The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 48, No. 9, Ed. 1 Friday, November 4, 1960 Page: 2 of 8
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Rice University Woodson Research Center.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Two
THE THRESHER
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1960
Potpourri
An extremely expensive and trying Presidential campaign
is nearing an exciting climax; next Tuesday the American peo-
ple will decide who will lead their "meddlesome, bumbling
bureaucracy" for the next four years.
They do not have to worry about another great figurehead.
They instead seemed to be concerned as to whether either of
the candidates can definitely provide a dynamic, inspiring lead-
ership to challenge their sick, sick, sickness.
Mort Sahl, a popular reflection of their hopeless jests, has
prophesied: "Neither can win."
Nevertheless, one of them will win, and it is the hope of
Tho Thresher that each Rice voter will be a Wednesday morn-
ing statistic—and that an old democracy and a Free World
will ultimately be happily surprised.
:jc * *
An often-ridiculed campus clique is striving desperately
for respectability, after having recently drawn an official repri-
mand from the Student Senate for violation of the social calen-
dar, and having lost from the administration its increasingly-
crude annual all-school function for violating University liquor
regulations.
In recent years the Rally Club has evidently enjoyed seeing
its original football and flask "service" spirit degenerate into
a flask spirit, a frequent tendency among fraternities.
As a "service organization," the Rally Club claims a mis-
nomer as inappropriate as "literary society," and if Rice's lone
non-honorary fraternity is allowed to exist, it should begin
providing the University with more tangible services as altru-
istic as its direction of the Homecoming bonfire.
And" to the other campus organizations who have also
been purchasing alcoholic beverages other than beer with club
funds: Beware!
* * *
Inconvenience Department: As long as sidewalks are being
built, the Powers-That-Be should note the well-beaten path
through the lawn between the Memorial Center and the library.
Irregardless of geometric sidewalk aesthetics, how much
longer must students, professors, staff workers and deans care-
fully tiptoe the slimy hypotenuse through the murk for a cup
of coffee?
The
BILL DELANEY
Editor
MARJORIE TRULAN
Associate Editor
GRIFFIN SMITH
Managing Editor
EM LINDAMOOD
News Editor
Thresher
An all-student newspaper for 44 yean
DICK VIEBIG
Business Manager
MILTON NIRKEN
Advertising Manager
BURTON SILVERMAN
Circulation Director
DENIS ASHTON
Editorial Assistant
POLL OF PROFESSORS . . .
(Continued from Page 1)
further the general welfare of
the people; 2.) a realistic recog-
nition of the responsibility of
this nation to the international
community. In opposition to the
Republican party, which loudly
professes a belief in freedom and
individuality, but which in prac-
tice has furthered the growth of
irresponsible corporate power, the
Democratic party has consistently
acted on the realistic view that
individual freedom is possible
only in a context of public and
governmental responsibility."
ON THE OTHER HAND, Dr.
P. L. Donoho, Assistant Profes-
sor of Physics, comes out strong-
ly against Kennedy in saying:
"I feel that Mr. Kennedy is rep-
resentative of the philosophy that
advocates Federal Control over
any area in which there is pres-
ently a far-from-ideal state. I
do not quarrel with his views that
much needs to be done in'the
areas of education and civil rights
—only with his methods. I feel
that his party's agricultural pol-
itics will impose an intolerable
burden on the nation. I feel
that his statements on foreign
policy are immature and uncon-
structive."
OR. FLOYD LEAR of the His-
tory Department agrees with the
choice of Nixon: "I think the na-
tion will experience greater'fi-
nancial and fiscal responsibility
under a Republican administra-
tion. Internal domestic stability
and security from external ag-
gression depend in large measure
upon maintaining a sound econ-
omy."
But Dr. Paul E. Pfeiffer, Pro-
fessor of Electrical Enginering,
opposes Nixon and supports Ken-
nedy: "Although I consider both
w
, -
illlill
AS OTHERS SEE US . . .
candidates capable men, I have
considerable resident distrust of
Nixon's convictions held over
from previous campaigns. I am
not impressed by his record of
"handling" the Russians. While
I should prefer Lodge over John-
son, Lodge's action in the U.N.
has not always measured up to
my ideas of mature statesman-
ship.
"I FEEL THAT KENNEDY
has a better intellectual grasp of
the problems facing him. He has
proved his .political "know-how"
in his campaign for nomination.
While he will certainly have
trouble with conservative Demo-
crats, he will have a better chance
of working with a Congress that
will most likely be Democratic."
DR. J. C. WILHOIT of Me-
chanical Engineering believes
that Mr. Nixon is 'Viore likely
to be firm in dealing with the
Russians" and also would allow
"less federal usurpation of pow-
ers reserved to the states." Dr.
A. B. Bryan of Physics says: "I
strongly oppose continuing deficit
spending and the resultant infla-
tion—I believe Nixon is more in
favor of this view than Kennedy
although we will probably have
further deficits and inflation in
any case."
Very strongly against Nixon
is Dr. John B. Pickard of the
English Department, who argues
that: "Nixon is: 1.) an oppor-
tunist; 2.) has no principles,
political or otherwise; 3.) argues
emotionally rather than logically;
4.) has bad taste in using wife,
children, dog and anything else
that would get him the presi-
dency." Dr. G. R. MacLane of
Mathematics also picks Kennedy
but only as "the lesser of two
evils."
M onroe Doctrine Is
Vague Anachronism
By SANDY SHENK
How wise is our government's
reference to the Monroe Doctrine
in determining and justifying our
Latin American policies? What
do our neighbors to the south
thinff of this doctrine and conse-
quently what reaction do they
have to our references to it?
An article ("Otra Vez la
Doctrina Monroe" by Henrique
Gonzalez Casanova) on this
Monroe Doctrine appeared July
31 on the front page of the
"Mexico en la Cultura" section
of one vf Mexico City's leading
newspapers, N ovedades. Because
we feel that it gives a good indi-
cation of Latin American opinion
of this policy, we will try, in two
articles, to present its central
ideas, translating certain pass-
ages:
"The so-called Monroe Doc-
trine, which according to not-
able lawyers is not Monroe's
nor is a doctrine, has attracted
anew public attention as a con-
sequence of Mr. Kruschev's
declaration that it is dead and
Mr. Eisenhower's declaration
that it is alive."
HE QUOTES Isidro Fabelo
from Las Doctrinas Monroe y
Drago: "Unfortunately for jus-
tice and for the weak countries
of the New World, the Monroe
Doctrine has become in the in-
ternational history of'the Unit-
ed States, not the estimable
sentiments of the illustrious
president who created it with-
out ulterior intentions for any-
body, but an easy expedient
which appears and disappears
when it is convenient for the
White House—which is applied
in different ways, not in the
spirit of Monroe, but in accord
with the political and financial
needs of the governments of
the Union."
". . . the Monroe Doctrine i3
undefined and undefinable,
since it not only hasn't been
defined by the U.S. Congress,
the only authority in that
country capable of doing so,
but, even if this had occuri'ed,
it would not have the character
of international law but of a
declaration of a unilateral poli-
cy of the United States with
respect to the countries of
Latin America . .
HE OUTLINES the basic
propositions of the Doctrine:
"(1) The United States has not
intervened nor will intervene
in the European colonies al-
ready established in America;
(2) it will not intervene in the
internal affairs of the Euro-
pean powers; (3) it will not
permit new colonizations in
America; and (4) it will oppose
European interventions in the
Latin American republics."
He points out that the second
and third of these don't make
sense any more, since the Unit-
ed States is certainly involved
in European affairs, and there
are no longer territories open
to colonization in the New
World. He also comments that
if there were such territories,
the Monroe Doctrine would not
deny any country in the world
the right to colonize them.
THE FIRST part of the Mon-
roe Doctrine "was violated
when the government of Mc-
Kinley intervened in Cuba and
Puerto Rico in 1898, since both
countries were then European
colonies established in America
. . . and 'the Piatt amendment
was designed to stop Cuba
from becoming an independent
republic', leaving it in the stat-
us of protectorate until Roose-
velt revoked it . . .
"This would not be strange
at all if these acts of force did
not come from 'the nation
whose governments have de-
clared that they do not seek
conquest nor want more land
than they have, and that the
North American community is
the champion of right and jus-
tice on the earth'" (inner
quotes from Fabela).
(We might ask to what ex-
tent our temporary political
control of Cuba facilitated our
setting up and profiting from
economic control of that is-
land.)
THE FOURTH point, he
says, "apears to ratify the old
principle of non-intervention,
(but) had the novelty that
'Monroe spoke for all the coun-
tries of the continent without
their representation, and set
himself up as their apparent
protector without their consent
. . . This part consisted in not
tolerating European interven-
ing in Latin America, reserving
this faculty for the United
States,, which has exercised it
in several American nations,
notoriously contradicting the
sentiments of Monroe, and
THRESHING IT OUT
Student Points Out
Bi lateral Bigotry
To the Editor:
Freedom of speech, something
which Americans have long
prized, has been just as abused
in this year's presidential cam-
paign as has religious freedom.
The whole controversy over "re-
ligion" as an issue has degen-
erated to a disgusting exchange
of personal insults.
Many Americans have pointed
with fear to Catholic censure-
ship of Protestants in countries
with Catholic majorities. They
have then taken a firm stand
against the possibility of Cath-
olic control in the U. S. by op-
posing Senator Kennedy's elec-
tion. Certain "free thinkers"
have then responded by apply-
ing the term "bigoted" to these
objectors.
The issue is not so much whe-
ther or not the objections are
well-founded, but how they are
expressed. As long as someone's
reasons for supporting or op-
posing a candidate are express-
ed in such a way as to be free
of insult, I submit that anyone
who attempts to stifle them by
name-calling should, in the fu-
ture, be strictly ignored.
—DAMON D. HICKEY
transgressing in a flagrant
manner international law.' (Fa-
bela)."
He lists eleven examples of
English, French, Spanish, Ital-
ian, and German intervention
in Latin America since the doc-
trine — including, notably,
French intervention in Mexico
in 1858 and from 1861 to 1867—
suggesting that the U.S. did
not strongly oppose these
moves and that therefore this
fourth part of the Doctrine was
also not fulfilled.
Interpreting this "reserving
the right to intervene in Latin
America for the U.S." as itself
contrary to the original spirit
of the Monroe Doctrine, he con-
tinues:
"OTHER EVENTS which
can be QDnsidered as violating
the Monroe Doctrine are the
annexation of Texas by the
United States in 1845 and the
annexation of New Mexico, Ari-
zona, California, Utah, and
parts of Colorado and Wyom-
ing, resulting from the peace
treaty which culminated the
unjust war initiated in 1847—
this war which was advanced
by acts of such clear premedi-
tation and such cynical provo-
cation that even General Tay-
lor doubted if he should follow
the instructions he received. He
asked for them to be confirmed,
they were, and he carried them
out. Mr. Buchanan, Secretary
of State at that time, . . . said,
'There is no other recourse but
for us to take compensation
for the injuries done to our
citizens and for the insults
made to our government, in the
manner that we have already
decided upon.' The recommend-
ation made to General Taylor
is summed up in the following:
'Do not attack them, but let
the first blow be on the part
of the Mexicans, in order to
make the war more popular in
this country, since it will ap-
pear that we are attacking be-
cause they attack us, insulting
our nation and not because we
are taking the initiative."
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.
The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 48, No. 9, Ed. 1 Friday, November 4, 1960, newspaper, November 4, 1960; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth231161/m1/2/?rotate=270: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.