The Rice Thresher, Vol. 91, No. 15, Ed. 1 Friday, January 16, 2004 Page: 3 of 24
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:
THE RICE THRESHER OPINION FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 2(X)4
...The paper it's written on
Space ambitions: out of print too long
When I was 10,1 found in the tiny
library of my elementary school an
old hard-bound book titled Ameri-
cans in Space. Published in the
mid-'70s, it contained a
history of the U.S. space
program. The book re-
counted with breathless
excitement the adven-
tures of the heroes of the
space race — Alan Shep-
herd, Buzz Aldrin, Neil
Armstrong — and told of
a nation still basking in
the triumph of the moon
landings. The book talked
of scientists and engi-
neers, of factory workers
and pilots, of an entire na-
tion working to achieve a seemingly
impossible goal.
The book also described a fu-
ture fdled with moon colonies and
expeditions to all the planets. Our
nation would continue the explora-
tion of space at full speed. We were
planning to land on Mars in 1982
and then orbit Venus in 1985.
America would continue to reach
outward, pushing back the frontiers
of knowledge and distance.
It never happened.
Apollo, instead of humanity's first
step outward into the universe, be-
came the pinnacle of our achievement.
We would never strive any higher.
The only evidence that we once
reached for the stars is a few propped-
up American flags and the traces of
our footprints on the lunar surface.
After the landings, with no more
walls to throw our hats over, with no
more imminent Soviet competition,
we faltered. Exploration no longer
occupied the minds of a public
bogged down by Vietnam, oil short-
ages and stagflation.
The author of A mericans in Space
boldly told stories of a universe filled
with humans living their daily lives
in the farthest reaches of space. The
James
Sulak
most memorable was the smell:
musty — the odor of nearly two
decades of lost time. Although I
didn't realize it then, reading books
like these had become
an exercise in nostalgia.
The dreams of a bright
future among the stars
are now quaint and out-
dated, the ramblings of
writers caught up in the
impossible euphoria of
the time. Musf>.
And that's a shame.
Dreaming of the future
should not be an act of
nostalgia. America has al-
ways been defined by the
need to expand its fron-
tiers, always pushing against the bound-
aries of the present and longing for the
future. Why, having reached the moon,
did we lose sight of the stars?
Imagine where we could be had
we not pulled back, had NASA not
spent three decades spinning its
wheels with no purpose or direction.
Humans could have gone to Mars,
Venus and the moons of Jupiter.
The barriers that hold us back are
not technological, but political and
bureaucratic. When Kennedy boldly
declared in 1962 that Americans
would land on the moon within the
decade, we were barely able to shoot
a hunk of metal the size of a basket-
ball into the upper atmosphere. Given
a bold vision, amazing progress can
be made. It has happened before. It
can happen again.
I^ast week. President Bush un-
veiled a plan to give purpose back to
NASA. Early in the next decade,
American astronauts will revisit the
moon in preparation for a new and
bolder goal: Mars. This proposal is
exactly the shot in the arm NASA
needs to right its inefficient and
directionless bureaucracy and to
maintain the interest of a public un-
derstandably apathetic about the
An active space program would
have the added benefit of employing
thousands of people and stimulat-
ing our economy. Also, more
capable people will be encouraged
to go into research and engineering,
fostering great advances in aero-
space and materials science. The
inventions born from the harsh ne-
cessities of space travel have already
served us well on Earth — for ex-
ample, thousands of lives are spared
yearly from the ravages of hurri-
canes thanks to the early warnings
of weather satellites.
pages were brittle and yellow, but American space program.
Apollo, instead of
humanity's first step
outward into the
universe, became the
pinnacle of our
achievement.
Of course, realizing these dreams
will take decades. But it would be anti-
climactic if the story ofhumanity ended
here—if on the edge of the vastness of
space we turned inward. Failing again
to set a bold goal would be a terrible
mistake; in the face of such incredible
opportunities we cannot dare turn back.
We cannot let dreams of the future
yellow and rot away as the pages of the
old books have.
Authors and scientists wrote of a
vibrant future in space not because
it was an impossible fairy tale, but
because it was within reach. Fantas-
tic and wonderful things were pos-
sible. And they still are. We only
have to look to the stars, and try.
James Sulak is a Hanszen College
junior and assistant opinion editor.
What's wrong with this picture?
Death penalty is valuable
as a plea bargaining tool
Garret
Merriam
Rice Voices
Students must earn Leebron's powerful ear
So we've selected a new president.
Someone who is young, has a great
leadership record and, most impor-
tantly, has new ideas. I'm
sure Columbia University
I .aw School Dean David
Leebron has plans for Rice's
future, but he certainly
hasn't learned enough
about Rice to know exactly
what he wants to do.
The coming year will
shape his impressions of
Rice and will be important
for the development of his
policies. The coming year
will also shape his attitude
and the nature of his inter-
actions towards the student body. So
far, we have had j)ositive signs of a
student-friendly attitude from
Leebron; in the news conference in
December, he mentioned that part of
the reason he knew Rice was the
place for him was the student body.
He also scheduled an event specifi-
cally to meet the students Monday.
Brvan
Debbink
If the president wants
something to happen, it
happens.
Whether these gestures were the
work of a politician or true expressions
of student-friendliness does not mat-
ter. If the student body and student
leaders do not reach out and engage
him in student issues, he will not be-
come a student-minded president
Having the ear of their university
president is the greatest asset stu-
dents can have. If the president wants
something to happen, it happens.
When President Gillis is in a meet-
ing and says to Vice President for
Student Affairs Zenaido Camacho,
"Zen, take care of this," it
gets done without ques-
tion. No student, however
well-organized or moti-
vated, has that kind of
pull.
The president is power-
ful when it comes to large
issues, as well. Recently
Rice constructed the Hu-
manities Building with very
little pre-building fund-rais-
ing—because Gillis felt we
needed it So ifLeebron gets
behind any student issue
(such as a 10th college or a new recre-
ation center), things will change for
the better.
However, the burden to obtain
these essentials does not lie with
Leebron; it lies with students. We must
i i lake clear requests and work for diem.
We all know inequalities exist in
the living spaces and food service be-
tween the colleges. Beyond that, there
are other things needing attention. For
example, storage spaces are vastly
different from college to college. It
doesn't seem equitable that some
colleges can provide students with
safe, climate-controlled spaces, while
other colleges suffer space limita-
tions and risk flooding every year.
Additionally, while the older colleges
generally have the space, whether
that space is in a condition to be used
is questionable.
So this is a call for anyone who
cares about Wee. We need people
who can walk into a room with uni-
versity leaders, come to them with
clear and thoughtful ideas and stand
up for students. Run for student gov-
ernment — not just for the Student
Association, but also in your college.
We need the ear of this president.
We need to impress him with the
idea that students should have a large
part in shaping the direction of the
university. last March, I said that I
wanted for the Princeton Review to
say within three years "the students
run this school." That is still my goal.
If next year's student leaders im-
press Leebron, the students and the
university will benefit from a strong
relationship for years to come.
Bryan Debbink is a Wiess College senior
and Student Association co-President.
In December, Gary Ridgway
was sentenced to life in prison
for murdering 48 women over a
20 year period in the Seattle area.
The so-called "Green
River killer" avoided
the death penalty,
despite the fact that
he is the most prolific
serial killer in U.S.
history, by making a
deal with the prosecu-
tors, who agreed to
spare his life in ex-
change for a full and
detailed confession.
The fact Ridgway
will not be put to death
has caused many
people to hail the case as a water-
shed case in our criminal justice
system. The Washington Coali-
tion to Abolish the Death Penalty
released a statement saying, "It is
illogical to demand the death of
an individual who kills one per-
son when Ridgway was sentenced
to life without the possibility of
parole after killing 48 women." At
least one man currently under
indictment for murder in Wash-
ington has already argued that
seeking the death penalty for him
would be unreasonable, in light
of Ridgway's plea. The death pen-
alty, these people claim, is no
longer proportional to any crime.
The sheer myopia of such a
position baffles me. Contrary to
being an argument against the
death penalty, this case exempli-
fies one of the best justifications
for it. Whatever its other merits
or flaws, the death penalty pro-
vides prosecutors with an invalu-
able tool in an uncertain world:
leverage.
Ridgway was not treated le-
niently because he didn't deserve
to die. He does. Neither the pros-
ecutor, the judge, nor the families
of the victims contest this. Nor do
they contest that death would be
a punishment proportional to his
crimes (if anything, death is dis-
proportionately lenient). But just
desserts and proportionality, like
deterrence and financial cost, are
not the only relevant factors in
deciding on punishment, or the
justifiability thereof.
In exchange for his life,
Ridgway gave the prosecutors
copious information on his vic-
tims, allowing them to close open
cases, locate bodies and provide
closure to many families who have
been wondering for years. The
prosecutors judged that the value
of this information was greater
than the value of giving Ridgway
his just desserts.
Whether or not this
was a judicious decision
on the part of the pros-
ecution is debatable,
but one thing is not: If
Washington did not
have a death penalty,
then the state would
either have had to offer
Ridgway something
less than life in prison,
or have him sentenced
to life and not get the
benefit of his allocution.
Neither option is acceptable. The
death penalty provides the only
solution to the dilemma, even
though it goes unused.
Something about this argu-
ment for prosecutorial leverage
might seem a bit unfair. You might
think such a system rewards kill-
ers who happen to have valuable
information, while not being as
lenient toward those who do not.
This may seem unjust to you. You
would be right.
But this is not an argument
against the death penalty. Plea
bargains of this sort occur every
day in states with no death pen-
alty, and horrible criminals get
much lighter sentences as a re-
sult. This injustice results, not
because the death penalty is a
flawed option, but because the
entirety of criminal law is a flawed
system, created by flawed beings.
I'm not saying the death pen-
alty is just, or even that it is wise.
All things considered, we may be
better off with a national morato-
rium, or even universal abolition.
But Gary Ridgway's case is not
part of a good argument to that
effect.
On the contrary, it is a formi-
dable argument in favor of keep-
ing the death penalty, even if it
is principally and practically
unjust. Anyone who wants to
argue for abolition of capital pun-
ishment must first provide a
practical and satisfactory alter-
nate process for dealing with
men like Gary Ridgway — one
that allows us to make a deal
with the devil and still send him
to hell for eternity.
Garret Merriam is a graduate stu-
dent in philosophy.
the Rice Thresher
Mark Berenson
Editor in Chief
NEWS
Jenny Rees. Editor
David Brown, Assf. Editor
Alana Newell, Page Designer
OPINION
Nathan Black, Editor
James Sulak, Asst. Editor
SPORTS
Jonathan Yardley, Editor
Dylan Hedrick, /Us/. Editor
ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
Carly Kocurek, Editor
Jon Schumann, Editor
Jennifer Quereau, Page Designer
CALENDAR
F.rika Acheson, Editor
Cameron Day, Editor
Catherine Adcock, Features Editor
Jack Hardcastle, Online Editor
John Donaleski, Cartoonist
BACKPAGE
Danny Blanco, Editor
Lucas Ogden-Davis, Editor
COPY
Melissa Bailey, Editor
Elaine Lee, Am/. Editor
Vivian Wiener, Asst. Editor
PHOTOGRAPHY
Stuart Sinclair, Editor
Katie Streit, Editor
Rachel Davis, Ass/. Editor
BUSINESS
Polly D'Avignon, Business Manager
Debbie Miller, Assf. Business Manager
C.W. McCullagh, Payroll Manager
Emily Jones, Distribution Manager
Parul Patel, Subscriptions Manager
Margaret Xu. Office Manager
ADVERTISING
Ethan Varela. Ads Manager
Matt Hamilton, Asst. Ads Manager
Gretchen Raff. Classified Ads Manager
The Rice Thresher, the official student
newspaper at Rice University since 1916. is
published each Friday 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 Ley Student Center.
6100 Main St., MS-524. Houston. TX 77005-
1892. Phone (713) 3484801. Fax (713) 348-
5238. E-mail: thresher@rice.edu. Web page:
www.ricethresher.org.
Annual subscription rate: $50 domestic,
$ 105 international. Nonsubscription rate: first
copy free, second copy $5.
The Thresher reserves the right to refuse
any advertising for any reason. Additionally,
the Thresher does not take responsibility for
the factual content of any ad. Printing an
advertisement does not constitute an
endorsement by the Thresher.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority
opinion of the Thresher editorial staff. All other
opinion pieces represent solely the opinion of
the author. The Backpage is satire.
The Threshers a member of the Associated
Collegiate Press and the Society of Professional
Journalists. Having one lung is not a good
excuse for not writing for the Thresher.
P COPYRIGHT 2004.
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.
Berenson, Mark. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 91, No. 15, Ed. 1 Friday, January 16, 2004, newspaper, January 16, 2004; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth398454/m1/3/?rotate=90: accessed June 22, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.