Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 14, 2001)
lay, February 14, iJ Wednesday, February 14, 2001 Opi NION Page THE BATTALION Hasta la vista, V-day ontrived holiday is pointless and demoralizing JESSICA CRUTCHER MARK PASSWATERS I/The Battalion itine's valentine’s Day ranks right up there with worthless holi- lay s like Groundhog Day, Wing Day and Residents Day. Uthough these Jiolidays serve ■ome purpose, ■owever ob- ■cure, Valen- ■ine’s Day serves Bio apparent use jither than mak ing 99 percent of '• Jieople involved feel worse about jhemselves than they already do. Valentine’s Day, like the much- s liyped first sexual experience, sel- ; Bom measures up to expectations. gin fact, on a scale of exploding . Bockets of love, Valentine’s Day is v Bhe equivalent of wet sparklers. 14 should be abolished as a ll f olida y- T den ' everyone could LX^vlftpend their hard-earned money on |omething that will not make their Significant other either sneeze or o lave a heart attack. jet, includiiii -1. Plus, it is doubtful anyone will said. Beal I y miss seeing pictures of ugly, military olftat, naked children playing with led an opet£ J sharp objects plastered all over carried out ii: pery store window through the anonymity.q jnonth of February. >ping, but w| A fat kid with wings and a bow ||uid arrow should hardly be consid- leartfeltcof; fered a symbol of great romance. In- rmy for kil bead, it should be given its own •used of twice; hunting season somewhere between a Jewish set, October and December. Deer, i" WUh ? /f 0Ili pheasant, cupid. Lock and load, Jusdc f Ml ™ ’.gentlemen. NR A 1, Eros 0. c^He’^sodifr ^ e/)t ' ne s Day is supposed to uhat Awdha mke g rown - u P s g et the same the tLJ warm, fuzzy feeling that kids get fhe killing l u ^ en ^mking about Santa Claus or first time t j1 targeted asitj; nilitant. day that thepti “It is aclf| who is | at they wills /ith im the Tooth Fairy. Unfortunately, these childhood icons do not exist and Valentine’s Day does. Bah, humbug. For single people, this day is “look at how pathetic you are day.” They are subjected to their friends’ talking about how won derfully perfect their significant others are. Single people, after a day of this, would rather streak through a village of cannibals. Instead, they will go and hit the bottle to shake the depression, but at least they can still afford to do so. They will not be selling plasma to afford Godiva chocolates. In addition, having a significant Other, or someone who thinks he or she. is one’s significant other, is not always all that great either. The phrase “secret admirer” has taken on a new meaning. It is the politi cally correct term for the word “stalker.” This may be the only pos itive thing about Valentine’s Day; Those who are being “admired” get live flowers instead of dead ones — if they are lucky. Perhaps the most annoying thing about Valentine’s Day is the redun dancy of the whole thing. If people are in a good relationship, they will show their love often. There should not be one day that overwhelms the other 364. Instead of Valentine’s Day, it would be so much easier to move straight on through to Easter. Rab bits are so much more useful than cupids — at least they can be eaten when they outgrow being cute. Pay no attention when the Hall mark cards store goes up in smoke. Jessica Crutcher is a junior journalism major and Mark Passwaters is a senior electrical engineering major. KRISTIN MCNEFF/The Battalion Putting more in the collection plate ush’s plan to federally fund faith-based programs flawed Hjouji in the MS( Igerton, $ ntoanrt ooo Bakewell faldridge Benson 3raham Tseng imanuelson avis del e Brock iall e Lacey H oping to escape from his father’s shadow and validate his vic- sTEOf,; lory in a hotly contested | jlection. President George W. Bush has wasted no time in introducing a slate of poli- f ’ cies that aim to bring his concept of compassionate conservatism into the federal government. Among these are a broad tax cut, a promise to increase military spending and the inclusion of faith-based social welfare programs in the fed eral funding pool. The last policy, which was made law by an ^executive order, has been hailed by fellow Re publicans as a way to maximize federal welfare |dollars. By using the funds to supplement ex isting programs, they argue, federal funds can |be used to improve welfare services as opposed [to just setting up the necessary infrastructure. Others have lambasted the program as a clear mixture of church and state. ^ Although the plan does have potential con stitutional pitfalls, it looks great on paper. Un fortunately, it requires both government offi cials and faith-based program administrators to monitor the path of the most slippery of sub stances — money. Federal funding of faith- based programs is an idea doomed to fail. Admittedly, the term “faith-based programs” is an ill-fitting description for many of the pro grams targeted by Bush’s new plan. Although they are administered by churches, many are lit tle more than inner-city soup kitchens and homeless shelters where needy citizens get what they need before shuffling out. Volunteers at these centers barely have enough time to make sure everyone gets fed and sheltered, much less spend any energy converting the masses. Nevertheless, the fact remains that religious beliefs are very much at the center of most faith-based programs. The innate desire of churches to help out their fellow man not only results in social assistance programs like shel ters and kitchens, but personal assistance pro grams as well — religious education. If church members did not believe they were on the right path to success, they would not belong to that particular church. The inclusion of religious teachings in welfare programs is only a natural extension of their desire to help the needy as much as they can. Even churches that use the federal money to directly fund their relief efforts are receiving a government subsidy. There is no guarantee that the federal dollars will be used to supplement current spending; in many cases the new cash will free up church funds for other uses. In ef fect, the federal government would be provid ing the equivalent of a tax credit to churches — a group that already does not pay taxes. There is nothing wrong with individuals or congregations including a little religion with welfare, but the government should not be in the business of funding the conversion of the needy. Many argue that a number of federally fund ed secular organizations provide the same ser vices, and poor citizens are free to choose any program they wish. This might be true in large cities, but, in many rural areas of the nation, such options do not exist. For these people, the ability to vaccinate their children may come down to their willingness to attend church or Bible study on a weekly basis. For places where nonreligious relief organiza tions do exist, services may decline. Unless the Bush administration increases its social welfare budget, something which is not currently in the cards, the existing funding level will be divided among an increased number of organizations. Giving funds to church relief efforts means giv ing less to secular neighborhood groups. Unfortunately, less financial help from the fed eral government may become a factor for all so cial relief providers. Although Bush’s plan is more compassionate than Newt Gingrich’s idea to re open orphanages and poor houses, the prevailing theme is conservatism — fiscal conservatism. In essence, Bush is passing the buck to pri vate relief organizations. In the new era of Re publican government, the federal government will not even bother attempting to administer social welfare programs. Providing federal funds to religious organi zations gives the Bush administration the look of being proactive on social welfare when in re ality it is throwing in the towel. On paper, the plan looks good. In practice, the policy is plagued with a number of prob lems that only begin with the question of con stitutionality. The question is not whether the policy will ultimately fail, but how long it will manage to survive before finally succumbing to one of its many weaknesses. Nicholas Roznovsky is a senior political science major. ASHA Condom Day message is a bad idea F orget shop ping for the tradi tional Valen tine’s Day gifts like flowers, candy, jewelry and cards, be cause the only thing that the American Social Health Associa tion (ASHA) is concerned with this holiday is condom distribution. In Detroit, health department workers plan to hand outmondom earrings, lollipops, jewelry, hair accessories and key chains instead of Valentines today. The rest of the nation will have similar incentives as it celebrates National Condom Day. Texas A&M has decided to jump on the bandwagon as Student Health Services, Health Education and Aggie Representatives Educat ing About College Health (REACH) hold the annual Sexual Responsibility Week. Activities be gan Monday, with the mini Health Fair, where anyone was eligible for free HIV testing. Tuesday was “No Means No” day, where a date rape expert panel was available for questions and counseling. National Condom Day, former ly known as Valentine’s Day, be gan in 1978 at the University of California-Berkely. This holiday targets college students and hopes to discourage unsafe sex. Today at A&M, condoms and HIV/AIDS information packets will be avail able in front of the Memorial Stu dent Center. While romance and love fill the hearts of students at A&M, AIDS Services of Brazos Valley (ASB V) feels it is their obligation to ensure safe sex will be practiced on Valen tine’s Day. St.' Valentine would be saddened to see that a holiday, once sacred in his name, has now become “condom mania.” Whatever happened to ex changing Valentines with friends, families and loved ones on Valen tine’s Day? This holiday has been turned into another sex-education week. Rather than love, honesty and devotion on Valentine’s Day, students are bombarded with thoughts of sex, AIDS, rape and abortion. Valentine’s Day is not a day of sexual desire for everyone. In fact, many people think of Valentine’s Day as a day to express feelings to all loves, including friends and family. Valentine’s Day is also a time of romance with a special person. Romance is not an alternative def inition of sex. According to the History Channel, in ancient Rome, the month of February was considered a “time for purifica tion” and, in Great Britain, it was common on Valentine’s Day for friends and lovers to exchange handwritten tokens of affection in the 18th century. Regardless, society has suc cumbed to social pressures and now uses Valentine’s Day as a time to preach about the evils of sexual activity. Instead of promoting safe sex on Valentine’s Day, true love and devotion should be promoted. Al though many people would dis agree, love does not always have to be expressed sexually. After all, Christians may have decided to celebrate Valentine’s Day feasts in the middle of Febru ary as a way to “Christianize” pa-. gan celebrations. Just how is Valentine’s Day dif ferent from any other day of the year with regard to sex? The ASHA says an estimated 55 million Americans have STDs, two-thirds of cases occur in people under 25, and one-fourth in teenagers. Obviously this statistic is not a direct result of Valentine’s Day. Regardless, the holiday of love has changed into an STD field day. Other days of the year are just as responsible for unsafe sex as Valentine’s Day. By disregarding Valentine’s Day and promoting National Con dom Day, A&M, along with the rest of society, has become nar row-minded and callous to the real meanings of love and romance. National Condom Day is offensive to anyone who thinks of Valen tine’s Day as more than sex. It is disheartening to see a day of ro mance turned into an advertised sexual expose. Cayla Carr is a junic speech communications majo CARTOON OF THE DAY fc 6MUR Rorf &ftHD "TUs RtfekN'wb Mail Call Free speech not license to offend Abortion is murder! Let the woman make the choice! We are all familiar with these catch phrases from some of the fiercest campaigns in America. I am not going to mention my side on the issue, only respond to the techniques of the representatives of one side of the issue. Monday, everyone who walked | by the Memorial Student Center ■saw a huge display of obscenity. |The message that was presented was to not abort pregnancies. This message was presented in the absolute worst way possible. The 30-foot-tall ads carrying mas sive pictures of aborted fetuses were enough to make anyone sick to their stomach. In this country, we have the right to free speech, guaranteed to us by the First Amendment of our Constitution. This right does have limits. For example, you can not randomly yell “fire” in a crowd ed theater. Are we allowed to present bill boards with pictures of pornogra phy or similar obscene things? Of course not. So why are we al lowed to display grotesque photos of mangled babies on billboard size stands? On the other hand, we have the right to refuse to listen to anything that is being said. However, this right is taken away when 10-foot- tall photos of the most lewd and disgusting things are stuffed in our faces. We were not given an option. The nice thing to do would have been to approach people individu ally with the message and give them the right to refuse to listen or see the message. Granted, it may not be moral to some to abort a pregnancy at any phase; however, this message can be told in a mature and moral manner. More importantly, members of a free and democratic society must be mature enough to under stand that for each right society guarantees them, society de mands responsibility from them in return. The absolute rights of an indi vidual to free speech, regardless of content or purpose, should nev er be a factor that refuses society the right to moral stability. Joey Dobbs Class of ‘02 Battalion photo went too far Being American, we all have our own opinions on such issues as abor tion, but when I pick up a paper first thing in the morning while trying to eat my breakfast, the last thing I want to see is a disgusting picture like the one on the front page of The Battalion this morning. It is bad enough to walk by the Memorial Student Center (MSC) this week, but then we look everywhere else on campus and that picture haunts us. We have the choice to avoid the MSC, but when we look down on the sidewalk all over campus, there is a stack of newspapers with that picture on it. Have a little respect for our choice to view or not to view this type of dis gusting material. I have my own opinions on abor tion and I am not trying to avoid it. I am just trying to keep from getting sick while eating my breakfast. The Battalion this time stepped over the line, and it is sad to say that I am ashamed of y’all. William F. Osborn II Finance Division Computing Group Texas A&M University