slavr
'he Battalion
O PINION
Page 11A • Thursday, March 25, 1999
iiBoxed into a corner
udges’ decision tragedy for boxing fans,
eaves promoter Don King as only winner
[i
t; had to come to this. It was
not like every other sport
.has not already succumb to
olitical and monetary scan-
als It is the only real sport left
n the planet where two men
et in an enclosed area and try
) b( at the other into oblivion.
gllHo. it was not World Cham-
iolship Wrestling or World
/ /re tling Federation, but box-
ig-
Aaron
COHAN
R FORCE
'scent MiG-21
I for spare p
The fight of the century that everyone was wait-
ig for took place less than two weeks ago. It fea-
ired the best of the best in Evander Holyfield and
ennox Lewis.
One was getting over a recent ear problem and
te other was busy pummeling opponents until
romoter Don King could set a date for them to
teet. It was supposed to unify the belts and give
oxing aficionados a true champion. But no,
amething had to go wrong.
^^when the last punches were thrown (by Lewis),
manyreor- nc j the millions around the world eagerly awaited
re decision to hand the belts over to an undisput-
d heavyweight champion — Lewis — the an-
ouncer surprised everyone when two words slith-
red from his mouth: split decision.
How could this be? The big Briton seemed to
ontrol the 12-round bout. He landed as many
unches as Holyfield attempted. Lewis made the
J ft side of Holyfield’s face look like a burnt pan-
ake.
It’s disheartening to watch boxing disintegrate
) this — as if sports fans needed something else
ops to p 5 bitter the taste in their mouths. They have
,lst ^ u o°- /atched every sport slowly drift away from the
ones tot 3 0 t s f r om which they first started. One-hundred
a ' ^ aro P ftil \UUqo. da (tar contracts, championship teams d\s-
Klance and
nk
mantled due to “owner’s reasons” and now
the sport of ages dealt them a heavier blow.
Was it the fault of the judges? The panel
seemed impartial when the judges hailed from
England, South Africa and New Jersey. The
two score cards that really messed up the
whole thing were Eugena William’s of New
Jersey and Larry O’Connell of England.
After scoring the fight in favor of Holyfield
115-113, and watching a replay of the fight,
Williams said she would have scored it differ
ently had the photographers not been in her
way.
And a few days ago, O’Connell said he
scored the fight wrong and should have fa
vored Lewis instead of giving out a draw. But,
they did not.
The winner once again is Don King and his
clan of promoting gurus. Yes, everyone got
shafted again by one of the most brilliant
minds in the sports world. Fans should be
ashamed of themselves for throwing away $70
million just to get another slap in the face.
What do the fans get out of this — nothing.
What does King get out of this — the ultimate
devious scheme he conjured up while listening
to his previous client Mike Tyson being sen
tenced to yet another jail term. King gets his
rematch, another lucrative contract signing on
behalf of the fighters and a sport that is quick
ly deteriorating away.
What is worse than this is the fact that the
greatest heavyweight of all time is even disgusted
about the outcome. Muhammad Ali, who helped
mold this sport into the glorious entity of which it
has become, said even he knew who the winner
was.
“As the former three-time heavyweight boxing
champion of the world, 1 believe 1 have the credi
bility to say Lennox Lewis won this bout without
question and should have been named the clear
and decided victor,” he said. “I pray justice will be
done, and somehow along the way, honor can be
restored to this sport.”
It is a shame that the sport itself is now receiv
ing criticism from its own icons. But, with every
thing said and done, a rematch has been set for
September to try and rebuild what has been lost.
Hopefully, the three boxing federations will be
ROBERT HYNECEK/The Battalion
able to unify the belts, and each of the governing
bodies will not be able to choose their respective
judges.
Hopefully, this time fans will not hear Don King
yelling “rematch” at the end of 12 rounds, and the
sport of boxing will rise from the shambles that it
has been decimated to.
phoned Yell:;
ites explain!
the case that]
iiESPeaders defend preacher,
to s P eak on campus
wvietyofm ln response to Manisha Parekh’s Mar. 24
use spokesperson column.
:eied his three Righteousness is the Issue
to western ( I do not know whether to laugh or cry af-
ilifornia to threading Manisha Parekh’s diatribe
gainst Tom Short. Of course, I am not sur-
on the oprised.
from NATO For those underclassmen who may not
russels, BeTiow the popular sport of taking Tom’s
Secretary-C/ords out of context, we’ve already (years
rid the final go) been over the ground of Tom’s “anti-
by d.S. Arwmit/sm.”
NATO’s topi The full statement was that if evolution
na on has true (and can be extended to society),
lionizedClarTren Hitler didn’t go far enough. Short is an
ady. dvocate of neither evolution nor Hitler,
onsibility ifjuite the opposite.
ith Preside The main problem with our friend’s col-
refusedh /mn is that she supposes all religion is as
u Kosovo based on humans as her own. Granted,
iate ingcc'iost religions are humanistically based, in-
written Wuding the pseudo-Christian sect called the
the fateful!Jnitarians.
irtmentsp*: What about God?
Din said:"" j Christianity, according to the Bible, is
m a phase la led on the righteousness of God. It is
ig diplonujot for humankind’s psychological comfort,
iplomacy haterial blessing or any other warm fuzzy. It
ary option L no t for world peace. Christianity is about
he breaking of the unrighteous, into salva-
^Jon by Christ, but breaking nevertheless.
I God will not tolerate unrighteousness,
fhristians are called to expose righteous-
ess (Ephesians 5). There will be no ap-
eals on Judgment Day.
Joshua Hill
C/ass of '99
Manisha Parekh’s hypocrisy has reached
s height with her last column.
Aaron Cohan is a junior
speech communications major.
MAIL CALL
Her closing sentence,’’the truth is
Short’s message of intolerance is intolera
ble,” reveals that she contradicts her own
goal of tolerance.
She is intolerant to anyone who is less
tolerant than herself. She is, in actuality,
just like Short.
While she claims that Short should not
push his intolerant beliefs on others, she
herself is demanding that all subject them
selves to her own views of tolerance.
This reveals the flawed nature of her tol
erant stance. If one were to become truly
tolerant, instead of the limited tolerance
that Parekh backs, he would have to accept
everyone’s views, no matter how insane or
hateful or off-color they might be.
He would have to tolerate such loath
some beliefs of those such as Hitler, or any
one who chose to break the law, terrorize
nations or otherwise buck authority.
Obviously, the complete tolerance that is
needed to eliminate the hypocrisy of the
limited tolerance shown by Parekh is impos
sible and would lead to chaos.
In addition, the limited tolerance sup
ported by Parekh is truly too intolerant of
others’ views to even be considered a form
of tolerance.
Jeff Becker
Class of '02
Americans should hesitate to take
public opinion polls at face value
Mark
PASSWATERS
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must
be 300 words or less and include 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 McDonald 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@tamvml.tamu.edu
cc ^ your eyes
can de-
JL ceive
you; don’t trust
them.” Sage
words of advice
from an aging Jedi
to his talented
young pupil?
Of course —
but they should
also be written at the bottom of any
poll that gets printed. Polls, in this
day and age, are the tools of people
who want to advance an agenda.
They are no longer accurate gauges of
public opinion.
When Juanita Broadderick’s (also
known as Jane Doe #4) allegations of
sexual assault were leveled against
President Clinton, CNN ran a poll
stating that 40 percent of the people
polled did not believe the allegations
were true, while 20 percent did. On
the very same day, Fox News Channel
released a poll reporting that 55 per
cent of the people they polled did be
lieve it, as opposed to 23 percent who
did not. Now, what does this mean?
Does it mean that 76 percent of the
American population believes that
our sitting head of state is guilty of
sexual assault, as opposed to 63 per
cent that do not? Only Yogi Berra
could make sense of those numbers
(“90 percent of baseball is mental; the
other half is ability.”)
Not quite. What it means is that
polls can be easily manipulated.
Evander Holyfield could probably
produce a poll showing that a vast
majority of the people believed that
he beat Lennox Lewis in their sup
posed “draw” on Mar. 13. The poll
probably would have only covered
the members of Holyfield’s immediate
family and one blind judge, but it can
be done.
Anyone who has ever taken a sta
tistics class knows how to properly
run a poll. It would appear that these
same people have no interest in going
into a career as a pollster, or the
methods that are currently used
would drive them nuts. In this day
and age, a poll of “1015 adult voters”
in a nation of a quarter billion people
cannot possibly be representative.
Also, the location of the people polled
has a great deal to do with the an
swers the pollsters would receive.
If a pollster wished to show that
President Clinton retains a high ap
proval rating, he or she would be very
tempted to ask questions to people in
more liberal locales, such as San Fran
cisco. Someone opposed to the Presi
dent would probably quiz a person
from a place like Round Rock, Texas,
where people are interested in hang
ing Bill Clinton from the highest tree,
since the nearest one will do just fine.
Fox News has developed a reputa
tion for being a more conservative
media outlet, and a poll suggesting
that the nation believes that Clinton
may be guilty of a serious felony
caters to their audience. CNN,
whether deserved or not, has devel
oped a reputation as being soft on the
President. A poll incriminating him
probably would be counterproductive
to the network.
The latest polling fad concerns ask
ing questions of people on the Inter
net. While this may get a broader
base of people, it is not exactly reli
able either. The Washington Post’s
Website, Washingtonpost.com, ran a
poll where visitors to the site could
vote for the greatest movie of all time.
The final two movies were Casablan
ca and Star Wars.
Mark Hamill steamrolled Humphrey
Bogart, 96 percent to four percent. So
96 percent of America likes Artoo over
Rick? People on the Internet tend to be
young, and Casablanca is probably be
fore their time. As a result, this poll is
about as accurate as a SCUD missile.
After the death of Joe DiMaggio,
ESPN.com ran a poll in which people
could vote for the greatest living base
ball player. Ted Williams, the Hall of
Famer from the Boston Red Sox, won
with 38.9 percent of the 106,000
votes. However, ESPN could not stop
a person from voting more than once,
which skewed the poll.
For years, candidates for elected of
fice who are trailing in the polls have
claimed that they do not look at them
because they cannot be trusted. It
would appear that these candidates
were right, even when they lost. Polls
today are not accurate gauges of the
American people; they are the adult
version of an etch-a-sketch. Go ahead,
run a poll. People may find out that
they are a lot more popular they you
ever thought. Then again, they also
may find that the world is made of
snow.
Mark Passwaters is a graduate elec
trical engineering student.
Hillary Clinton^ possible bid for Senate good, bad for New York
Zach
HALL
lY
^ enator Hillary
HL Rodham Clinton,
IIP or perhaps Sena-
)f Hillary Rodham —
ither way it has an
erie ring to it.
! To think that the
lore liberal, opinion-
ted and shrewd half
f the Clinton duo
lay be soon running
ir senator of New York is a frightening
lought for any Republican candidate, if
ot for anyone in general.
[ While a Hillary bid for the senate is
ad news for New Yorkers, it might be
ie best thing to happen to Bill since be-
ig elected president.
i Here is the good, the bad and the ugly
f a Hillary Clinton run at the New York
enate:
The Bad
/‘Unfortunately for New York City May
or Rudolph Guiliani and other potential
Republican or Democratic challengers,
Hillary has three main factors in her fa
vor, though none of them have anything
to do with the issues.
First of all, Hillary will be able to ride
the wave of Bill Clinton supporters, i.e.
those who still think the President never
had an affair. This crowd thinks Bill has
done a wonderful job during his six years
as President thus far, though it is more
likely they are just blinded by their own
economic security and think Clinton had
something to do with it.
Secondly, she will have the support of
voters who are sympathetic to her being
the passive victim of her husband’s extra
marital affairs. The thinking of this crowd
is that if she could handle the negativity
and publicity of Bill’s infidelity then she
can certainly handle anything the Senate
puts before her. This sympathy will get
her many female votes.
Finally, because of her First-Lady-
celebrity-like status, she will not have to
publicize many of her extremely liberal
views. She will be able to waffle on the
hard issues like abortion and take some
what firm stances on easy issues like tax
es and health care. The public will be
more engrossed in her social status than
in her extremist views.
Guiliani and others will have to de
fend their views and policies; Hillary’s
only public policy and views come from
her husbands presidency. She can pick
and choose from his policies what she
agrees with, giving her the opportunity to
throw out all the failed views and poli
cies.
Which brings up another interesting
point to a Hillary run for the senate. While
she was in charge of health care reform,
she frequently kept the public, as well as
those she worked with, uninformed about
what she and the committee were doing.
In fact, little is known about what she ac
tually accomplished in terms of working
toward health care reform.
Furthermore, it is Hillary who is be
lieved to have “misplaced” important
White House documents during the
Whitewater investigation.
As if these are not reasons enough for
her to run, she is not even from the state.
Are New Yorkers sure they want to open
another can of Clinton worms, this one in
their own back yard?
The Good
Hillary’s bid for the senate is every
thing Bill could possibly hope for. To
think that his wife’s possible legacy as a
senator, and perhaps more, could erase
the stain he has left on American democ
racy and the presidency should be all too
appealing to Bill. But even better is the
numerous instances for Bill to meet more
Monicas and Gennifer Flowers.
With Hillary away on Senate business
or at campaign rallies. Bill will have am
ple opportunities to invite “guests” over;
he can teach them how to play his sax.
Or perhaps if he chooses to stay faith- !
ful to Hillary (about the same chances as
Hillary asking Pat Buchanan to be her
campaign manager), she will use him as
an office intern. Will Hillary keep a box
of cigars on her desk too?
The Ugly
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and
President Albert Gore: both are two pos
sible outcomes of the 2000 elections. If
this happens, one would have to wonder
where the common sense and morality of
a country could have gone. It would have
elected two main tumors of the newest
American political cancer known as the
Clinton presidency. For the sake of New
Yorkers and the future of America, let us
all hope that Hillary decides to stay at
home and babysit Bill and not run for the
New York Senate.
Zach Hall is a senior philosophy major.