The Allen American (Allen, Tex.), Vol. 24, No. 104, Ed. 1 Saturday, July 16, 1994 Page: 4 of 50
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: The Allen American and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Allen Public Library.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Page 4A — The Allen American — Saturday, July 16, 1994
opinion PAGE
The Allen American
A Harte-Hanks Community Newspaper
Lynn Dickerson
Publisher
Tim Watterson
Editor
Gary Smith Beth Roddy
Debbie Tackett
General Manager
Steve Jordan
Financial Director Marketing Director Circulation Director
Dollie Turpin, Assistant Editor
Doug Layton, Managing Editor/Visuals
David May, Senior News Editor
Brenda Welchlin, News Editor :
Valerie Barna, Opinion Page Editor
Ian Halperin, Photo Editor
Chuck Smock, Sports Editor
Liaqat Ali Khan, Production Director
Don Olson, Composition Director
Leslie Mascari, Marketing Services Director
THE EQUAL EmCENT
OTTONU com SSION
WAnTeD TO KNOW IF
PROVED HERE.VAILE
on THE JOB ?
SURE
..EEryTImE 1^
A. LOGOFF!"
Kart
named
Univer
a linne s
- Kocl
Mary
gradua
lege in
Hair
private
was M
imely thoughts about watches
Audi
I'or €
The
Tuesday afternoon/ I’m just begin-
ning to see/chasing the clouds away.
— Moody Blues
JEFF
BALL
Time on my hands — or actually
around my wrist — has led to some,
ah, timely thoughts.
Or at least some thoughts about
time.
Last month I wore the regular
watch-of-the-moment to a chili cook-
off. It should not have been a prob-
lem. But it was such a humid day,
ending with a rain shower, the crys-
tal started to cry in protest.
Actually, it just fogged and misted
to the point one could not read the
time without extra careful examina-
tion involving a good bit of tilting and
rolling of the wrist. Each time check
provoked strange stares from any-
one in the immediate area. The gyra-
tions probably made me look a bit
dangerous, or at least a little unba-
lanced.
The response was to buy an, inex-
pensive replacement, the kind with a
Random Thoughts
little button which bathes the face in
a blue light so if you are caught in the
middle of a boring presentation with
the lights out, complete with unread-
able overhead projections, you will
at least know what time it is. Sup-
pose it would also be good on a
carry the same brand and both will
bathe the face in the same blue light
which seems like such a good idea,
but later you wonder when you’re
really going to use it. However, one
is analog and the other is digital.
I have owned both styles and can
tell time with either kind.
That is not the point. There is
something about each of the two for-
mats that reflects quite a bit about
the owner.
The digital watch is kind of a
straight ahead, moving on “right
now” approach.
“What time is it?”
“It is 9:08 and 27 seconds — and I
have 21 minutes and 33 seconds until
my next appointment...”
Digital watches are for the prove-
rbial “Type A” personality.
Now there is something to be said
for being on time to appointments; it
shows a certain courtesy to others.
Yet, one has to wonder if another
watch in the time zone also reads
stakeout too, but my only exposure 9:08.27 at the same moment — and
to stakeouts has been on TV and if showing up for lunch at 12:02.18
then you can check the clock on the would be so bad?
VCR — if it is not flashing 12:00 ...
12:00 ... 12:00.
About the same time, I had the
opportunity to praise the new watch
purchased by my dad. Cannot say it
was a mistake, but the timing may
have been off for effusive praise with
a birthday around the corner. An
identical watch was presented on
said holiday.
Now for the philosophical part.
The watches are similar. Both
Digital watches are for those who
don’t look back. Time only passes,
the numbers get bigger.
On the other hand analog watches
offer a different perspective.
“What time is it?”
“It’s about 10 after nine. Gee, I
have to be somewhere in twenty mi-
nutes. ”
One looks at the numbers and
hands and sees not only where time
is going, but where it came from. It
is tempting to call an analog watch
“Zen-like,” but it is probably the
wrong decade for such talk, so I
won’t even bring it up.
This is not to say analog watch
wearers show up for appointments
late — or those wearing digital
watches are always on time. I just
have to wonder sometimes what is
the difference between “11:23.47”
and “about 11:25.”
There are other frames of discus-
sion one could get into, like why is it
the more expensive an analog watch
is the fewer numbers on the face
(mine has bold Arabic numbers in
every location), what does it say ab-
out the person wearing a watch with
no number or marks, only hands,
and what would be the digital equiva-
lent of such a watch? We could get
into those areas, but we will not.
As for my watches, I find myself
wearing the analog by day, when my
sense of time should be more acute,
and the digital at night when things
should be more laid back. Why?
Well, the analog has a leather band
and I, well, sweat — er — perspire
less during the day when I am usually
in one office or another. It is also
possible to tell time at just a glance,
too. The digital is working well for
evening and weekend use when it
might get wet, in one way or another
— and the timer thing is good if I’m
outside and there is something in the
micro wave.
So while my personal example
may fly in the face of this Random
Theory, it still may be possible to tell
something about a person by the
type of watch they wear.
Of course, you might be able to
tell more by noting whether or not
they watch the clouds.
Jeff Ball Is a staff writer for Harte-Hanks
Community Newspapers.
Base visits part of political game
A taxpayer funded tour of Texas
military bases earlier this month by
U.S. Sens. Phil Gramm and Kay
dollars for military facilities else-
VNK
Rules help protect against
all kinds of discrimination
AMC C
Park &
855-64
Wolf, (1
@ ity Sli
The Lie
Wyatt 1
Little E
The Sh
True L
Bailey Hutchison reeks of political
gramm-standing, a term often used
by political insiders to describe
Gramm’s ability to take credit for
things he had absolutley nothing to
do with.
The fact the tour came as Gov.
Ann Richards prepared her second
summit for Texas bases on how to
avoid closure, and the fact that
Hutchison faces a tough race to re-
tain her Senate seat against Demo-
crat Richard Fisher added to the
skepticism.
Gramm and Hutchison also took
the opportunity to attack the Clinton
administration and congressional
Democrats for what they said was
cutting defense to give money to so-
cial programs.
The rhetoric was not good politics
for Texas military communities,
faced with yet another round of base
closures, at a time when state milit-
ary facilities will need all the help
they can get to stay open.
It was also in sharp contrast to
Richards’ base closure summits,
which have had a bipartisan flavor,
including the use of former Republi-
can Congressaman Tom Loeffler as
one of the primary speakers.
The Gramm and Hutchison
attempts to politicize base closures
opened the door for Fisher, who
toured many of the same bases at
the expense of his campaign war
chest with U.S. Sen. Bob Graham,
D-Fla., and a member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee.
They said defense cuts were a re-
sult of a post-Cold War military plan
begun by the Bush administration.
It also gave Fisher a chance to
STEVE
RAY
Capital Comments
attack Hutchison’s record on pro-
tecting Texas bases. He said that as
a member of the Senate Armed Ser-
vices Committee she risked millions
of dollars in military funding for
Texas bases by letting the National
Defense Authorization Act go
through.
where in the country, no funding was
included for Texas.
Attacks in politics are nothing new
— some of them deserved and some
of them not. Often the attacks touch
on what could be issues in the cam-
paigns, but often they serve as
sound bites for candidates looking
for cheap publicity when the public
doesn’t know all the facts.
Fisher added to that by saying
Hutchison was a junior Republican
senator who would be little help to
Texas defense facilities in a Demo-
cratically controlled Senate.
On the other hand, he claimed, his
By MARK J. PELAVIN
Last October, the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission, the
federal agency charged with provid-
ing advice and interpretation of court
decisions on civil rights issues, pub-
lished draft guidelines on workplace
harassment.
The guidelines were designed to
provide employers with guidance on
preventing illegal harassment in
their workplaces. This guidance
addressed harassment based on the
categories specified by Title VII, a
major civil rights statute which pro-
tects against discrimination on the
basis of race, color, religion, gender,
national origin, age or disability.
The guidelines, prepared by
career attorneys in the EEOC’s
Office of Legal Council, were an
attempt to provide general stan-
dards for workplace harassment in
light of recent court decisions.
Not exactly the stuff of headlines.
So why did Rev. Jerry Falwell
send out a fund-raising letter which
began, “A department of the Clinton
administration is working overtime
to strip you and all religious Amer-
icans of your fundamental, God-
given, Constitutional protection?”
Why did he claim that under these
guidelines “God will not be allowed
in your place of work?”
What have Rev. Falwell and
others, people who speak on behalf
of devout men and women, called
for? They want religion to be drop-
ped from the guidelines!
I share some of the concerns they
have raised — primarily that, as cur-
rently formulated, the guidelines
may inadvertently inhibit legitimate
religious expression in the work-
In My Opinion
place. The remedy they propose,
however, is far too blunt, and their
rhetoric is irresponsible fear-
mongering.
Religious discrimination, of which
religious harassment is but one viru-
lent form, is afforded equal dignity
with other forms of discrimination.
The EEOC, of course, is not emp-
owered to excise religious discri-
mination from Title VII. That is for-
tunate since, the claims of some con-
gressional opponents of the guide-
lines notwithstanding, it is an unfor-
tunate fact of life that real, hard-core
religious discrimination does exist.
The EEOC received 524 religious
harassment complaints in 1992, and
587 complaints in 1993. These num-
bers are indicative of a real and
growing problem, a conclusion but-
tressed by several recently reported
federal cases as well as my own
organization’s experience in hand-
ling such cases.
The guidelines are not perfect.
That, of course, is why federal agen-
cies publish draft guidelines and in-
vite public comment. If the process
is allowed to finish its normal course,
the final guidelines will reflect the
input of experts in the field and those
most directly affected.
As currently formulated, there is
a danger that the guidelines could be
ment, Title VII would be at war with
itself.
Many persons have a religious
obligation to spread their faith. That
belief is subject to the accommoda-
tion of the religion requirements of
Title VII. A wooden application ofe
the guidelines can lead to a needless,
and illegal, suppression of religious
speech. But abandonment of any
protection against religious harass-
ment leads to religious discrimina-
tion in the commercial marketplace.
The ban on religious discrimination
in employment is a statutory
embodiment of the national commit-
ment to religious liberty and
equality.
Further, taking religion out of the®
guidelines sends an unmistakable
message that religious discrimina-
tion is a second-class problem, one
not worthy of serious attention.
How ironic that those who call for
removing religion from the guide-
lines claim to do so on behalf of re-
ligiously devout men and women.
By now, both the House and Sen-
ate have gone on record calling for a
revision of the EEOC guidelines a
As much as we might wish it were,
not true, religious harassment is a
real problem today. The victims of
such harassment, no less than vic-
tims of other types of harassment,
deserve the full protection of our na-
tion’s laws.
Mark J. Pelavin is Washington repre-
sentative for the American Jewish Con-
gress. An attorney, he is the liaison be-
tween AJCongress and the White@
House, the U.S. Congress, federal agen-
cies, embassies, the national media and
used by some to justify suppression
of legitimate religious speech in the
workplace. But if the guidelines
were interpreted to require sup- the many religious, civil rights and hu-
pression of all speech concerning re- man rights organizations based in the
ligion to avoid charges of harass- nation’s capital.
Attacks in politics are
nothing new — some of
them deserved and some
of them not. Often the
attacks touch on what
could be issues in the
campaigns, but often
they serve as sound bites
for candidates looking for
cheap publicity when the
public doesn’t know all
the facts.
“I’m not looking for pork. I’m not
looking for unncessary spending,”
Fisher said. “But I am staring at a
contradiction when I see Kay Hutch-
ison jetting around at taxpayer ex-
pense, telling our military commun-
ity ‘I’m fighting for you.’ Yet she
missed such a vital opportunity.”
That bill contains no authorization
for military construction add-ons for
Texas, leaving millions of dollars in
military funding at risk. Even though
it contains more than $500 million
ties to the Democratic party could
help military bases.
That may, or may not be true. But
the basic fact is that both Fisher’s
comments and Gramm and Hutch-
ison’s questionably timed base visits
are part of an ill conceived political
game that preys on the fears of local
communities and military employees
in the search for votes.
There is nothing wrong with any
of the politicians touring the bases.
That, at least, gives them a good
idea of how and why those bases are
important to local communities.
But political rhetoric should not
replace the bipartisan approach
adopted by Richards in her efforts to
keep every military base possible in
Texas.
In the end, each of the bases will
be judged on its own merits, not on
attacks by political candidates.
But in a tight competition, those
partisan attacks can often come back
and slap Texas in the face.
Steve Ray is the Capitol Bureau Chief
for Harte-Hanks Newspapers in Austin.
Allen would benefit from civil service
To the Editor:
I am by no means an expert on
civil service, but from what I have
seen in other cities and towns,
Allen would benefit from it.
Civil service takes the politics
out of fire protection — no more
good-ol’-boy promotional systems
or brother-in-law hiring practices.
I am in no way suggesting that
these practices have occurred or
would take place within this fire
administration, only that civil ser-
vice would ensure a fair and equit-
able hiring and promotional sys-
tem for all involved.
Civil service is a merit-based
Letter to the Editor
system that limits the power of
bureaucrats and politicians to run
the city fire department. Many
professional fire departments in
Texas are currently civil service.
The more the City Council and
bureaucrats howl and whine about
civil service, the more I am con-
vinced the citizens of Allen should
support civil service. Politics has
its place, but it should not be with-
in the city fire department.
Please join me in supporting the
effort to bring civil service to the
city of Allen. We, as citizens,
understand that the underpaid
firefighters of this city are ex-
pected to be at our beck and call in
a moment’s notice.
We also should understand that
they deserve our support as
citizens of this city to bring about
this much-needed change in this
city fire department.
Please turn out and vote yes in
this upcoming election.
M. Bardwell
26-year Allen resident
Proposed guidelines unconstitutional
By DIANNE HENSLEY
In My Opinion
cise thereof..." Of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence and the 4
Constitution, fully one-third were*
Last fall, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission quietly
published new guidelines proposing .. _
to extend workplace discrimination religious or sexual overtones, was their intent to limit religious ex-
rules to cover religious expression, whether positive or negative”; (3) A pression is so ludicrous as to ment |
Under the proposed guidelines, woman working for a state agency in no further discussion. . (
the EEOC declared individuals shar- Austin, who happened to be the sole It IS, however, worth noting that
ing their religious faith in the work- support for her elderly mother, the first act of a totalitarian regime,
place may be guilty of religious asked her supervisor for permission such as the U..S. or Communist
harassment under certain condi- to start a Bible study during lunch China, is usually to prohibit religious
tions. Under the proposed guide- time. Her immediate supervisor expression. Religion, particularly
lines, the EEOC seeks to apply the approved the request, but when the Judeo-Christian faith, grants to 1
subjective sexual harassment stan- other supervisors found out about men inherent dignity and inalienable •
dard of creating an “intimidating, the Bible study she was summarily rights. A population endowed with
hostile or abusive environment," fired. . . such faith will not tolerate a totalita-s
rather than the "reasonable man” The proposed EEOC guidelines rian government indefinitely,
standard. In other words, any men- place employers in a classic Catch- The preamble to our Constitution
tion or display of an employee’s faith 22 situation. Our Constitution pro- makes ft clear the first and para-
in the workplace would be potential- hibits employers from discriminating mount responsibility of government
ly illegal. on the basis of refigion. In fact, em- is to protect the fife and property of
Just as the EEOC has held that a ployers are required to reasonably its citizenry. Our government is no
nudie calendar on a wall creates an accommodate the needs of their em- longer fulfilling thisbasicresponsibil-
intimidating or hostile sexual cli- ployees in regard to the practice of ity. According to the Justice Depart-
mate, so religious calendars, decor their faith. An employer who seeks ment, violent crime has increased
incorporating scriptural references, to remove all religious expression 500 percent since 1960. It estimates •
cross jewelry, even a post-sneeze will find itself squarely in violation of eight out of 10 Americans will be the
“God bless you” could now be con- the prohibition against religious dis- victim of a violent crime at least once
strued as forms of harassment. crimination. in their fives. And what is the federal
Employers can be held financially The Bill of Rights is essentially a government s response to this cri-
liable if they allow a workplace en- list of immunities from interference sis? It seeks to regulate the pnvate
vironment which is deemed offen- by the federal government which conduct of the law-abiding citizen,
sive under the Title VII additions to was added to the Constitution to Yes, people witnessing their faith
the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In practic- assuage the deep distrust American can be overbearing, just as those
al terms, the only sure course for an colonists felt for a federal or central suffering from arrested adolescence
employer seeking to avoid liability government. can be obnoxious through unwanted
for religious harassment would be to First among these enumerated sexual comments. •
prohibit any discussion or express- rights is: “Congress shall make no
ion of religion in the workplace. law respecting an establishment of Dianne Hensley is the state legislative
Lest you think this is an exaggera- religion, or prohibiting the free exer- erector of the Concerned Women for
tion, consider the following: (1) Ear-
lier this year, the Texas Employ-
ment Commission notified em-
ployers across this state that it is not
acceptable to express your religious
ordained ministers. To suggest it
was their intent to limit religious ex-
beliefs at work; (2) A major U.S.
airline issued a company memo
advising, “Technical personnel
should not possess nor display, in
any manner, on (company) premises
any material which may be con-
strued, by anyone, to have racial,
Editor’s Note: The EEOC re-
ceived more than 100,000 letters
regarding its proposed guidelines
on religion in the workplace. It is
currently drafting revisions.
Meanwhile, on June 28 the
House of Representatives passed
an amendment prohibiting use of
federal funds to enforce the
EEOC guidelines on religious
harassment in the Commerce,
Justice and State departments. If
the amendment is also included in
the Senate version of the bill, the
guidelines may be considered
dead.
Loews
Park &
423-91
Speed,
12, 2:31
Baby’s
@., 3:30
1, 3:30
1, 3:30
I Love
12:30, :
Forrest
1:15, 4
2, 5:15
Loews
Park &
964-7(
gSpeed,
“2, 5:30
Wolf, (1
12:30, :
A cos
Plane
M
“I’d
for
at y
I
1
I
I
app
.File
and
ultir
gree
and
L.B.J.
HHN
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.
Watterson, Tim. The Allen American (Allen, Tex.), Vol. 24, No. 104, Ed. 1 Saturday, July 16, 1994, newspaper, July 16, 1994; Allen, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1695221/m1/4/?q=%22%22~1: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Allen Public Library.