The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 9, Ed. 1 Thursday, October 2, 1980 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:
Dubious crime laws
In a campaign characterized by little discussion of the issues,
state senatorial candidate Mike Richards has made two rather
disturbing stands which are shared by Governor Bill Clements.
He has come out in favor of a law that would authorize the
Department of Public Safety to wiretap suspected drug dealers
and another that would deny bond to persons already on bond
for a felony offense.
The wiretap law would require one of nine judges to
authorize a wiretap on "finding that a wiretap is necessary to
obtain information to make cases where there is probable cause
to suspect felony narcotics involvement" and would give
wiretapping powers to DPS. Similar laws, Richards says, have
been upheld at the federal level and in 23 states. But there is
certainly no reason for Texas to jump on the invasion-of-
privacy bandwagon. Wiretaps invade the privacy of the suspect
(who, remember, has not been proven guilty of anything) —
and of innocent persons that happen to use that line — as no
search or seizure can.
In addition, this law is specifically aimed at drug trafficking
which Richards sees as the "very root of rising crime and
burglary rates." It almost seems cheap to point out the naivete
of such an assesment. Crimes are caused for many varied and
complex reasons, only one of which is drugs. Richards is
looking for a quick and easy solution to a complex question
that simply won't work. Richards' time — and that of the DPS
and police departments — would be better spent addressing the
reasons underlying both criminal and drug abuse problems.
Richard's support for the idea that "persons arrested for a
felony offense while on bond for another felony offense should
be denied bond" violates the very premises on whch our judicial
system is based. A person on bond has not been convicted of
anything. To deny bond to such a person would be to deny his
freedom without due process of the law. It is also assuming that
he is guilty of at least one of the crimes for which he has been
arrested. The potential for abuse is great. For example, it
provides a convenient way to keep dissenters locked up for an
unspecified length of time without having to prove anything.
You only have to arrest them twice. Can't happen in America,
you say? The police don't throw unsuspecting minorities in
bayous either.
Reagan's debate fiasco
Ronald Reagan's self-righteous refusal to debate Jimmy
Carter without John Anderson exposes his earlier stands on the
debates for the farces that they were. Reagan insisted that
Anderson be included in the first debate in a spirit of "fair
play." But now that Anderson has agreed that it is "fair" for the
League of Women Voters to stage a debate between Carter and
Reagan followed by a three-way debate, Reagan has suddenly
lost his sense of "fair play."
Why is Reagan now afraid of more debates? Simply because
they are no longer politically useful. Reagan was able to use the
first debate to show the world that he was "a good guy." But
now that he can't do that, he fears a slip-up or a scathing attack
more than he feels the public has a need to make an informed
comparison between the candidates.
By refusing to debate Carter, Reagan only confirms what
Carter said of him throughout the squabbles over the first
debate: that he is hiding behind Anderson. Reagan has no more
reason to refuse the last two rounds of debate than Carter did
the first. And by playing the same game Carter has, he brings
his campaign down to the same level as Carter's petty political
maneuverings.
—Richard Dees
CA3T4SHORE
IN AVWMtLP
HEGOUkD
NEVER CQMKEHENK
SPANNING THE HEDGES/by David Dow
W0W„,AFARW
WITH MIU) P>R
ONLY FNe HUNDReD
BUCKS,.. WHWi
"THecATCH?
No one doubts his military
prowess. In the War of 1812,
Captain Stephen Decatur
commanded the United States in a
victory over the British
Macedonian and the President
over the Endymion. But no one
remembers him for his strategic
exploits. Decatur made history for
something he said. After forcing a
peace on American terms upon
Algeria in 1815, Decatur returned
home to a banquet in his honor
and proposed the famous toast.
"Our country! In her intercourse
with foreign nations may she
always be in the right; but our
country, right or wrong!"
With a scant five words, Decatur
did more mortal damage to the
concept of nationalism than all his
military ventures combined did to
the British fleet. Uttered in a
patriotic fervor, the phrase "our
country right or wrong"
illuminates the moral vapidness of
nationalism by unambiguously
demonstrating that it substitutes
geography for ethics: The
nationalist defends not a cause or
an ideology, but a country, an
amoral nation-state, a veritable
land mass.
That is always sad, never
defensible, and often stupefying.
Just last week Crown Prince Reza
Pahlavi, son of the deposed
Iranian Shah, wrote to the chief of
staff of the Iranian army: "At this
critical hour in the life of our
homeland, I hope I will be able to
offer my blood for its protection."
A most incredible statement.
Khomeini has called the Shah one
of the worst butchers and criminals
of the twentieth century, and the
Islamic Revolution has turned
Reza's homeland into a wasteland
he would not recognize.
To a nationalist like a Decatur
or a Reza, however, that does not
matter. The country's name, its
honor, is under attack and must be
defended, "right or wrong." James
Russell Lowell, no less a loyal
American than Decatur, called the
captain's1 words "that pernicious
sentiment." Lowell understood
what the military man did not: that
loyalty to a country should follow
that country's declarations,
statements, and policies, not
precede them.
Decatur's ludicrous encomium
and the Shah's son's indifference to
ideology elucidate what has
historically been the most
insuperable barrier to true peace:
illogical, uncritical commitments
to institutions, especially that
attachment to the nation-state
which we call nationalism.
Suggesting that we sever these
parochial ties and assume a more
global or international or
humanistic approach — both as a
nation and as individuals — is
most assuredly idealistic, but that
does not make the proposal a
quixotic one. Even though
America's internment of Japanese-
Americans during World War II
shows just how dominant this
geographical orientation is, the
refusal of American youths to
quiescently accept the war in
Vietnam, far from foreboding the
bane of our democratic
government, proves that morality
can triumph; the influence and
attraction of the land mass is not
absolute.
Making policy decisions as
ethical ends in themselves instead
of as maneuvers in a global chess
game between adversarial nation-
states can be excruciatingly
difficult. Not unpredictably
though, an ethical criteria often
produces an extremely different
solution than a political criteria. In
the Iran-Iraq conflict, American
political interests cancel each other
out: We despise Hussein's Iraqi
regime; he is a vicious terrorist who
consistently opposes our interests
in the Middle East. On the other
hand, Iran regularly opposes our
interests too. Worse, Khomeini
still has our people, and we want
them back. So why not support
Hussein and hope he frees the
hostages? Because Iran also has
lots of oil, which means more to a
lot of Americans than fifty unseen
captives. As a final complication,
the U.S. must keep a wary eye on
Russia; any policy which allows
the Kremlin to strengthen its hold
on the area is anathema. A
plethora of complex, contradic-
tory political considerations
immobilizes us.
Where precisely an ethical
approach would lead is hard to
say. Still, I cannot help but suggest
this appealing prospect: Unless
one is genuinely committed to
absolute pacifism — a morally
untenable position — the best
strategy is to support both sides.
Arm Hussein and arm Khomeini.
When one army begins to do too
well, augment support to the other
side. It would take careful
planning and a little luck, but
maybe the nations would destroy
each other.
BFOCS© R,CH™rEES
iriPrrJ im david ross
inrcCOnCK Business Manager
Anita Gonzalez News Editor
John VanderPut Managing Editor
Carole Valentine Advertising Manager
Steve Bailey Sports Editor
John Heaner Fine Arts Editor
Laura Rohwer Photography Editor
Kelvin Thompson Back Page Editor
David Butler Senior Editor
Assistant Editors Bruce Davics, Ruth Hillhouse
Contributing Editors David Dow, Karen Strecker
News Staff Bruce Davies, Allison Foil,
Pam Pearson, Jeanne Cooper, Joan Hope, Matt Dore, Ellen Spraul,
Michael Tinkler, Michael Trachtenberg, Jay Grob, Sumit Nanda, John Hulne,
David Keen, CeCe Clossman, Jonathan Buck
Fine Arts Staff Chris Castaneda, Geoff Spradley,
Scott B. Solis, Thorn Glidden, Andy Hathcock, Deborah Knaff
Tom Birch, Barry Watkins, Steve Bailey, Jay Grob,
Charles Rudolph, Gary Cole
Photography Staff Walter Underwood, Sharon Kile,
Naomi Bullock, Paul Williamson, Kevin Golden, Frank Worley, Mike Gladu,
v Bruce Davies, Carol Johnson, Rosanna Dill and Grungy'"
Sports Staff Donald Buckholt, Jay Grob
Michele Gillespie, Duane Berry, Greg Holloway, Ken Klein
Dave Chilton, Kay Abrahams, Margaret Bennett
Art Harold Nelson, Randy Furlong
Production Staff Kathryn Mason, Mike Dishart,
David Keen, Hank Petri, Jeanne Cooper, Elif Selvili, Rawslyn Ruffin, Julie Robbins,
Pam Pearson, Ellen Spraul, Ann Betley, Vikki Kapplan, Lisa Yee, Jeff Zweig, Steve MacCall,
Ron Stutes, David Miller
The Rice Thresher, the official student newspaper of 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, Texas 77001. Telephone (713) 527-4801 or 527-4802. Advertising
information available upon request. Mail subscriptions: $15.00 per year. The opinions expressed herein
arc not necessarily those of anyone except the writer. Obviously.
©1980 The Rice Thresher. All rights reserved.
The Rice Thresher, pctober 2, 1980, 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. 9, Ed. 1 Thursday, October 2, 1980, newspaper, October 2, 1980; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245449/m1/2/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.