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