage,
e smell is responsible for far
ore insidious things than statues
d streets.
The smell has seeped into the
water supply. You have never
wondered why the tap water
tastes so bad?
The small has begun the slow
spiral to world domination by en
tering our very bodies, bending
them to its will. The smell affects
different people different ways. In
some Aggies, it creates the “two-
percenter” phenomenon. Ask Old
Ags. We used to say “Howdy!”
more. Before the smell.
In others, the smell creates an
overwhelming urge to drink. The
smell likes its beer as much as
anyone. Ask Old Ags. Beer used to
taste better. Before the smell.
The smell has also moved in
on our dining halls. Despite the
best efforts of the dedicated
Food Services staff, the smell has
sunk into all the food across
campus. The smell has degraded
the taste and lessened the quali
ty of our food, from Sbisa to
Duncan. Dining on campus is
fun. For the smell.
Most seriously, the smell has
begun a campaign of terror
against the foundation ofA&M it
self. It has begun dumping toxic
waste into the sacred fountain from
which all life at A&M springs. The
smell, having entered the bodies of
our Aggie athletes, has begun twist
ing their bodies and minds until
winning is a virtual impossibility.
The basketball team has already
fallen. Who will be next?
What has caused this plague to
befall Aggieland? Now, I could make
something up, blame the smell on
the Board of Regents, or the Corps
or Flowdy Ags! But that would not
* o
be the truth. That would be wrong.
The smell is caused by our puny
arch-nemesis, Rice University. Jeal
ous of the size of our campus and
the existence of social lives of our
student body, the Rice students and
alumni have put their bloated, over
abundant minds together to pro
duce the smell. They are so jealous.
The proof is right before your
eyes. The smell has caused one of
the greatest tragedies of our time,
the destruction of the horshoe, tem
porarily placing Rice Stadium as the
largest stadium in Texas. Soon, the
smell will begin delaying construc
tion until it becomes impossible to
finish The Zone, leaving A&M in a
position of inferiority.
The smell is a menace. It must be
stopped. Write or call your Physical
Plant representative. Stop up the
manholes, close the pipes, anything
to stop the smell from destroying
our campus.
Chris Huffines is a sophomore
speech communications major.
ERSPECTIVES
feacher’s actions display crumble in moral fiber
Mickey
Saloma
column
Des Moines, Wash., a
6 year-old teacher and
other of five has an-
nced that she is preg-
ani with the second child
one of her 14 year-old
pents.
She is currently serving
[en-and-a-half years in
Jfor a conviction of
5cond-degree rape of
le 14-year-old father of
er child.
News such as this is ev-
ence of a slow decay in the moral fiber of this
ountry.
: To be moral is to be concerned with the judg
ment of the goodness or badness of human ae
on or character. The principle of morality has
seined to wither away in America.
lEveryday, America’s newspapers are filled
rith similar sensational stories of perverse ac-
ins by members of society. The culprits of
ise perverse actions range from society’s dregs
this country’s president.
Shockingly, it was this president who
ined election to this position in 1992 over
orge Bush who campaigned for the revival
family values. Each new accusation serves
a reminder to this country that maybe the
actice of family values is dormant and
ybe even dead.
Family values and morals are two princi-
■ansfer)
pies that have slightly evolved through time.
Yet, the overall ability to differentiate what is
right and what is wrong is something that is
set in concrete.
It is a parent’s responsibility that each of their
children grows in age, wisdom, grace and char
acter. These are all important qualities, however,
character is something that everybody must seek
to find within themselves in their every action. It
is this principle that a parent must instill in his or
her child since birth.
It is sad that a role model such as a teacher
can hop into bed with a child and not see how
wrong an action such as that truly is. A teacher
has a huge part in molding the future. They serve
as the most visible role models for a child be
sides a child’s parents.
Having good morals is a quality that enables
one to have a conscience. It is this conscience
that allows one to think not only before one
speaks, but before one acts as well. President
Clinton should definitely be reminded of that.
It is mind-boggling to believe people don’t
know it is wrong to ask a co-worker to perform a
sexual act.
Having a good sense of morals enables one to
think when it comes to all situations, especially
when it comes to sex.
The sexual revolution brought about many is
sues that were both good and bad. The scariest
thing that was not settled was the image that
people have about those that are sexually active.
It is still perceived that a man who engages in
BUT fAGSX
Everybody else
^ keeps imiKS ON
sex with multiple partners is a stud while a
woman who does the same is a slut. Morality
plays a big part in one’s decision to be sexually
active. However, it is immoral to judge anybody.
Who are we to judge anybody?
Morality extends beyond the bedroom. It
serves as a guiding star in all people’s actions.
It is not difficult to uphold high morals, and
it is never too late to start practicing them.
Morality must somewhat be defined on an in
dividual basis. Everybody is raised differently,
yet everybody must know the right way to
conduct themselves.
Maybe some people don’t know the Golden
Rule. It states that people should treat others the
way they want to be treated. This is a tenet of
morality.
It is wrong to judge people. It is not right to
harm others. It is not right to discriminate
against other people. It’s not right to make oth
ers feel uncomfortable. It is not right to be mar
ried and to sleep with a 14-year-old boy and
mother his children.
Moral choices constantly confront everyone,
but by thinking them through with both the
heart and the brain, people may be more suc
cessful with their decisions.
When it comes down to it, people should re
spect one another and themselves. This advice,
along with the Golden Rule, can set anybody
straight when a moral issue arises.
Mickey Saloma is a senior journalism major.
STATE OF THE UNION
judicied power
threatens basic
American rights
Manisha
Parekh
columnist
u T n suits at common law, where
I the value in controversy shall
A exceed twenty dollars, the
right of trial by jury shall be pre
served, and no fact tried by a jury,
shall be otherwise reexamined in any
court of the United States, than ac
cording to the rules of the common
law.” Seventh Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
When the Seventh Amendment
was ratified in 1791, the drafters
thought it was necessary to state
clearly that all Americans have the
right to a jury trial in a civil case, and that the facts of the
case were to be decided by a jury of ordinary citizens. The
reasoning was that if decisions concerning civil cases were
left to judges, the judicial branch would become too power
ful and lead to a corruption of the justice system. In order
to have a set of laws and decisions that would keep up with
the changing times, it was important to have the citizens of
the country decide the facts in cases and award damages to
the winner of a suit.
207 years later, the civil jury trial has all but become a
joke.
The trial and appeals courts, through their rulings upon
many cases, have slowly etched away at the veiy founda
tion of the Seventh Amendment. Today’s American jury
finds its power has been slowly taken from them and
turned over to the civil court judges.
At this point, it is to easy to say “This has nothing to do
with me” and move on. But it is this kind of ignorance and
apathy that has allowed one of our most important rights to
be stripped away. The right to a trial by jury.
Today, judges are able to single-handedly reverse ver
dicts made by a jury of 12 people, and then have no one to
answer to for their decision. Judges are also allowed to take
the monetary damages which juries award to winners in
civil suits and reduce them to practically nothing.
It is not supposed to be this way.
The jury was originally created to decide matters of fact
in trials; the judge acted as a mediator and decided matters
of law. The judge could only set aside a verdict if he felt that
it went against the law or the evidence. However, judges
were not allowed to set aside the verdict in criminal trials; a
person found guilty by the jury could not be pronounced
innocent by the judge.
But it does not end there.
Dangerous precedents have been set in various parts of
the country that affect the Seventh Amendment. In a New
York case, Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Gasperini
sued the Center for the cost of 300 transparencies which he
had loaned them and they had lost. A jury awarded him
$450,000, or $1,500 per transparency.
The Center appealed the amount of damages and a fed
eral court judge agreed that the amount was excessive. The
judge told Gasperini that if he did not agree to accepting
$100,000 instead of the original amount, the verdict would
be thrown out and a new trial would be ordered.
This case was later appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
and the federal court ruling was overturned.
But the number of judges who throw out jury decisions
grows every day and every such case cannot be heard the
Supreme Court.
What is more frightening than the behavior of civil court
judges is the behavior of some criminal court judges. In the
case of Louise Woodward, the British au pair accused mur
dering the infant she was taking care of, a jury found her
guilty of second degree murder and sentenced her to life
imprisonment. The judge in the case, however, threw out
the jury’s verdict, pronounced Woodward guilty of involun
tary manslaughter, and sentenced her to time served.
In effect, Louise Woodward was found not guilty by the
judge even though a jury of 12 people had found her guilty
of murder.
This case, which is under appeal to the Massachusetts
Supreme Court, is just one example of how judges are turn
ing juries into bystanders and ceremonial decision-makers
instead of allowing them to do their jobs: deciding the facts
of cases and rendering a verdict. If cases like this are al
lowed to stand, with the judge having the final say, what is
the point of having a jury? Why bother to ask 12 citizens to
put their lives on hold, earn less than minimum wage, and
listen to a case in which they have no influence?
The Seventh Amendment and the American jury system
are in serious jeopardy. People need to speak out and let
the judges and lawmakers know that they will not allow this
type of injustice to continue.
The courts are supposed to protect our civil rights from
being infringed upon by others. But if we allow those who
are supposed to protect our constitutional rights to trample
on them, then we might as well not have any rights.
Manisha Parekh is a sophomore psychology and
journalism major.
MAIL CALL
Movie's worth not
determined by theater
In response to mail call letter in
March 26 Battalion:
There was a letter printed on
March 26 by a Ms. Bleifeld that I
found very amusing. Ms. Bleifeld
implied in her letter that the movie
Eve’s Bayou must not have been
very good because she didn’t re
member it being at Hollywood 16.
She also said that Amistad
was not a memorable movie,
which is ludicrous.
While our beloved Hollywood
16 does have the power to con
trol what movies we can see, it
does not have the power to make
a movie good or bad.
In fact, our theatre notorious
ly weeds out controversial films
by either not having them or not
promoting them.
Case in point, Amistad was
not released here until a month
after its nationwide release.
The fact that it was shown at
all is probably due to its multiple
Golden Globe nominations.
Movies such as Mississippi
Burn ing, The Color Purple, and
Boyz in the Hood would not have
been shown here, does that
mean they are bad movies?
Also, is there anyone who
thinks Amistad was not both
moving and memorable?
Instead everyone has hopped on
the Titanic band wagon. Yes, it was
a very emotional tale, but I found it
lacking suspense or drama.
I knew the boat was going
down before the script was
even written.
Jason Kearns
Class of’97
Please see Mail Call on Page 12.