• le
attalion
O PINION
Page 5 • Wednesday, July 14, 1999
socct
in official
V Tuesday
beat dni:8ven now, I am in some ways
ind sang pin denial about the TV walk-
anthem cftmt on me.
t. I still have two months worth
ceremcftble bills to pay, even though
CommuSat time period 1 have not
i Peng, ten been plugged in to my cable
ao and «»■ Maybe someday — after
■e twelve-step rehab program,
had lool Jpaps — 1 will bring myself to
up final flnff the cable. But not yet. Not
as a pniiJoon.
rival wB 1 those earl y weeks of TV
, nn0jJ Midrawal, 1 even staked out all
jj-nnip; pe places in College Station I
honed * ld 8° to § et a TV fix when k
team i ame t0 ° kark to t ,ear -
i t rl d watched my hometown team
itetes rai “l| t ] ;ie Finals in laundro-
S 10 El [
ie countri
TV or not TV?
(That is the question)
Gabriel Ruenes/The Battalion
Cutting back on television
viewing can be beneficial
for college students
mats, restaurants and friends’
apartments.
I have not stooped to stop
ping by Circuit City and pre
tending to browse
through their —v
color TV sec- yf )
tion. .
But don’t /
think I /1
haven’t f J
thought about 1 \
it. \
So life \
without tele- \
vision has not
bden entirely
easy. But
slowly and
surely, the true
value of TV-less liv
ing is beginning to shine
clear. There is a rainbow in the
clouds.
At the end of that rainbow, 1
have found myself working more
productively than ever, accom
plishing more in less amounts of
time and actually getting to bed
at sane hours of the night.
I have actually picked up
books that were not assigned for
a class and (gasp) thumbed
through them while eating din
ner instead of plopping down to
watch “Everybody Loves Ray
mond” while robotically shovel
ing mac and cheese into my
mouth.
Believe it or not, I have even
contemplated exercise, although
I am still motivating myself to
start the illustrious jogging career
that is surely in my immediate fu
ture.
After all the pacing and regret,
the truth is that losing a television
has not meant losing a trusted
friend. I now realize the TV had
been robbing me of time, energy
and health all along. I am slowly
reaching the point where I can
say I am glad to see it go.
To those naysayers who are
now shaking their heads, those
TV-faithful who have seen every
“Seinfeld” episode twice, you are
not alone in thinking life without
TV is an unthinkable fate.
According to Nielsen Me
dia Research, 99 percent of
Americans have a television
j set — many have more than
V one.
g Adults spend over four
hours a day with the tube.
That means that in the
§|j» five years it takes the
illjL average young Aggie
to get a degree, a col-
Lvuj lege student will
JgS[ watch 7,300 hours of
JMfjjiy TV. Students will
spend, on average,
|||P§kN more time flipping
’SpP through channels than
sitting in class.
The truly depress-
ing side of this statis
tic is that most of
those hours are not even
spent watching a single program
to its completion.
According to research done by
public station WGBH-TV in
Boston, viewers who are in their
late teens to early 20s change the
channel an average of 41 times
per hour.
A little more math yields this
incredible result: the average 5-
year college student will change
the channel 299,300 times during
their stay at an institution of
higher learning.
So even if spending one hour
with 41 channel changes a day
may seem deceptively like a
“break” from the routine of
studying, 299,300 channel surfs
add up. Reducing the amount of
TV we watch can do students a
world of good. It seems crazy, I
know, but I have been to the
frontlines of TV deprivation and
back. It is not so bad.
First of all, surely four hours a
day of a student’s life can be
spent with better things than
“Change of Heart.”
Secondly, excessive TV view
ing has been linked in numerous
studies to obesity and poor
health.
Dr. Lisa Hark of the Heart In
formation Network said, “The
more television you watch, the
greater your chances are of be
coming obese.”
And because cholesterol levels
increase as weight increases,
watching lots of television can in
crease the risk of heart disease.
Hark said.
In the formative years of young
life, college students must espe
cially guard against making their
lifestyles too sedentary. TV can be
habit-forming — in a bad way.
Television, of course, is not
necessarily the incarnation of ab
solute evil.
Having a TV can keep one con
nected to the outside world,
thanks to the abundance of talk
ing heads on television news pro
grams. And TV can provide a
needed outlet for relaxation at the
end of a long day.
But losing a TV is not like los
ing a limb.
Every so often, actively pursu
ing entertainment can be better
than receiving it passively over
the airwaves. Seize the day in
stead of the remote.
The dividends will be 7,300
hours of the free time we con
stantly complain about not hav
ing.
Caleb McDaniel is a junior
history major.
welconsl
ay, then t'f
at
y atWiUffl| hool breaks
Mia h not needed
8 e , St f n response to Jeff
re’ s so fmter's July 13 column.
many i|J
the risk of sound
like a proponent of
“good old days,” I
eve Becker needs to
link why he came to
is A&M.
n 1959, I was over-
id when I was admit-
to A&M because it
s considered the
133-® ist difficult state uni-
third rsity jn Texas and one
aroloji jhg mos t difficult in
to fee country. Believe me,
as.
Ve did not have
pring breaks” or other
i College things, but
"fid have pride in be-
part of a very spe-
.... al group able to meet
inkdl standards of A&M.
’ It is why most of us
ed, 4 successful in our ca-
lesceters.
r. A We now have the
; spninefits of the hard
ag rOrk we expended then,
ing Insider that time to
s arfthe best investment I
iky. 6r made.
Ilf you really believe
^cademic performance
/ increase, and the
•e important benefit
MAIL CALL
will be the favorable
psychological effects of
giving students a
break,” you are in the
wrong place. Maybe you
need to find a place
that is more fun.
Frank Lovato
Class of ’62
Speeches to
grads helpful
In response to July 8
mail call.
As a former student,
I went through gradua
tion when it was still at
G. Rollie White.
The ceremony itself,
while long, was very im
portant to me.
The opportunity to
cross the stage and
shake Dr. Bowen’s hand
is one of the most
memorable moments of
my college career.
People say the
speeches need to be
shorter or fewer people
need to speak, but as I
remember it, the speak
ers took up only a very
small portion of the cer
emony.
A vast majority of the
time spent in the cere
mony was spent award
ing degrees to gradu
ates.
Many schools today
do not give graduates
the opportunity to cross
the stage. The school I
went to for graduate
school did not even call
graduates’ names at
the ceremony.
I would discourage
Texas A&M from head
ing in this direction.
Danny King
Class of ’94
Prof explains
annexation
In response to Marc
Grether’s July 8 column.
Texas is one of about
16 states that allows
annexation by a vote of
the city council with no
voter approval required.
In states where an
nexation requires a vote
of the citizens being an
nexed, there is almost
no annexation.
Why should someone
living just outside the
city, enjoying the bene
fits of the city and using
some city services,
choose to pay for those
services by voting for
annexation?
The voters in the
cities of Bryan and Col
lege Station pay 85 per
cent of the Brazos
County property tax.
Only 15 percent is paid
by rural residents.
So because county
residents are getting a
free ride, paid for in
large measure by city
residents, why would
they choose to join the
city and pay their share
of the cost of local gov
ernment?
They are mad be
cause they do not want
the free ride to end.
The petition I would
like to sign is one that
would allow rural resi
dents to pay for all the
services they receive
without help from city
residents. Unfortunate
ly, Texas law does not al
low this.
In short, if you want
to end annexation in
Bryan, you must amend
the charter to require
voter approval of all an
nexations.
Bryan is as big as it
will ever get unless
landowners and devel
opers petition to be an
nexed.
Gary Halter
Faculty Member
effects of NAFTA on U.S. workers
S ix years
have
passed
since the U.S.
Congress,
against the
will of 70 per
cent of the
American peo
ple, passed the OWENS
North Ameri-
can Free Trade Agreement (NAF
TA), establishing tariff-free com
merce among the United States,
Mexico and Canada.
Republican and Democratic
leaders embraced the treaty as
the gateway to a panacea of in
creased profits, greater regional
stability and lower consumer
prices.
Admittedly, some have bene
fited from the lower costs of pro
duction provided by NAFTA.
Corporations which have
moved their plants to Mexico,
where they can operate free of
fair labor laws, minimum wage
and pollution enforcement, have
seen higher profits.
Investors in these companies
have also benefited as the stock
market rose on the news of
greater earnings.
The only losers in this eco
nomic game are those Americans
who do not possess enough capi
tal to benefit significantly from a
bull market. Their only wish is to
receive an honest day’s wages for
an honest day’s work in a decent
paying job so they can support
their families.
Manufacturing has historically
been the source of the highest
paying jobs for those without a
college education. Therefore, the
decline of American production
means the decline of the Ameri
can worker.
NAFTA has resulted in the
transfer of thousands of hard
working American laborers from
the steel mill to low-paying ser
vice-oriented jobs, such as fast
food or retail sales. Americans
who once built automobiles are
now selling those built by Mexi
cans.
For example. General Motors
(CM) used to be the largest em
ployer in the United States.
Today, it is the largest employ
er in Mexico, where it has built
50 plants in 20 years.
In Juarez alone, there are 18
plants of Delphi Automotive, a
CM subsidiary. El Paso is becom
ing a glorified truck stop as Tex
ans watch manufacturing jobs go
south.
This treaty was supposed to
open Mexico to U.S. auto ex
ports. NAFTA has been an un
questionable failure in this re
spect.
In 1996, America shipped
46,000 cars to Mexico, and Mexi
co shipped 550,000 cars to Amer
ica. Mexico got this booming
auto industry from Michigan,
Ohio and Missouri.
In the 1950s, “Engine Charlie”
Wilson immortalized himself
with the remark, “What’s good
for America is good for General
Motors, and vice versa.”
What Engine Charlie said was
true when he said it. However,
GM’s four newest plants are go
ing up in Argentina, Poland, Chi
na and Thailand.
"The promise of
lower consumer
prices through free
trade is a myth/'
As quoted in the Wall Street
Journal, “GM’s days of building
new plants in North America
may be over.”
Another interesting illustration
is the history of Volkswagen. In
its early days in the U.S. market
shortly after World War II, the
company benefited from a posi
tive stereotype portraying its Ger
man workers as meticulous per
fectionists. Indeed, the VW
Beetle was often of such high
quality that its tight air seal
would allow the car to float.
As Germany moved to a more
socialist economy, however, VW
moved some of its plants to the
United States to reduce labor
costs.
. Now, thanks to NAFTA, all
new VW’s are built in Mexico.
Volkswagen closed its last U.S.
plant in the Mon Valley and
moved production of its new
Beetle into Mexico, where it will
produce a minimum of 450,000
vehicles a year.
Wages at Volkswagen’s plant
in Puebla average $1.69 an hour,
one-third of the U.S. minimum
wage.
The “people’s car” is now pro
duced by some of the most ex
ploited and underpaid workers in
the world.
Consumers also have not ben
efited from the move of factories
to Mexico.
Again using the example of
Volkswagen, it can be easily esti
mated that the company is sav
ing at least $10 per hour per
worker in its Mexican plants.
But Volkswagen’s prices have
not been reduced accordingly.
A new 1999 Volkswagen Jetta
with no options lists for $15,345.
The comparable Nissan Altima,
built in Tennessee, lists for about
the same price, but with 35 more
horsepower and more storage
space.
Where have the savings
reaped from the Mexican plants
gone?
They have been stolen from
the wages of American au
toworkers and hoarded into the
pockets of shareholders.
Any marketer can tell you that
price is more a function of what
the consumer is willing to pay
than the cost of production.
Thus, the promise of lower
consumer prices through free
trade is a myth.
If all trade barriers are re
moved between a Third-World
economy like Mexico and a first-
world country like the United
States, first-world manufacturers
will head south to the advantage
of the lower wages, and the
Third-World workers will head
north to the advantage of the
higher wages.
Since the free-trade era began,
4,000 new factories have been
built in northern Mexico, and 35
million immigrants have come
into the United States — among
them five million illegal aliens,
mostly from Mexico.
If that is prosperity, then
America should have none of it.
Truly, free trade is not free.
Tom Owens is a senior
chemical engineering major.