Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 1, 2001)
[onday, October 1, 2001 THE BATTALION Page 9 .This rate apple; in additional 5 :o end to qualif)- JSIC player, anysti-; 764-7619 ask s al Series B Ffc case yweight editic- ih anytime, 97) :TS Publisher should sue over use of s a great seteJ loption! Fee ref e. Student cd 95 MATES I Roommate w 4bdrmf2btti id )0/mo. 41/44 I, 2bdrm/2btt!* paid til Janui'J SAP, new2txri w/d, S395 *12 needed sded ASAP 1 $300/mo. *151 ast month. Houghton Mifflin Company filed a lawsuit against a religious organization, Jews for Jesus, for vio lating copyright and trademark laws. According to oughton Mifflin, a New York-based childrens’ book publish er, the group violated the company’s rights by using the childrens’ storybook charac ter Curious George in religious materials without seeking pennission beforehand. It was inappropriate for Jews for Jesus to use Curious George, a universally rec ognized childrens' book character, to sell ijj( h its religious beliefs. Even worse, Jews for HENDERSON Jesus violated the laws of this country by ignoring the copyright and trademark regu- tions. They should, therefore, take full responsibility for all igligent actions. Jews for Jesus, an evangelical group with the purpose of reading the word that Jesus is the chosen Jewish messiah, eated a pamphlet entitled, “Are You Curious?” in which awings of Curious George were used to appeal to children id young adults. The pamphlet states, under the likeness of Curious George ;ading a book is the passage, “One day, George opened the lible where he discovered that Y’shua (Jesus) is the promised lessiah of Israel.” Aaron Abramson, a member of Jews for esusand the originator of the Curious George campaign, elieves Jews for Jesus has done nothing wrong by utilizing le childrens’ story book character in its materials. “If you give something out for free, you're within your i $454/mo,pm jghtstodo it. We’ve been doing this with a million different ts. 680-3275. 0 opics. We’ve been doing it for 30 years,” Abramson said. The fact that Jews for Jesus boasts about using other pop M:ons or events in their religious campaigns is evidence of the sterling Up.? ^nchalance of Jews for Jesus concerning the infringement on (830)625-754t"‘ U "’‘ ~ 'ICES Sat(8ani-2:3(t :a. Walk-ins west price aHowi Ste.217. WMI y. (CP-00t7). ither’s rights. Instead of recognizing the illegality of using copyright naterial, it is viewing the issue of using Curious George ^ Dr '!' n9 ' without Houghton Mifflin’s permission in its pamphlets as loughton Mifflin’s problem for being lenient with its product Sat.-' r Fn(6pK )ver the years. is surprising and a bit ironic that Houghton Mifflin lacks an ordinary sense of humor and as a literary organiza tion cannot detect parody. While Curious George is known for getting in and out of trouble, we’re not looking for trouble. Our hope is that Houghton Mifflin might look to Curious George as inspiration to lighten up, smile and learn to enjoy life,” said Jews for Jesus Executive Director David Brickner. Houghton Mifflin, a top publishing company for more than a century and a half, has good reason to protest the indecent and illegal use of one of its characters. It was wrong for Jews for Jesus to associ ate a childrens’ book character with a religious stance because Curious George was created to relate to everyone. For one group to use for their goals, without permission, a childhood character cher ished by many is unacceptable. For a company that emphasizes edu cation, it is only proper that Houghton Mifflin move to protect the reputation and symbolism of its most loved and popular characters. It could be easy to turn this issue into an example of religious persecution, but the law suit between Houghton Mifflin and Jews for Jesus is based on a violation of rights and nothing more. It should not be thought of a religious organization being shunned for its beliefs but as an organization ignoring the estab lished rules of corporate society. For more than 60 years. Curious George has been the responsibility of Houghton Mifflin. Luckily, Houghton Mifflin has protected the integrity of a childrens’ book character that many growing up have learned a valuable lesson from — when you make a mistake, you must take responsibility for it. Leigh Henderson is a sophomore psychology major. it; Hop« Pi®! lion 6954®' :ion Peer Coin! ising- Save we | typing! Prolesse ! 281-433-3680 va Yoga- All 979)268-3838 \JEl 2002- 4-nigte 5446- 7-nig» i. Join the» 3d availability at 1-800-223' Parity rules hinder long-term success of professional football Ihey say that variety is the spice of life. If this is true, no professional sports league is spicier than the NFL. Where else can a former grocery store bag boy like Kurt Warner or a murder trial defendant like Ray Lewis go from complete obscurity to Super Bowl MVP stardom? Nowhere but the NFL. Two key rule changes insti tuted in the 1990s mean that, like Warner and Lewis, teams now are rising from obscurity only to end up there again, and, as a result, many sportswriters and football purists are longing for the past days of the NFL dynasty. Roughly 10 years ago, the powers that be in the NFL instituted some rulebook changes under the title of “parity.” Fans of the game are familiar with these changes — the salary cap, that limits the amount of money a tea can spend on its talent, and the scheduling DEUTSCH rules which pit the previous season's winning teams against their fellow winners. Ideally, these changes serve as a means of challenging the strong teams and strengthen ing the weak. But, in reality, they make it harder for teams to afford to keep their best players and punish teams for winning games by way of harder schedules. In all the fuss to keep things evenly matched, the long-term effects to the game were not considered fully, and, as a result, the NFL has become the crapshoot that it is today. Juggernaut dynasties and feather-in-hat coaching legends are relics of a former era. In today’s NFL, last year's cellar dweller can become this year’s one-hit wonder and then possibly return to the cellar again. Consider the St. Louis Rams, which went from last place in their division to become the Super Bowl champions. But in their 1999-2000 Super Bowl-winning season, only one of it 16 regular-season games was played against an opponent with a winning record because the Rams had a weak showing the year before. And though they won the Super Bowl that year, the same changes that helped them win may ultimately have been the beginning of their demise. The Rams did not even make a Super Bowl appearance the following season. And St. Louis is, by no means, the only team to feel the effects of parity. The NFL's The NFL’s television ratings have been on a steady decline. push for mediocrity has hit every team in the league. In fact, every NFL team but four has made a playoff appearance in the past five sea sons, yet only one team, the Denver Broncos, has won the big game more than once in that same span. As one sportswriter put it, “nobody is truly awful... and for sure nobody is truly good.” Whether parity — the NFL's version of com munism — is actually hurting the game or not is still a hot topic, but no one is denying the change. If television ratings are any indication of how the viewing public is taking to parity, then nobody seems to like it. The NFL’s televi sion ratings have been on a steady decline. Perhaps this should not come as a surprise to anyone. When compared to other sports’ rat- ings-grabbing championship games, fans seem to prefer the allure of dynasties. This is true in the NBA where the two-time champion Lakers are a shoe-in to make it three and all of America seems to be behind them. The same goes for Major League Baseball, in which the New York Yankees are favored to win the World Series year in and year out. Football, in its purist form, is meant to be played without restrictions like the salary cap and scheduling rules. NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue can either consider rethinking parity or continue to watch his once dominant league’s TV ratings continue to decline. George Deutsch is a junior journalism major. willing to pat ] fCARTOON OF THE DAY 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 person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to; The Battalion — Mail Call 014 Reed McDonald • MS 1111 Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Fax: (979) 845-2647 Mail Call: mailcall@thebatt.com Email, opinion@thebatt.com Submissions made to old hotmail.com accounts will not be published. Attachments are not accepted. Surplus should benefit students In response to Amanda Smith’s Sept. 28 article. Last spring, along with many other students on this campus, I voted for a fee increase that would improve the bus^system on this campus for this year and years to come. Because of the $50 increase, I can now ride any bus, anywhere, anytime that I want. While this is something I am grateful for, I am not grateful that money I have paid in other fees is now a "surplus" to be used by the University as it sees fit. According to Smith, there are more than $1 mil lion "up for grabs" left over from student fees paid in the last academic year. This money previously was given to Bus Ops, but as my newly paid $50 now funds those operations, the allotment from my student fees now is openly available. The confusing thing is that Dr. Bowen is considering adding additional fees (an "excellence fee," whatever that means) to my bill to cover some deficit that the University has. Here's a novel idea. Why not use this surplus money to alleviate that deficit instead of charging me more? Better yet, why not cut me a check for that surplus? After all, it is my money, right? I am in no way saying we pay too much for school here. I feel we get way more for our dollar than most schools in this nation. A surplus that stems from student paid fees should be used to benefit the students, either by preventing future fee increases, helping to alleviate the parking problems, giving us a break on fees next semester or a rebate from our fees for this semester. Albert Atkins Class of 2001 MAIL CALL Southerland should be commended II 1 cannot put into words how proud I am of Dr. Southerland, our vice president for Student Affairs. My heart warms whenever I hear his name announced at large gatherings like the last football game. He was received with a deafening cheer and "whoops!" a plenty. Let me give an example of his tremendous leader ship of late. Instead of going along with the recent trend of lowering student fees and making school more affordable for all of us, Southerland has decided to give the surplus from the Student Services Fee to a new retreat center for stu dent leaders. Before I go on, 1 should say that I believe with all my heart that the surplus is by over sight only and not design. Surely, our leaders did not foresee that the fee was redundant at the time. I for one am extremely excited about the prospects of driving by such a pretty retreat center. I am sure it will look just as nice on the inside as it does on the outside. Michael Emery Class 2001 Organized religion not all bad In response to Rich Bray's Sept. 28 column. The author stated that organized religion "has been a burden to society rather than a help." ililiiilllM 1 m Ml HM *4 ■ H Imagine just for a moment a society with no sem blances of organized religion. He also remarked that organized faiths "have been competing with each other to prove that their religion is the one true religion." Such generalizations lack support. My fellow Christians and I believe that we are running a race alongside mankind rather than against mankind. The author also informed his readers "that religion does nothing to stop [violence]." An argument would be wasted on a state ment as ridiculous as this. The most disturbing section of the author's article proposed the following question: "If Jesus has such a low regard for non-believers, why should his fol lowers?" How could anyone who knows Jesus Christ ask such a question. It only serves to deni grate the ultimate sacrifice made on mankind's behalf. Jesus Christ gave equal portions of His life to those that would love Him as well as those that would turn from Him. As if blasphemy was not sufficient, the author went on to say, "Hopefully the near future will allow us to come to the point where organized religion will no longer be necessary," adding that "the time for individuals to be molded by the views of the churches they grew up in has come to a close." Humbly, I ask this author is to make such a bold declaration. I will close by asking God to stir the hearts of his children. Justin Estes Class of 2005 j