Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 26, 1999)
Isel cuse ie Battalion o PINION Page 11 • Monday, April 26, 1999 rhink about the children parents groups seeking to change laws to protect children should worry about their own first ■ ost Americans would agree that democracy is niAflr pretty 8 ° od thing - Af ' UlUt' a11 8 P uts 8le people in n^rge of the government and arantees that the government lido what they want. At CUyO Mstlhat is how it is suppose c work. In reality the citizens are nerally so apathetic and lazy Brendan GUY nsesk at they never bother to make their views known mmn d S° vernment ends up being controlled by B^ly-loeused special interest groups. This j ids to poor, elected officials being endlessly bad- VO uuWjB'by greedy corporations, shifty labor unions, S' Hp religious fanatics and even environmental- 18. GO (AP) laley says: o young be cused of I; irl last sin ologize to: ) the fann: lev said Sat For the most part, there is nothing wrong with s. If the people do not make their views known their leaders, then they deserve what they get. • id fve can hardly blame the corporations and the ions for lobbying the government; they are just ing to squeeze money out of it, a respectable al f/e can all understand. The Bible thumpers d eco-freaks are not so easily forgiven since they ?not out for money but instead for freaky things jltrying to save our souls and giving us clean air d water, but we will deal with them another irgcd cor However, there is one special interest group that H'ing- U|: clearly unacceptable — an obnoxious clique of lorv crinr. :j a l fascists that poses a grave threat to our great 1 slayingc: : jublic. Of course, I refer to the “for the children” ho remai vocates. also is char;: These groups have been proliferating wildly iminalse.'.:® tjhe last couple of years. Their mantra is a ed casein, nplie one that almost sounds reasonable at first: rl. ildren need to be protected from the evils of the s, ages/annrld. Unfortunately, to go about this laudable lays after kal, it hey are perfectly willing to trample all over in avacan:. - rights of adults. 'ighborhoodl Their loathsome presence can already be felt been savjdoughout our society. They have already tried to v molested Pose censorship on the Internet with the atro- stscameas'f 1 ing by detect| 'o confess; uise the;. cious Communications Decency Act, which was thankfully struck down by the Supreme Court. They have placed ratings on television shows, warning labels on rap music CDs and are working to get v-chips inside televisions. They are waging total war against the tobacco companies and have coerced the government into ROBERT HYNECEK/The Battalion spending billions on anti-drug commercials. They rave about the evils of television violence, sex, profanity and drugs and call for government action against these things, ostensibly to protect the chil dren. But in reality, these people are control freaks who simply want to dominate the lives of their fel low citizens. There is nothing wrong with parents trying to protect their own children from these things. If they want to take the ostrich approach and try to protect their children from reality, that is their business. But is it too much to ask these parents to stick to screwing up their own kids’ lives and leave everyone else alone? There is absolutely no legiti mate reason to get the government involved in these matters. Most governments are really only good at two things: killing people and spending money — skills that are generally not needed in the proper raising of children. Who in the government can be trusted to make the proper decisions on how to protect children? Think about it. If you are a conservative, would youhrust Bill Clinton with your kids; if you are a liberal, would you trust Trent Lott? Besides, the government already has control over the education system to warp the minds of children, there is real ly no need to get the government further involved. Parents — not schools, not churches, not the media — are the dominant force in any child’s life. The “for the children” crowd should stop harass ing politicians and get back to taking care of their own kids. Maybe if they did that, then they would not have to worry so much about their children getting seduced by the dark side of rap music and Joe Camel. And if they really are so incapable of raising their children without massive government assis tance, then maybe these people should not be hav ing children in the first place. Perhaps in some African tribal society it really does take a village to raise a child, but here in the United States, where so many of us have neighbors who cannot even keep their lawns mowed, it is best for individual parents to raise their own chil dren and keep the village out of it — to say noth ing of the government. Brendan Guy is a senior political science and history major. were drot' Member. ien on IL NN should not have turned Colorado school shooting into circus n he horrific inci dent that oc- curred at '‘ l ‘ ilumbine High Ld H . n ; bool in Littleton, ne - ° r n , do., this past week 1N is a serious re- 1! inder of the erosion or our culture, moral- Zach HALL wasi ce U q t . t ‘.'j| and love for ? un 7ve|o!:B* ntP CNN’s cov- in .|’ 7 ige of the tragedy was a blatant re- llllk inder of the erosion of media stan- rds and ethics. Not to downplay the utter severity the shootings, but CNN turned a ter- lefeituation into a national specta- IThe Jerry Springer Show” has en known to show more class. For most of an afternoon, the coun- i was bombarded by live, up-to-the- cond coverage of every action that bolded in Littleton. The public was en allowed first-hand, unedited, un screened calls from students who were lucky to escape alive. Unfortunately, too many of the in terviews seemed overly dramatic, and some eyewitness’ stories did not even stay consistent within the same inter view. It was almost as if CNN was waiting for a student to come out and say “Yeah, I was right there, and there were shots, and then my best friend’s head just exploded there right in front of me.” As if they had not made enough bad decisions, CNN then proceeded to put an 800 number on the screen for par ents to call and check on their kids. Ten minutes later they asked the public to discontinue use of the number be cause it was the wrong one and be cause there had been a flood of calls into it. One has to ask why John Doe in Caledonia, Miss., needs to have access to that 800 number. Did CNN think that parents and relatives of the Den ver area would not be watching their local news coverage instead of CNNs? The question raised in a circum stance such as this asks where the line must be drawn between responsible journalism and news stations’ thirst for higher ratings. There is no doubt that the Columbine shootings were national news or that it would draw national in terest, but it was not a national tragedy. Therefore, CNN’s decision to broadcast live, unedited and un-re- searched news was irresponsible. Simply put, this was a tragic hap pening that could have occurred in any town of any state in America, just like rape, murder, theft or freak accidents happen every day in some community across the country. The difference here is that CNN’s excessive coverage turned this incident into a national media circus. The big three news stations were certainly not going to be outdone by CNN. The discouraging thing about this whole mess is that the public sat back and watched with morbid curiosity. However, what is more disheartening is that when such tragedies hit close to home, that same public becomes ap palled at the lack of sensitivity por trayed by the media. For instance, I have not heard a sin gle person exclaim about how insensi tive it was for CNN to show pictures of children with bullet wounds, or broad cast supposed eyewitness accounts of friends being blown away. Some might argue that incidents such a these should not be given so much coverage because it encourages copycat crimes. While this is not a valid reason to cover-up news, one does have to won der about the rash of copycat crimes that have occurred just since last week’s shootings. CNN should i>e glad to know that their ratings were high among the copycat criminal demo graphic. This is not a suggestion that the me dia should be in the business of decid ing what the public should and should not know; CNN had a responsibility to inform the nation of this tragedy. But in precious few circumstances should local tragedies be escalated to the level of a national media circus and certain ly not to the extent that CNN took this situation. Ironically, this is not the first time CNN has been accused of irresponsible journalism. Hopefully, the public has not become as desperate for shock and entertainment as some media organiza tions. Zach Hall is a senior political science major. 7-17 'S: ize not basis for mount of coverage rSi Wati' fa response to Nathan Hoff- mr's Apr. 15 mail call. Tou said in your letter that The Gallon should not give Gay bareness Week so much atten- 'n or “front page news” because ppsexuals only represent a mi- % of people on campus. Does this also mean that you ■ pol#ferthey don’t report on the T A ||Pn Students Association or , p U 0t e Texas Aggie Democrats? ©Se organizations represent a 0 [() ,vi7 in | r ity of the school population. n ?> r piously you don’t prefer it be- me f ' u iuse you are prejudiced, ties in' 111 As the editor of The Battalion pertly wrote himself, their job is report the news, nothing less ■nothing more. For you to suggest that The mlion not report the activities the gay student organization to ttisfy your intolerance and con- 3r vatism is ridiculous. The news Nia will not stop reporting Pethingjust because you think Wrong. ter igran'- pane n Jfk'' Open up your eyes, Nathan. ,vexpr II 'F live in a worlcl where this kind 111 ^hing exists, yes, even in Ag- ' e| and. Attempting to sweep it rthe carpet does not make it ay. Michelle Cochran Class of ‘00 MAIL CALL Corps members not superior to others In response to Ronnie H. Kirschner’s Apr. 19 mail call. The last time I checked, A&M was a University open to all races, religions, backgrounds and ethnic ities. But, most of all, it is open to individuals who have one charac teristic in common. That is free dom. Notice that I used the word freedom. If I am not mistaken, I do not think that you have sacrificed any of your heart, soul, sweat or blood for that freedom that we all share. Well, just to let you know ... I have. And if anyone has a right to be yell leader, I think that I am a prime candidate. I am not saying that I am running for yell leader, but if sacrifice is what it takes, then I have done more than my fair share. While you were in detention in high school and chasing girls through the halls, I was serving this country, upholding the free dom that has allowed ignorant, narrow-minded individuals such as yourself to even have the right to call yourself an Aggie. And now I am proud to say that I am a member of this institution that allows me the same right as everyone else. And that is to call myself an Aggie. Everyone on this campus has just as much right as any Corps member to represent this fine school as a yell leader. If the Corps would just stop hazing, wake up during class and look around, they would see that this school is no longer all Corps. We cannot live in the past anymore. And if you want things to be like they used to be, then let us start by getting rid of the all non-reg championship football team that gave everyone on this campus a reason to yell. Let us get rid of all the women on campus, and let us downsize the school to 60 or 70 students. Also, if I am not mistaken,the of fice of student body president was invented by a white man. Does that mean that Will Hurd does not have the right to hold that position just because he is not the same type of person that the founder of that position was? I think not. Join the military, grow up, and come back and look at this Univer sity through the eyes of a mature adult like I have. I can guarantee, you will not see things the same. Eric Ferguson Class of '01 Gun control not answer to violence In response to Caleb Mc Daniel’s Apr. 24 opinion column. I cannot understand how Mc Daniel believes the solution to ending school shootings is more stringent gun laws. It is a tragedy that our chil dren are not even safe at school anymore, but taking away our right to bear arms will not solve the problem. Children will get ahold of guns illegally, if that is their intent. Laws restricting citizens rights will not solve the problem of shootings, they will only lead more people obtaining weapons illegally. If anyone is responsible for stopping the shootings, it is the parents. In the case of Columbine High School, how could the parents of the two al leged gunmen not know that their children had multiple guns and bombs in their rooms? They had to have noticed that their children were acting abnor mally. I cannot fathom not know ing what is going on with your chil dren, not knowing what they are doing in their rooms; my parents always knew what I was doing, whether I wanted them to or not. The parents are ultimately re sponsible for their children’s ac tions, not the government. Strip ping the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is not the solution to ending these senseless shootings. Leslie Hull Class of '01 This recent atrocity against humanity in Colorado will no doubt give rise once again to the debate for more completely use less gun control laws. The argument for gun control has noble roots, but is inherently flawed. None of the laws since 1932, 1968 or 1996 has had any appreciable effect on crime. Do you remember the “save all” Brady Bill of 1996, do you feel any safer? The problem with gun control laws is that they are only laws. They are laws to prevent the criminal use of guns. Criminals do not abide by laws, that is why we label them criminals. In the first place, how many criminals go down to their fa vorite retail store and fill out the blue sheets to legally buy a firearm. Not many. Most guns are obtained illegally, through theft or bought from back-alley dealers. The two morally degraded psy chopaths from Colorado are prime examples of criminal disre gard for laws. One of them was 17 years old; legally he was only to be in possession of any kind of firearm in the presence of an adult guardian. Also, both of them built and utilized pipe bombs and other incendiary de vices, both of which are strictly forbidden by current legislation. Do you think they thought, “Hey, wait, we can’t be in pos session of firearms within 1000 feet of a school because that also is illegal.” To the argument at hand, you might suggest that the only way to prevent criminal usage and possession of a firearm is to make all usage and possession criminal. Wrong! The war on drugs empirically proves that banning, be it a sub stance or a tool, like a handgun, is useless. Illegal as it may be, if I had the urge to score an 8-ball that wouldn’t take more than 20 minutes. Guns, handguns especially, would be easy to smuggle into the country, just like a kilo of co caine. Banning guns only leaves us with rich gun smugglers, well- armed thugs and a vulnerable citizenry being led to slaughter. Travis Bernsen Class of ’00 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@tamvml.tamu.edu