The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 78, No. 25, Ed. 1 Friday, February 15, 1991 Page: 3 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 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:
THE RICE THRESHER FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1991 3
move
To the editors:
Recenty, the Baylor Athletic
Director apologized for his
students' behavior during the
Texas vs. Baylor men's basketball
game. He decided to move the
student section away from the
visiting team's bench for the
remainderoftheyear.This action
leaves Rice as the only Southwest
Conference school with its student
section behind the visiting team's
bench.
AfterTexas played the Owls at
Autry, the Houston Post ran com-
ments from UT coach Tom
Penders for five straight days
berating Rice students for their
behavior during the game. He
claimed that things said "unfit for
women and children."
It is unfortunate that Baylor
gave in to Penders' complaints. It
is also convenient that Penders
did not notice the less than
■virtuous hand movements with
I implore Athletic
Director Bobby May
to resist the pressure
to move our student
section. Our fans are
intimidating and a
key factor in the
home court
advantage.
which his players taunted the Rice
fans. His players' behavior
represented a complete lack of
discipline. Also, one of the maun
reasons that Rice is the last school
With its student section in this
location is because the other
schools have sold this section to
higher paying alumni and fans.
Rice puts the student first
Our students are not
completely free of blame. Rice fans
pride themselves in being
obnoxious. As we fall behind to
the larger SWC teams, the fans
turn their attention awayfromthe
game and concentrate on the
visiting bench. At times I have
been embarrassed at the
comments some of our students
have yelled.
However, our fans are getting
better as ogr teams become more
competitive. We are realizing that
it is better to yell for the Owls and
not against the visiting bench. I
believe our spirit is at an all-time
high and the more we win, the
more constructive it is becoming.
Ourfans should remainwitty ("No
big words" is a trademark of Rice).
I would hate for Rice to adopt
A&M's "Hump it" or the Hog's
"Soooo-eeeeee." Still, it is
important not to forget that the
fans are there to support their
team and this should be the
primary concern.
I implore Athletic Director
Bobby May to resist the pressure
to move our student section. Do
not let Tom Penders make yet
another decisionfor other schools
intheSWC. UT may be the biggest
schoolintheSWC, butitisnotthe
only school. Our fans are
intimidating and a key factor in
the home court advantage. I hope
Bobby May will discuss any
decisions he plans to make with
the students.
Cameron McKetvey
'93
Pride and fascination in war machine is perverse
To the editors:
I have just read a column by
Patrick Buchanan. Of our military he
writes that "we have built something
in which the nation can take
enormous pride."
I admit that I feela certain prideful
fascination with our impressive
machines of war. It's an unsatisfying
pride, though.
True, our laser-guided bombs can
be made to fall not just on a targeted
building, butinto a particular air shaft.
This is astounding.
Our cruise missiles, unseen by
radar, are able to weave their way
through city streets and past amazed
hotel-bound journalists to find their
exact target next door. This is
incredible.
Bombs dropped on airstrips leave
mines that fire shells through
bulldozers that attempt repair: a
fantastic display of technological
innovation.
Three of our B-52 aircraft are able
to completely destroy every single
thing in an area of one and a half
square miles. Imagine it! This is
indeed awesome. Could one stand
on such a patch of chosen ground,
never having seen or heard the
planes, watching the landscape
before him violently swept off the
earth in a single thunderous rolling
puff of flame and shock and shrapnel
and not realize (if only for a moment)
that he had been allowed to feel ter-
ror and despair as pure as could ever
be felt?
Our power as a nation seems now
unquestionable. In Iraq the resources
of more than a hundred million
taxpayers are furiously unleashed.
The war is not the only thing that
is different about the news lately. I
have read little in the past few months
about America's weakness in global
trade. I have read little of our
incompetence in science and
engineering, of how we are unable to
produce high schoolphysics teachers
or competitive VCR's. So much used
to be said about these problems, so
much used to be written. More will
be written after the war has ended.
Again the public will be
authoritatively told, or rhetorically
asked, why we are outpaced by the
Japanese and fall behind in the world
marketplace. We need more
engineers and scientists, it shall be
saidy for we haven't nearly enough.
But who will believe this any
longerPThe presentation of American
technology that we have watched
through the press stands as a clear
and unassailable testament to the
quality and quantity of United States
engineering. In the past few days we
have seen centuries of problem-
solving and innumerable lifetimes of
study brought to tangible fruition.
We have seen the triumph of the
American intellect
I do take pride in these
achievements.
Yet I am sorry. I am sorry that this
pride of mine is based on an
ambivalent and shame-tainted
admiration for tools of destruction
and waste and death.
Proud I am.
Butwhataperverseand mournful
pride it is.
Jesse Carnal
Former Rice student
Critcal look suggests Gulf War is Presidential plot
To the editors:
Since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
and the American response that it
provoked, the tendency has been to
assign exclusive blame to Iraq's
Saddam Hussein for instigating the
conflict. Without in any way
condoning the brutality of Iraq's
leader, we must also recognize the
role played by the United States and
its allies. First of all, it was in large
part the West that made Hussein
powerful enough to swallow his tiny
neighbor. Western companies sold
Hussein much of his military muscle
and Western governments gave
financial support to Iraq throughout
the Iran-Iraq War. While the Bush
Administration now condemns
Hussein for supporting international
terrorism, for using chemical
weapons against Iraq's Kurdish
minority, and for torturing and
executing thousands of political
prisoners, Bush and his predecessor
Reagan were notably silent during
the years when the acts they now
condemn were taking place. In fact,
as of late 1989, Iraq was the world's
second largest recipient of U.S
Department of Agriculture credits
(The New Yorker, September 10,
1990).
Of much greater importance is
the fact that the Administration gave
a green light to Iraq's aggression by
publicly stating three times in the
week before the August 2 invasion
that the United States would not
respond militarily to defend Kuwait.
On July 26 the Washington Post
quotedgovernmentofficials as saying
I don't want to believe
that our nation's
president would help
start a war to rescue
his popularity and to
keep defense
contractors in the
black.
that an Iraqi attack on Kuwait would
not draw a U.S. military response. In
a meeting with Saddam Hussein the
previous day, U.S. Ambassador April
Glaspie said that the United States
had no position on "Arab-Arab
conflicts like your borderdispute with
Kuwait," and went on to say that
"James Baker has directed our official
spokesman to emphasize this." (The
Nation, October 8,1990). On July 31
Assistant Secretary of State John
Kelly told the House Middle East
subcommittee that the United States
was not obligated by treaty to defend
Kuwait if it were attacked, and
declined to comment on whether it
would do so. (Ibid.)
A charitable explanation of these
statements would be to conclude that
the Bush Administration was merely
incompetent in its handling of
diplomacy in the days leading up to
the Iraqi invasion. In my opinion,
however, the reality is something far
more sinister. In the summer of 1990
Bush's popularity rating was slipping
due to a sagging economy and his
lack of a domestic program. The
defense budget and the military-
industrial complex that it sustains
were in danger of sharp reductions
as the end of the Cold War was
proclaimed. Suddenly, with the Iraqi
invasion, the nation's domestic
difficulties were forgotten and the
need for defense spending at Cold
War levels reaffirmed. Isn't that
convenient?
I don't want to believe that our
nation's president would help start a
war to rescue his popularity and to
keep defense contractors in the black.
Sadly, however, that'sthe way it looks
to me. But don't take my word for it
I urge those who read this letter to
look at the situation with a critical
eye, to do research of their own, and
to come to their own conclusions.
David Harvey
Wiess '93
Tancos lectures Leedy on reality
To the editors:
In writing this letter my intent is
to take the opportunity to exercise
my given right to defend myself
against the malicious and
unwarranted attack which was
leveled against me by certain
elements of the Rice chapter of
Amnesty International, namely the
President, Sarah Leedy, in lastweek's
issue of the Thresher. In the Febru-
ary 1 Thresher I wrote an article ex-
pressing my desire
that all anti-war
protestors (whom I
did not, as Miss
Leedy asserts, label
"unpatriotic") read
the Amnesty Inter-
national report out-
lining Saddam
Hussein's crimes against humanity,
in order to expand their
understanding of the reasons behind
the U.S. decision to go to war. In the
following week's issue, Miss Leedy
proceeded to engage in a personal
attack on my character, accusing me,
among other things, of ignorance ("I
doubt [Mr. Tancos] could have
named the leader of Iraq before
August") and apathy, which she cited
in my absence fromATs weekly letter
writing soirees and my "sudden
interest" in human rights violations.
I will respond to the latter first
First of all, I have never had the
extreme pleasure of Miss Leedy's
acquaintance and so for her to level
an accusation about my tendency
toward apathy in the past, or any
other personal trait, is beyond her
scope of knowledge. It is precisely
this self-righteous attitude and its
accompanying belief that she can sit
in judgement of strangers that turns
people away from such organizations
as AI. Second, my absence from AI's
little get-togethers is by no means a
sign of apathy. Because I do not
engage in writing useless letters does
not mean that I do not know about
human rights violatio ns, or care about
them. It is more the sign of someone
who is aware of reality. In a world in
which our letters and opinions barely
affect our own elected officials, it is
not reasonable to assume that it will
affect the actions and policies of
ruthless and tyrannical dictators/
murderers half a world away. Even
believing that these letters get to
their destination, or, if they do, are
read or taken seriously, reflects an
enormous degree of naivete. And, to
stoop briefly to Miss Leedy's own
level, I've got to wonder about how
much her own AI chapter really cares
about human rights. I find it ironic
that they meet every week in a bar.
Here I must also make a brief
defenseofherotherunworthy target,
President Bush, whom Miss Leedy
also erringly accused of apathy. To
suggest that the world's busiest man
does not care about human rights
violations because he too does not go
to a bar once a week to write futile
letters, shows a very loose grasp on
the concept of leadership, which is
all the more disturbing coming from
someone who is president of such an
Because I do not engage in writing useless
letters does not mean that I do not know about
human rights violations, or care about them.
illustrious organization. I would not
hesitate to say that all of Bush's
negotiations and dealings, treaties
and agreements go a lot further to
promote the respect of human rights
than a few words on a piece of paper
penned by an unknown individual.
Doing something is infinitely better
than the "all talk - no action" approach
that Miss Leedy seems to advocate.
As for the former issue, the
question of my alleged ignorance, I
also find it necessary to correct this
grievous error in judgmentYes, Miss
Leedy, I have known who Saddam
Hussein is for quite a long time,
although I cannot offer a specific date
to counter your delightfully random
and uneducated guess of August,
1990.
And finally, I must urge Miss
Leedy to take her own arguments
and apply them to herself so as to
examine her own ignorance of world
affairs. She accused the USSR of
human rights violations in Lithuania,
but I would like to set the record
straight by saying that the use of the
army by any country, even the Soviet
Union, to repossess illegally seized
state-owned facilities from armed
elementsdoesnotconstitutea human
rights violation. Furthermore, she
expresses her hope that someday I
might be moved by AI reports on
violations in Guatemala and El
Salvador to advocate the
discontinuation of military aid to such
hotbeds of violation. If Miss Leedy
were as aware of world events as she
seemingly claims to be, she would
know that the Bush administration
cut off all military aid to Guatemala
on December 21. It has yet to be
renewed. Furthermore, she might
be surprised to learn that the U.S.
Congress also ceased military aid to
El Salvador, with the consent of the
White House, on October 19, in
response to the slaying of six Jesuit
priests, their cook, and her daughter
by the National Guard in November
1989. As a matter of fact, to this day,
in spite of the Salvadoran rebels'
brutal execution of two injured U.S.
crewmen shot down in their
helicopter in early January, the $42.5
million in military aid earmarked for
El Salvador remains frozen by order
of the same President who cares so
little about human rights violations.
But I guess I
shouldn't be too
hard ^n Miss
Leedy. Perhaps
she is too busy
writing her all-
important letters to
keep up with world
events. (If indeed
this is the case, I think I should take
this opportunity to inform you, Miss
Leedy, that Nelson Mandela has been
released from prison and Eastern
Europe is now free.)
There is nothing more
abominable than any elected official,
even the president of a small chapter
ofAI, using her position asaplatform
from which to launch unfounded and
unfair personal attackson people she
does not know and has never even
met As such, I call on Miss Leedy to
do Rice and AI chapters everywhere
a tremendous favor and resign from
the office of president which she so
grievously abused.
Doug Tancos
Hanszen '93
LSAT • GMAT
GRE • MCAT
• If you want to listen
to a tape - go to
Sound Warehouse!
• If you want to raise
your test scores - call
The Princeton Review
688-5500
PRINCETON
REVIEW
W> Scorf Morr!
small classes 'personal attention
COURSES START SOON
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.
Moeller, Kurt & Yates, Jay. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 78, No. 25, Ed. 1 Friday, February 15, 1991, newspaper, February 15, 1991; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245776/m1/3/: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.