Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 21, 1999)
e Battalion NION Page 11 • Wednesday, April 21,1999 aution: Speed bumps ahead iunson Avenue woes result of College Station City Council’s mishandling of tense situation 1 ‘ ‘ Hpi Zach HALL jrse, Dallas; 1 iiain, defeiK who has bee: alayoff gaite ~|n May 1, College Station voters will go to the oenick. j^wolls to decide the fate of Munson Avenue. Ing Pat l- J^troposition 1, or proposed City Ordinance ee injury an: :|3 reads as follows: Matdchuk “The City of College Station lough he he ill not block or restrict, or im- ,r oil discourage by use of bar- inton is a rs, si'eed humps, repetitive lallas’ Joe p silgns or otherwise, vehicu- ?yare nor travel to, over or via any por- eirgamei: n of Munson Avenue, be- nglo have sen Lincoln Dr. and Harvey h Hatcher (s.* provided that this Ordi- nitely missi;nce ;hall not prohibit or re- ull said thr' ict:[(a) temporary closings for improvement or re- I overlook iro| street facilities and utilities, (b) the id abllshment and enforcement of vehicular speed confident.i iitsj or (c) the use of traffic safety controls or de- leamscar. ;es Consistent with standards commonly applied bunchofr other city thoroughfares [*], provided such lim- Itanybod .controls and devices are primarily intended to alkovera hance the overall safety of such travel and not aresadh lC oiirage such travel.” ABote in favor of Prop. 1 will reopen Munson e.Bvhile a vote opposed will insure that the ckade remains. On the surface this seemed like a fairly cut and / issue; it appeared as if the sides were broken ike and 1 o those who wanted usage of Munson as a thor- hnthecrrpfare between Lincoln Street and Harvey Road lent Lent d those who think their wishes were more impor- , oncethetit than those of the rest of the city’s. However, as cinnatiw th most issues in College Station government, ill." H are not as simple as they may seem, vould marLThough originally a staunch supporter of reopen- nwns the L’Munson Avenue, after researching and delving hind-the-sesfo the subject further, I have begun to see that the re Schott, jnson crisis has been nothing more than, as one the genet; unson resident put it, “a comedy of errors.” When College Station voters go to the polls on entthanSi'W ], they will indeed be voicing their will on the ws withffjnplex matter of neighborhood integrity and safe- anaginge'%ersus public access and traffic easement. How- erltheir vote will also be to cover the tails of the e great or: y of College Station staff and city council. Obvioiii The issue began as an attempt by neighborhood ve tirst-d^liclents to limit the volume of traffic running Thigh their streets as well as the conduct of the iffic. In 1996, 350 traffic citations were issued sng Munson Avenue for failure to stop, speeding. Big while intoxicated and reckless driving. Ter repeatedly being ignored by the city, resi- oflf dents began a move that eventually led to the par tial closure of Munson and Ashburn Avenues. Over the next few months a series of speed humps, stop signs, blockades and lower speed limits were toyed with by the city in order to find a solution. However, the city has not conducted a survey of the volume of traffic along Munson since Texas Av enue has been widened. The Texas Avenue traffic congestion and subsequent construction are be lieved by those opposed to closing Munson to have contributed largely to the high volume of traffic running along Munson. In short, what has occurred with the Munson Av enue issue is a failure by the city staff and city council to make well-informed and conscientious decisions on the matter at hand. Instead, they placed the brunt of the responsibility for finding so lutions on the residents of Munson Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood. Eventually the city took some action by conduct ing surveys and research on the traffic problem and the trial and error process of barricades, speed bumps and partial closures followed. The Munson debate will be decided on May 1, but the real issue that needs to come to light will be the inadequacy of the city of College Station in han dling this situation. The voters should vote for Proposition 1 and re open Munson Avenue, but they should also be re sponsive to the needs and desires of Munson resi dents to help reduce the volume of traffic and traffic infractions along Munson — not just for the better ment of the community but also for future Munson conflicts. The city of College Station needs to develop a po sition and ground rules for the conflict between neighborhood integrity and public rights and access. Let’s not let future conflicts be business as usual in College Station. The voters, staffers and council members of College Station must learn from this de bacle so that next time they create real, workable and acceptable solutions and not a “comedy of er rors. ” Zach Hall is a senior philosophy major. Ik show, producers should bear ] *esponsibility for guest’s murder Manisha PAREKH nrtofl Desk ist Desk e ler ^ rqnathan * | Schmitz is an * emotionally ibalanced man. e has tried to iiliifemmit suicide at ast four times "id has been treat- , 1 for bipolar dis- ^der. Once, when i mistakenly 'ought his girlfriend had died, he died himself inside his apartment, '"lilt an altar to her and refused to >me out for four days. re iflttffmP 1995, Schmitz was invited on The Jenny Jones.” He was told that imeone would reveal his or her se- et crush on him. Schmitz, show reducers claim, was made aware of ie fact that the admirer could have sen a man; Schmitz’s counselor ated that producers emphasized the ossibility the admirer was a woman. Schmitz ultimately found himself tting before an laughing audience ad television cameras as Scott Ame- re, a homosexual, revealed his se- ret crush for him. It is hard not to imagine Schmitz’s aibarrassment as Amedure in- >rmed the national audience of a ixual fantasy involving the two ien, champagne, a hammock and 'hipped cream. Three days late, Schmitz fatally aot Amedure, still incensed over the 'hole incident. : Currently, Amedure’s family is su- iglhe show, Warner Bros, and depictures Productions for $50 mil- on in a wrongful death lawsuit. blame the show for creating a ituation in which a mentally unbal- nced man was driven to shoot their on. lAnd they are correct for blaming tejshow and its producers, i lattf> : ;The talk show circuit in America 'as ripe for this kind of tragedy due Hts very format. From Jerry ^^MOtfnger to Ricki Lake to Jenny , ones, “guests” are brought on the how and publicly humiliated for the £ of ratings and audience titilla- n Eventually, someone was going to ushed too far. That someone happened to be Schmitz. Schmitz has admitted to the mur der of Amedure and is awaiting retri al after his original conviction was thrown out due to a legal technicali ty. In his mind and Amedure’s fami ly’s mind, the fatal shooting would never have occurred if the producers of “The Jenny Jones Show” had con ducted a thorough background check of Schmitz or had taken some safe guards in choosing guests for the show. The show’s producers, however, have stated that they are not respon sible for the shooting. If anyone believes that, then there is some great oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. “The Jenny Jones Show,” and to a lesser extent all talk shows of that genre, are responsible for the embar rassment and humiliation their guests suffer and the repercussions of that emotional trauma. And they should be willing to take responsibility for the cruel nature of the show that puts luxury cars in their garages. Jones, while she was testifying in the case, said “I don’t think we ex ploit people. It’s not something we do.” Now, is she using the normal, everyday definition of “exploit” or the Bill-Clinton-we-didn’t-have-sexu- al-relations definition of “exploit?” How can bringing someone on a show in front of a live studio audi ence and revealing intimate secrets about them or others in order to get high ratings not be exploitative? And it is obvious that the humilia tion is all for ratings. When Jones was asked by the prosecution whether she would have invited Schmitz on the show, knowing what she now know, Jones replied, “I don’t know.” Apparently, the Nielsen ratings are still being looked at by the show’s analysts. Jones, however, refused to ac knowledge that viewers tune in to watch people being humiliated. “I think it’s [the entertainment] the whole show, including all the pro duction elements.” Yes, Joe Schmo tunes in to watch the beautiful camera angles on “The Jenny Jones Show.” What makes the “The Jenny Jones Show” truly responsible for Ame dure’s death is the lack of precau tions it took before allowing Schmitz on the show. James Huysman, a Florida counselor, offered his ser vices in order to prescreen guests be fore the episode was taped; show producers refused his offer. Huysman testified that Schmitz was clearly identifiable as a person who should not have been on the show. “I don’t think he should have been on the air,” Huysman said. However, in a world dictated by ratings, emotional exploitation means little. At the very least, one would ex pect the show to have changed it op erating procedures in order to avert another possible tragedy like Ame dure’s death. Jones, however, testified that the show had not changed since his death. And that is truly sad. A man lost his life because a show’s producers were too preoccupied with money and ratings. Another man lost his link with sanity and will now, un doubtedly, spend the rest of his life in prison because a show’s producers refused to mix business and humani ty. And mow they should pay the price. If money is all “The Jenny Jones Show” cares about, then $50 million dollars is the right punishment for the crime. Society cannot allow oth ers to profit from other people’s ex ploitation without some sort of reck oning. Jenny Jones and her colleagues can believe what they want to about the integrity of their show. But when the jury comes in, chances are Jenny Jones is in for the kind of public embarrassment her guests know only too well. Manisha Parekh is a junior psychology and journalism major. Corps members not better than other Aggies In response to Ronnie Kirschner’s Apr 19 mail call. Diversity and openness to others seems to be the cornerstone to the greatness at A&M. Limiting positions to just one group does not exemplify this idea. Many organizations try to promote un conditional acceptance. I am not bashing the Corps. I have a great respect for all your dedi cation. I know that for me personally, I cold not do the activities you do every day. But on the other hand, why are non-regs not al lowed to have as much pride in this awe some University? I did not realize that I did not pay the extra fee for school pride. Although we might not sweat at 6 in the morning doing a group run, there are many activities we participate in, along side Corps members, that promote the undying Aggie spirit. This Wednesday we are celebrating the lives of Aggies that have passed away. This list will be mingled with cadets and non- regs alike. No matter what their affiliation, we hon or them just the same. I think that so much of the hostility comes from the simple fact that a differ ence exists. Differences bring changes. It can be scary when things start to change but we should be glad for the positive changes that come. Changes mean the we are growing as people and a society. This is exactly what we want for this University. No one is say ing that we don’t want the Corps around or that we don’t want them in leadership posi tions. It should be a joint effort. I cannot comprehend why we can not just move on and accept the people that have been elected to their positions. If you do not like the way things are this year, vote differently in the elections next year. Let the people chosen to do the job, perform their duties. Erin V. Taylor Class of '02 No justification for NATO, U.S. expelling Greece In response to Mark Passwater’s Apr. 19 opinion column. NATO is the most powerful military al liance the world has ever seen, and an at tack on one member nation is considered an attack on the entire alliance. That means that Greece must even defend Turkey. Granted, the Greeks and the Turks are in a sense enemies, andvthe root of this can be traced back to antiquity. But the Greeks are a reasonable people and far from actively supporting the oppression of Kosovar Albanians. In fact, Greece has contributed to the NATO allies during the Balkan War. Though they have refrained from providing troops or aircraft, they have offered logistical sup port and supplies. There is no way to justify the expulsion of Greece from the NATO alliance, simply because they don’t always agree with the majority. But having both Greece and Turkey in the alliance is actually a positive benefit. Though this can make the alliance difficult to manage at times, the prospect of war between two allies is slim. Both nations know that conflict among them would surely split the alliance, as who are we to assist? Expulsion of Greece would throw the entire weight of NATO be hind Turkey, thus bringing more instability to the region. And Greece has a right to be bitter to wards the Turks for territory lost, especially Constantinople. Built by the Romans, it was the last vestige of their great civiliza tion and it fell to the Turks in 1453. It is not as easy to put the past behind you as Passwaters claims. There is anoth er great city that has been fought over for far longer than any other, by the name of Jerusalem. In that city alone, Christians, Jews, and Muslims all struggle for power. Should we abandon our alliance with Is rael simply because they don’t want to give up their holy city either? Matt Lucas Class of ’00 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 per son 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
