Viewpoint The Battalion • Texas A&M University Kennedy: no future in past By ARNOLD SAWISLAK United Press International WASHINGTON — Once again, the question: Is Teddy Kennedy running for president in 1980? Obviously, a number of conservatives think so. Tbe Massachusetts senator’s de nials notwithstanding, the Kennedy phobes of the right are in full cry. The approaching 10th anniversary of Chappaquiddick may have something to do with it, but the more immediate cause seems to be the announcement of five Democratic congressmen that they are going to try to start up a draft Kennedy movement. In a recent edition of Lester Kinsolving’s Washington Weekly, which carries a number of conservative columns as well as stories, it says the mainstream media won’t touch, Kennedy was the subject or men tioned in three articles and an advertise ment. Chappaquiddick was brought up in three of them — twice in connection with matters that had nothing to do with the 1969 inci dent. Example: In an ad for a group seeking reinstatement of the Senate Judiciary sub committee on internal security, the head line asks: “What do Mary Jo Kopechne and the Senate’s internal security unit have in common?” Below Kennedy’s picture, the ad says “Answer: Both were the victims of the actions of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.” This is political knife work of a particu larly blunt and rusty sort. But it probably is a mild example of what will be in store for Kennedy if he really does decide to run for president. Just about everybody who hated John and Robert Kennedy, plus anyone who hates Teddy Kennedy for himself, will be busy looking for new ways to inject Chap paquiddick into the campaign. (Injustice, it should be said that the Rev. Andrew M. Greeley, in a column review ing possible presidential Democratic can didates, doesn’t raise Chappaquiddick. In stead he excoriates Kennedy for being in favor of more spending, more government, “more harebrained social programs, more of everything that the people have made clear they don’t want.”) There is no need for a discussion here about the relevance of Chappaquiddick in a Kennedy campaign. There is no need be cause relevant or not, the subject will be discussed. What may not get discussed is energy, inflation, taxes, unemployment, strategic arms limitation, detente, China policy and other issues facing the country and the world. In 1884, the United States went through what has been described as the dirtiest political campaign in its history. Republi can James G. Blaine was accused of being a crook who sold out his public trust for pri vate gain; Democrat Grover Cleveland a philanderer who fathered an illegitimate child. Cleveland won by 23,000 votes. There could be another such campaign coming. If Kennedy seeks and wins his par ty’s nomination and the Republicans begin drumming on Chappaquiddick, the Demo crats almost surely will try to find some thing in the record of the GOP candidate, whoever it is, with which to retaliate. Veterans next victims of Congress By DAVID S. BRODER WASHINGTON — During Vietnam Veterans Week, an overdue recognition of the unfulfilled obligation of this country to those who fought in our most recent and most unpopular war, much attention was directed toward legislation aimed at the special problems of many Vietnam vets. News reports noted that the Congress, after years of delay, was on the verge of passing a bill which would provide easily accessible out-patient psychological coun seling, alcohol and drug-abuse treatment for the troubled veterans of the Indochina At long last, the orators said. Congress and the nation are beginning to recognize thier debt to some of the victims of that tragic chapter of our history. What the oratory neglected to point out — and what, I confess, I learned only by chance — was that the Vietnam Veterans bill has been made the vehicle for a further dip into the federal Treasury by a set of congressional politicians. What has happened is this: As their price for approving the special treatment for the psychologically damaged Vietnam vets, members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee have demanded from the Pres ident and the Veterans Administration veto power over all significant future VA hospi tal and medical facility construction. As Elizabeth Wehr wrote in the Con- gresssional Quarterly article which alerted me to this clever dodge, the House has been “cool” to the special help for Vietnam veterans and has stalled its enactment, de spite the fact that the Senate has approved this needed aid four times since 1971. “What finally got the counseling pro gram moving this year,” she wrote, “was a 1978 compromise worked out” by Sen. Alan Cranston, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, and Rep. David E. Satterfield III, D-Va., chairman of the House veterans subcommittee on medical facilities and benefits. In return for House backing of the Senate package, Cranston agreed to support the demand from Satterfield and his House colleagues for a direct voice in the location of the VA facilities. Under the new bill, no VA hospital con struction of more than $2 million and no lease of more than $500,000 a year could be made without specific approval from the House and the Senate veterans commit tees. In debate, Cranston, who has been push ing for help for the Vietnam vets, made it clear he was not the one who was “power hungry.” He said, “I did not start this. It began on the House side...” Ostensibly, the purpose of the provision is to “insure the equitable distribution of medical facilities throughout the United States.” A House committee aide predicted the authority would be used mainly to block unneeded construction, but VA offi cials said congressional pressures were al most always to expand facilities in the members’ districts. Several senators were unkind enough to say the real purpose was to add VA hospitals to the list of pork-barrel projects members of Congress can divvy up each year. The precedents that were cited for the new procedure — the construction of federal courthouses and office buildings, river and harbor and gloow-control projects — confirmed, rather than rebutted, that suspicion. Two weeks ago, the Senate killed the House-inspired pork-barrel provision. But Cranston, anxious to save the Vietnam vets program, was forced to accept the restora tion of the odious provision in a House- Senate conference. Despite the strong opposition of the Car ter administration and VA administrator Max Cleland, chances are that the Presi dent will have to bow to the pork-barrel congressmen if he wants a Vietnam vets’ bill to sign. Next to tipping over a wheelchair, it is hard to imagine a shabbier way for Con gress to mark Vietnam Veterans Week. (c) 1979, The Washington Post Company Great Moments in American Jblitics Ted Kennedy denies for the 1927th time that he will be a Presidential candidate.... only this time it sticks: I'LL CROSS TH4T BRIDGE WHEN I COME TO IT. DAL jabine would 1 cratic “ |g : Cart< tion the slightly a Hous ; Both around ofEduc schools ■ Also lency ai rehabil activity ment s Found; But ' educati to fire, lachin “Wh; worked An e< lied in ;ain ii Sreate : Mou< strict Sky lab scheme For as long as I can remember. I’ve been searching for the perfect get-rich-quick scheme. Even as a child I was constantly looking for the fast bucks. Like every youthful entrepreneur, each year I would set up my sidewalk lemonade stand. I never did enjoy much success in this business. Although my marketing strategy was somewhat differ ent from the other kids’, I never could figure out why my product wouldn’t sell on those breezy January afternoons. But now, thanks to modern technology, I do believe I’ve come up with the perfect plan that will allow me to retire before I’m 25. I’m going to sell hard hats. That’s right. Beginning July 2, I’m going to set up roadside stands throughout the nation — maybe even throughout the world — and sell hard hats. Sounds like another losing venture, you say? Not when you stop to consider that July 2 is the day that the 85 tons of metal we affectionately refer to as Skylab will drop out of its orbit and fall to earth, according to National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists. Now I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be bare-headed on that particular Saturday afternoon when I’m washing the car and look up to find that Skylab’s 4,000-pound lead film vault just became my new hood ornament. Oh sure, I realize that 75 percent of Skylab’s orbit is over water, which means that chances are three in four that the crippled craft will not hit land. But I never was a gambling man. And scientists admit that they are playing a guessing game when it comes to pinpointing Skylab’s final resting place. The debris that survives re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere could land anywhere. Imagine this as a new box office hit: “The Lead Film Vault that Devoured Snook — A True Story.” “The problem is that we can’t tell you right now in which orbit it is going to fall. Or where it will come down,” Herman E. Thomason told reporters earlier this month. Thomason is the chief of the engineering laboratory at the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, Ala. He and his staff monitor Skylab around the clock in order to give NASA some idea as to where the one-time space station will fall. So I look at my sales venture as a precautionary service provided for the safety of the world’s population. Naturally, all my hard hats will carry the message, “WARNING — The surgeon general has determined that Skylab can be hazardous to your health.” I envision the possibility of headaches that even your extra-strength pain reliever can’t cure. With Skylab fragments weighing as little as 10 pounds falling to Earth at the rate of 2,000 feet per second, my hard hats should sell like hot cakes. But I don’t intend to stop with hard hats. No sir, I’m going to milk this $2.6 billion falling junkyard for all it’s worth. Commercialism, that’s the name of this game. For starters, I plan to market a new line of Skylab commemorative t-shirts. One of my favorites has a picture of Chicken Little saying “The Skylab is falling, the Skylab is falling!” I will also have a selection of Skylab bumperstickers, including “Honk If You Sidestepped Skylab” and “Skylab Dodgers Do It Gladly. ” And for those of us who have to dodge debris between the Red and Rio Grande Rivers, there is this favorite: “Skylab and Longnecks — No Place But Texas.” Some people might want to decorate their homes with Skylab memorabilia. For them I will have a Skylab poster on sale. One shows a young man, obviously under the influence of his favorite glaucoma medicine, staring in disbelief at Skylab’s 5,000- pound fixed airlock shroud and saying, “Heavy, man, heavy.” The other is a picture of Dolly Parton standing beside two of Skylab’s 2,700-pound oxygen tanks. The caption on this poster reads, “Look at the size of those jugs!” In addition, I will have on hand an assortment of Skylab ashtrays, neckties, plates, earrings, pillows and drinking glasses. And my first 1,000 customers will receive absolutely free a commemorative plaque with the inscription, “I survived Skylab — July 2, 1979.” “Frankly, I will be happy when this is all over,” engineer Thomason said of the Skylab ordeal. Yes, I’m sure you will, Herman. In the meantime, could I interest you in a pair of Da-Glo Skylab cufflinks? David Boggan "Mixed marriages may help church Ui i Ian a Ha Coc outrage a Rumen fiaoval of fpercei Wyoming rhe city’s Rhe in !C( last Kcliatel) By DAVID E. ANDERSON United Press International It used to be called “mixed marriages” when a Protestant and Roman Catholic wed and often both partners were ostracized if not excommunicated by their respective religious communities. Now, such weddings are being called “ecumenical marriages” and a growing number of clergy and pastors believe they can play a major role in the interfaith movement, especially at the grassroots level. “Most of us have been reared to assume that it’s a ‘mistake’ to marry outside our own confessional family,” says the Rev. Timothy Lull, assistant professor of sys tematic theology at Philadelphia’s Luthe ran Theological Seminary. But suppose. Lull asked, the churches looked at ecumenical marriages not only as “a tangle of problems but also a set of op portunities, of strengths and possibilities which the church might treasure?” Lull issued his challenge for a more posi tive view of interfaith marriages at a recent Graymoor Ecumenical Institute confer ence on the pastoral care of ecumenical marriages that brought together Luthe rans, Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. In the first place. Lull said, an ecumeni cal marriage means that neither clergy nor laity can continue to exist in their “confes sional ghettos” but have to face an ecumen ical situation involving real people rather than the myths and stereotypes of other faiths. “It is easy to dismiss theological positions and even whole church bodies,” he said, “but it is harder to ignore concrete indi viduals to whom one must minister.” And he stressed that “our having to face regularly and personally persons whose own lives are caught in the broken ties that ought to bind the people of God together is t .R mont certainly a factor for the long hauli»} ie f ec ing ecumenical concerns alive at feR a l] ovv level. jR fro m In this way. Lull argued, partnf^H$I3.7 interfaith marriage “have a fa!time t play in the healing of the division Jr,,,,..,,,-, church — and this roll can be very iff^ra! g ; even when they attend worship! rencrator spectators and participate very out the w features of their spouse’s church.” 1 “Yet they have some motivatioMf and understand what is happening* able to explain to one another, to&niR to friends, and perhaps eventually® dren, the nature of the faith thate# holds,” he said. In this regard, the* Rev. Peter Do# Roman Catholic diocese of Britlfff Conn., noted a movement witli| churches toward what he called' toral care for interfaith marriages j Dora said that “the proposal! grams of Christian nurture be ecill in nature” must become a “seriou$| item” for the churches. Noting that ecumenical couplesij denied participation in one art celebration of Holy Communion, I the couple “is asked to respect! upon themselves this visible andjj sign of division between the chure “However, what must also beij ered,” he said, “is that they are apnij sign of hope because within theirn they have overcome real barriersij sion and consequently bring a fern impatience for the consummation! visible unity of God’s kingdomi Writing the Editor The Battalion welcomes letters to the editor on any subject. However, tok ceptable for publication, these letters must meet certain criteria: — Not exceed 300 words or 1800 characters. — Be neatly typed whenever possible. Handwritten letters are acceptable. — Letters must include the author’s name, address and phone number for fication. Right to amend questioned Vance fears Senate will fell Salt 11 By JIM ANDERSON United Press International WASHINGTON — The SALT II debate raises again an unresolved issue that has troubled U.S. foreign policy since the founding of the republic: How much power does the Senate have? How much should it have? The Constitution is ambiguous, only say ing that the Senate should give its “advice and consent” on treaties by a vote of two- thirds of the senators present. The Senate does not “ratify” a treaty. It simply votes its approval, or disapproval, and the ratification is done later by the President. The Constitution is less clear on whether the Senate can also change the treaties. But, despite objections from various presi dents, beginning with George Washing ton, the Senate has taken the power to amend the treaties, or attaching less bind ing conditions and understandings. An amendment means that the secretary of state must go back to the other nation and get its consent to the change; an under standing puts forward a condition by the United States, but it does not require ap-r proval from the other nation. The SALT I agreement in 1972 was not amended by the Senate, but several condi tions were attached to it, including one by Sen. Henry Jackson, D-Wash., saying that any future strategic arms agreements would have to give equal numerical limits to both sides. In SALT I, the Soviets were given an edge in numbers to offset what was agreed to be an American advantage in the accuracy of its missiles. Amendments, or reservations, have been added to controversial agreements as an indirect way of killing them, stabbing the treaty with a stiletto, instead of club bing it with an axe. Administration officials fear that this may be the fate of SALT II; never tested in a straight Senate vote, but loaded down with amendments that will unravel the whole seven years of negotiations. As Secretary of State Cyrus Vance put it: “(The treaty) is inter-related and in tertwined and various parts of it bear upon other parts. Therefore, to amend any part runs a grave risk of killing the treaty com pletely. ” That warning may have had an unin tended effect. Some Senators are now bus ily preparing some drastic amendments to the SALT II package, as a form of insurance that it will be rejected by the Soviets, even if it does get two-thirds of the vote in the Senate. The Battalion LETTERS POLICY Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words and are subject to being cut to that length or less if longer. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit such letters and does not guarantee to publish any letter. Each letter must be signed, show the address of the tvriter and list a telephone number for verification. Address correspondence to Letters to the Editor, The Battalion, Room 216, Reed McDonald Building, College Station, Texas 77843. Represented nationally by National Educational Adver tising Services, Inc., New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles. McDonald Building, College Station, Texas 778# i United Press International is entitled exclusive) 1 use for reproduction of all news dispatches credi$l Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein re Second-Class postage paid at College Station, Du The Battalion is published Monday through Friday from September through May except during exam and holiday periods and the summer, when it is published on Tuesday through Thursday. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester; $33.25 per school year; $35.00 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on request. Address: The Battalion, Room 216, Reed MEMBER Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congress Editor Karen t News Editor Debbie Pi" Sports Editor Seanfg City Editpr I Campus Editor Keith V Staff Writers Robin Thomp Regina Moehlman, Kevin Higginb Photo Editor . ClayG Photographer . ; Lynnll!> Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or of the writer of the article and are not necessarily those of the University administration or the Board of Regents. The Battalion is a non-profit,! supporting enterprise operated by s0 as a university and community nemspt' Editorial policy is determined by the d 1 L