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