The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 72, No. 35, Ed. 1 Friday, March 29, 1985 Page: 2 of 20
twenty 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:
The right to tax ourselves
The RPC's problem, as well as the problem that killed
TexPlRG, is that President Hackerman and his fellow
administrators do not like the idea of a "negative check-off'
blanket-tax system.
A positive check-off system requires that students send in their
Cashier's Office statement with the amount of the tax added in.
Each of these statements then must be checked for errors.
Because of the inconvenience, very few students actually
contribute the extra money and the cost of checking the
statements often exceeds the money brought in.
This was the system used for the RPC Beer-Bike tax this
semester. It brought in $597.
A negative check-off system requires only those people who
do not want to pay the additional tax to send in a special form.
This system is used in New York and California to collect
frtillions of dollars for university-based Public Interest Research
Groups.
Whether or not a PIRG should be established at Rice, their
funding mechanism is successful. It provides funds where they
are wanted, but coerces no one into paying against his will.
More than half of the students favor additional funding for
Beer-Bike; a negative check-off system would make it easy for
them to contribute. It would also allow anyone offended by the
idea of sweaty people drinking beer and exercising to keep his
dinero.
— Paul Havlak
You owe us one, Mr. Nicholson
Ok, I lied.
There will be a Thresher on Tuesday, April 9. However, it will
contain only campaign statements for Sammy the Owl,
discussion on the RPC Beer-Bike blanket tax referendum, and
cartoons.
Read the news article about the RPC tax. Read the SA section
in Around Campus on page 15 to find out about the Sammy the
Owl election. Then decide if you have comments or questions on
the referendum, or if you wish to run for the position of
feathered mascot.
All items to appear in the April 9 issue, including campaign
statements and letters to the editor, must be turned in by 5p.m.
on Tuesday, April 2. Campaign photographs for Sammy the
Owl will be taken from 7 to 7:30 p.m. on April 2.
The next regular Thresher will be distributed April 12. We
regret the interruption, but we would regret working on the
Thresher over Easter break even more.
THE SILENT SOW
CAPITA PUNISHMENT
THE 5U£NT SCREAMED
MKUftWAl'
NOTE HOMTHEVACHMS
FEACT TO THE BUNBNG
RASHOF 20-M1LUCN-
tEOttKEW- NCW
HERE COMES THE
BlASrWNE-
YES/mE CONDEMNED IS
(dUAliy ANOTHER.
HUMAN EEIN&, ANCHHER
MEMKROF THE HUMAN
comiNtry-
NUKING THE HEDGES/by David Richardson
BLOOM COUNTY
The recent controversy over the
M X missile program underscores a
major inconsistency in U.S.
nuclear strategy.
The MX was designed primarily
in response to the so-called
"window of vulnerability" which
allegedly developed in the late
1970s. Proponents claimed that
Soviet advances in nuclear
weaponry made the Minuteman III
missiles — the land-based part of
the American strategic triad —
vulnerable to a Russian first strike,
leaving the U.S. with no way to
retaliate against hardened targets
in the U.S.S.R.
The weapon which Reagan
today claims is indispensible as a
bargaining chip in arms
negotiations is big, expensive,
powerful, and accurate, by far the
most devastating thing in the U.S.
by Berke Breathed
OH, HON I lOffm
cm ume
SUCZ6 OF tm~.
m:..m we mm/...
THE TERRIPCE WASTE OF
frectous me in the
SHORT, MORTAL uf6 of
ft bp&trmp '
tm7
//"V
ztosaaas
ever fz£l ukb wing
50memtno mitecy
mim your nature
an? whacking f\
600fv smile
right in w6
mm?
mat?
wnr? nothing.
tense...
frustrate?..
the pu0uc hates
us...the staff
keeps 5peujn0
YEAH., fT'5 rough
Ar THE TOP, BOSS.
Yft nee? A 3RBAK..
PO soMEmm 5/U.Y
ANP FUN.
po something
WHICH THOSE IN
YOUR POSITION
JSUAUY ONLY
PREAM OF...
/
VJHATTSft
MATTER,
CHIEF ?
go
PEAT THE
CARTOONIST.
all rim" as
one worp...
arsenal. It still docs not have a
basing system — and so would
remain exactly as vulnerable as the
Minuteman to a first strike.
Indeed, since there would be fewer
MX, they would arguably be more
susceptible to destruction in the
opening moments of a nuclear war.
Clearly the "Peacekeeper" is a/irst-
strike weapon, not a retaliatory
one.
Contrary to persistent U.S.
claims, this is generally the case
with recent American arms
programs. The "Star Wars"
proposals, medium range missiles
in Europe, and cruise missiles are
other examples. The MAD
(mutually assured destruction)
framework, which has governed
U.S. strategic arms policy for 25
years, seeks to avoid war by
insuring that any nuclear strike
would leave enough weapons in
enemy possession for a devastating
retribution. The U.S. in its weapons
programs and negotiations has
continually sought to undermine
the stability of this system. For
example, missile-carrying
submarines are an ideal second-
stri ke system. They are surviveable
in the event of war, but the
mobility that makes them so also
detracts from their accuracy,
making them poor first-strike
systems. However, the United
States has developed anti-
submarine warfare to the point
that the Soviet's subs are severely
threatened, effectively pushing
them toward a first-strike arsenal.
In arms negotiations the U.S.
has stressed reducing the number
of delivery vehicles for nuclear
warheads, and verification rights
which would make them hard to
conceal. Both of these proposals
would reduce the survivability of a
nation ravaged by a first strike.
What, then, is the reason for this
approach in American policy? It is
not reasonable to assume that even
Reagan could fail to see the
implication of this procurement
strategy. Obviously the U.S.
arsenal has evolved this way
specifically to provide first-strike
capability. While this contradicts
avowed strategic aims, it is in
keeping with the implicit threat to
respond to a Soviet conventional
attack in Europe with nuclear
weapons.
If this is the goal, why not invest
more heavily in conventional
forces to directly counter the
Soviet threat? Increased
conventional power would give the
U.S. more prestige and leverage in
international affairs, and could be
accomplished with the savings
generated by switching to cheaper
second-strike systems. This has the
added advantage of relieving
altogether justified Russian fears
about American intentions.
In any event, we should
recognize the implicatons of
American policy and stop debating
Soviet threats to U.S. missiles.
THRESHING IT OUT
Colosi defends
honor position
To the editor:
John Moses'mocking reduction
of me to "reader Colosi"
demonstrates that he misunder-
stands the point I tried to make in
my letter. To clarify, I simply
expressed my opinion that an
Honor System based on partial
trust cannot work effectively
because, in my experience, people
are not partially honorable.
Manifestation of respect is
intrinsic in the word "honor" and I
used the examples that I did
because I feel that respect for me is
not manifested when I am refused
loan of a key or when my backpack
is checked. Therefore, my
understanding of the current
Honor Code boundaries is not the
issue. Instead, I question the
imposition of boundaries because
they weaken the effectiveness of
the Honor Code.
My perspective on the Honor
System is a comparative one since
Rice wasn't my first experience to
an honor code, and I have
developed many ideas concerning
honor from my comparison. The
subject interests me particularly
because personal ethics present the
core issue, and they are a sensitive
and debatable subject. I will
conclude by saying that 1 respect
your ideas, John, and I would
appreciate return respect for mine.
Theresa L. Colosi
Lovett '86
The Rice Thresher, March 29, 1985, 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.
Havlak, Paul. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 72, No. 35, Ed. 1 Friday, March 29, 1985, newspaper, March 29, 1985; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245597/m1/2/: accessed July 8, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.