The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 27, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 26, 1981 Page: 2 of 16
sixteen pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Alcohol problems
The Texas House will probably pass a bill soon that will
take the right to drink away from 18-year-olds. The measure
has already passed the Senate, and Governor Bill Clements
has promised he will sign it into law if it passes the House.
Unfortunately, the wise and judicious members of the Texas
government seem oblivious to the ramifications of their
action.
The rationalization behind the bill assumes that by
preventing 18-year-olds from drinking, alcohol problems in
the high schools will be substantially reduced.
Unfortunately, there is little to no evidence to back that
claim. Under-age high school students are able to get liquor
with or without the help of their older friends. They were
able to get it before 18-year-olds could drink, and they will
be able to get it even if this law is passed. (Observe the success
with which laws prohibiting sex with and between minors is
enforced.)
Even if passing this bill would totally eliminate drinking
problems from the high schools (as it certainly cannot, since
there will still be some 19-year-olds in high school anyway),
the implications of the bill render it unacceptable. In the
state of Texas, 18-year-olds are considered adults: They can
own their own businesses (one of the ironies of this law is
that the legislature cannot prevent 18-year-olds from selling
liquor), they are held responsible for their actions with
respect to the law, they can vote, and they can serve in the
military (either voluntarily or involuntarily). Yet, legislators
do not want them to be able to drink.
The absurdity is obvious. The legislators acknowledge
that 18-year-olds are thinking beings, but they do not wish to
acknowledge that they should be able to make their own
decisions about the use of alcohol. Essentially, the rights of a
group of adults are being taken away in a feeble attempt to
impose someone's morality on minors. Such a law is
inherently distasteful.
♦ * *
The drinking bill is a manifestation of the reactionary bent
of the esteemed Texas Legislature, a tendency that was
reinforced by the results of last November's elections. Now,
when they receive the pronouncements of certain lobby
groups that "this law is needed," the legislators not only
jump, but they run as well. For this bill, they even had to get
Governor Bill to give it "emergency status" so it could be
considered and passed.
The Texas Legislature is a ludicrous body within a
ludicrous government, and the fact that a bill of this nature is
given priority over more pressing matters only proves the
criticisms of its detractors (of which I am only one). While
the law-makers frolic about passing absurd laws and useless
resolutions, the vital issues that will face this state before the
legislature meets again in two years (e.g. flooding,
education, not to mention redistricting) are being ignored.
Meanwhile, the 140 days of Texas government slip away.
If the legislature is not able to consider these issues now,
during the regular session, they will only be able to solve
them later on Governor Bill's terms—if at all.
Feeling a draft
U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings of South Carolina
introduced legislation this week to reinstitute the draft. My
reasons for opposing such a move have already been detailed
in this space at some length on several occasions. This
particular bill would affect all males between 18 and 22 years
of age (almost all undergraduate males at Rice) and would
not allow many of the exemptions (like student exemptions)
of the Vietnam era draft. Now is the time to begin writing
Congressmen and organizing protests, before the bill
receives any serious consideration.
—Richard Dees
SOW, TEUA--WE1RE BEING
TOUGH OH WELFARE.
GO (WD K JO6.
'WCTEBBN&TDUGHON
JOB TRNNIM&.TOO.
WE HME ID CUT 30MEWHERE.
AMD DONfT TRf CRIME, EITHER.
WE'RE BEING-TOUGH ON
CRIMINALS.
X
WE'RE MAKING AMERICA.
1MGH AGAIN
|AWf**SSEB*B>
TOUGH ENOUGH!
ITDMEB
0>4al
OH, YOUU BE TOW OF ME, SIR
I'VE EUWNMED KWOLE SWARM
OF GOVERNMENT JOBS" LEMME JUST
RUN THROUGH A, FEW ffi
Uilir I IS-
ohgopy*
.*W£OF
mm
feiiLAdb.
SPANNING THE HEDGES/by David Dow
If Hobbes were alive today he
would change his mind. Not about
the state of nature being a state of
war; he would stick by that. But the
cynical philosopher would be
forced to concede that the
organization of society does not
substitute order and security for
the state of war. Be he in a social
group or be he an isolated,
individual atom in the state of
nature, man finds that the same
theme dominates --his life: the
precariousness of existence. True,
society makes life less solitary and
less poor; even so, things pretty
much remain, in Hobbes' sardonic
words, nasty, brutish, and short
Two different groups keep man
embroiled in a state of war.
Wearing black hats are the avowed
criminals, the riff raff, patent
enemies of the social system. While
hordes of criminals remain at large
among us, we cannot feel secure.
So the state of war goes on. That is
clear enough.
Far less apparent is the threat
posed by a second group, a group
whose members wear brown hats.
Its membership is diverse: war
veterans, aspiring soldiers, urban
cowboys, real cowboys, old ladies,
high school drop-outs—indeed,
there are representatives from
virtually every strata of society.
Claiming to be good guys, these
sell-proclaimed guardians of law
and order have guns in their houses
to fend off intruders; they enroll in
survival courses and learn jungle
welfare (or terrorism, call it what
you will); they carry handguns and
knives in their cars and in their
pockets because, they claim, "it's
war out there."
In a way, they're right—about
the war that is. And their anger and
frustration at society's inability to
control crime is perfectly
understandable and widely shared.
Nevertheless, their choice of
methods evokes substantially less
sympathy. It is something of an
exaggeration to say that by
emulating the lives of battle-
hungry GIs these brown-hatted
vigilantes create the state of war; it
is accurate to charge them with
accepting and perpetuating it.
Compare their tactics to those of
more rational men who are trying
desperately to ameliorate
conditions which spawn crime and
to mete out swift and potent
punishments to individuals
convicted in our courts. These
rational men—and they are the
only true "good guys" in this
script—are trying to replace the
state of war with a society capable
of providing the security Hobbes
said it should. Their explicit enemy
is the criminal element; every bit as
formidable and as dangerous,
however, are the droves of brown-
hats who are destroying society in
their own unique way and
substituting in its place a myriad of
jungle-based, armed-to-the-teeth
guerilla tribes.
So the good guys face two
"i«l6 IS RIGHT
u mift
hurdles. One from the obvious
enemies of society, one from those
who presumably like the society
but have surrendered the battle to
preserve it. Two very different
subcultures, but both equally
threatening to our society, both
equally responsible for the state of
war.
Often, the black-hats use a
deterministic argument to excuse
their deviance. It will not work.
While many criminals suffer from
poverty, ghetto life, and poor
educations, and while society has
some obligation to help such
victims, that obligation does not
include overlooking or coddling
their anti-social behavior.
Remember, millions of victims of
the same squalor resist the lure of a
life of crime. Indeed, criminals
often choose for targets people
very much like themselves: victims
of the same social injustice.
Destitute conditions play a role in
fostering deviance, but responsible
human agents ultimately decide
which norms and mores to adhere
to. So when individuals act in ways
which destroy the social fabric,
society needs to remove them until
they no longer pose such a threat.
And if rehabilitation fails, remove
the offenders forever.
That will hopefully take care of
enemy number one. The brown
hats present a more difficult
problem. So far, they are not
actually committing crimes, but
they teeter on the edge of deviance.
To begin with, they own enormous
weapons stockpiles. The objection
that gun control will only disarm
the law-abiding is vapid:
Determined criminals might get
guns anyway, but do we legalize
the possession of bombs just
because fanatics can build them?
Furthermore, no matter how
loudly the gun lobby insists that
other people—and not their
weapons—kill people, the facts
indicat£t{iat the guns per se are far
from blameless: First, they
actually create criminals out of
otherwise law-abiding citizens by
providing such a facile and
destructive outlet for spurts of
anger; with gun control, crimes of
passions would still occur, but they
would involve assault and battery,
not murder. Second, guns kill by
going off accidentally or when
children stumble upon them;
knives and baseball bats, take quite
a bit more intentional malice
before they can do the same
damage. Third, cases where
innocent citizens thwart or kill a
criminal by using a gun make big
news because in such encounters,
the criminal tends to win; guns
bought to protect the home usually
turn a robber into a killer.
We could go on, but the point is
simple: Saturating our environ-
ment with the prerequisites for
crime ensures that crime will
prosper. Reactionary responses
such as arming the masses and
teaching guerilla warfare might
make some criminals a bit more
wary, but there is quite a difference
between that and creating a secure
society. Security is walking down
the street late at night without
mortal fear and without worrying
whether the door at home is
locked; mutual insecurity is
turning three dead-bolts or
crawling into a veritable foxhole
before retiring, knowing that if an
intruder enters, you can fire first
with the trusty handgun you keep
clutched to your chest. Most
human beings, it is safe to say,
would prefer to live in a society
where the former scenario—the
one with the unlocked doors—is
the norm. It is not, to be sure, an
unattainable ideal; it is one,
however, which we are quite some
distance from, and it is one we will
never reach until the good guys
conquer not only the criminals, but
the brown-hatted ruffians as
well.
llifTHV \ RICHARD DEES
m fe#
WDEQUED david ross
■I IWCOTICK Business Manager
Bruce Davies News Editor
Kathryn Mason Managing Editor
Ruth Hillhouse Advertising Manager
Jay Grob Sports Editor
John Heaner Fine Arts Editor
Bruce Davies Photography Editor
Kelvin Thompson Back Page Editor
Assistant Editors Debbie Knaff (Fine Arts),
Jeanne Cooper (News), Liu Yee (Typesetting)
Contributing Editors David Dow, Karen Strecker,
David Butler, Gary Cole, Ron Stutes
News Staff Pam Pearson, Ellen Spraul, Chris Ekren,
Joan Hope, Michael Tinkler, Michael Trachtenberg, Sumit Nanda,
Cecile Closmann, John Hulme, Patty Cleary, Robert Johnson,
Laurie Mango, Mary Ellen Tninko, Sandi Wong,
Pat Nieuwenhuizen, Carl Winstead. Tom Morgan, David Keen,
Ken Mitteldorf, Gus Aoevedo, Dennis Owens
Fine Arts Staff Chris Castaneda, Scott B. Solis,
Thorn Glidden. Andy Hathcock, Tom Birch, Barry Watkins,
Franz Brotzen, M. Christopher Boyer, Andy Hathcock
Photography Staff Mike Gladu, Laura Rohwer,
Walter Underwood, Naomi Bullock, Beverly McKinney, Kirk Hughes,
Bill Bailey, Paul Williamson, David Keen, Patricia Wallace,
Rosanna Dill, Tom Glidden, Jay Abramowitz,
Steve Bailey, Dennis Owens
Sports Staff Donald Buckholt, Matt Petersen.
Dave Chilton, Michele Gillespie, Cameron Bird, Bobby Tudor,
Margaret Bennett, Sandy Snyder, Joseph Halcyon
Art Staff Harold Nelson, Randy Furlong, Lynn Lytton
Production Staff Pam Mason, John van der Put
Mike Dishart, Hank Petri, Steve Bailey, Elif Selvili,
Pam Pearson, Ron Stutes, Steve MacCall, David Miller,
Joan Hope. Patti Wuerz, Scott Solis, Everett Hallford
Circulation Staff Vincent Fonseca, Susan Ripper
The Rice Thresher, the official student newspaper at Rice University since 1916, is published on
Thursdays during the school year, except during examination periods and holidays, by the students of
Rice University. Editorial and business offices are located on the second floor of the Rice Memorial
Center, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77001. Telephone (7l3)-527-480l or 527-4802. Advertising
information available on request. Mail subscription rate: SI 3 per year. The opinions expressed herein are
not necessarily those of anyone'except the writer. Obviously.
® 1981, The Rice Thresher. All rights reserved.
The Rice Thresher, March 26, 1981, page 2
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Dees, Richard. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 27, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 26, 1981, newspaper, March 26, 1981; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245468/m1/2/: accessed May 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.