[age 6 THE BATT/
MONDAY. MARC
Lunch
C. K. Krumboltz serves
of sandwiches, burgers, s
super salad bar Join ui
2 p m Mon. through Fri.
Our super I
spread of n
and get V* f
VISA
815
Harvey Roac
C5.
Save
WE’RE LO<
POWER F
MONTH FC
HAVE DEC
YOU CAN
WRITE:
WE LL I
NOT INTE
GINEERIf*
A U.S. Hfi
Slouch
by Jim Earle
CONGRATULATIONS
AGGIES'
i98o swe
0A9KET6ALL
CMAMFI0M9
BAIL*
Opinion
U.S. oil addiction continues
In 1979, the world price of oil doubled between January
and December, and the United States spent a record $56.7
billion for petroleum imports. The government calculates
the OPEC cartel added nearly 4 percent to the living costs of
Americans.
For the first nine months of 1979 U.S. oil use dropped by
1.7 percent from the previous year. Consumption in Japan,
West Germany, Canada, France, Britain and Italy rose. For
all that, American oil demand far exceeded the combined
demand of these other countries, by more than 3.5 million
barrels a day.
Even with declining U.S. demand, the burden of im-
ported-oil costs is destined to grow heavier. More dispos
able income will have to be committed to running cars and
heating homes.
The Carter Administration is relying for now on OPEC-
determined higher prices to force consumption cuts. The
trouble is that it is at best a slow process of uncertain results
and the massive dollar drain continues. The unarguable
need is to cut oil imports sharply. The fastest and surest way
to do that is by rationing gasoline, or by slapping on gasoline
a federal tax.
Los Angeles Times
the
small society
by Brickman
Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
IN
FTJ0Ll^ ^FlNl^N
£AN'T X
PfZiVAT&LY-
The Battalion
U S P S 045 360
LETTERS POLICY
lA’ttcr.s to the edititr should not exceed 3(X) words and an
subject to beinu cut to that length or less if longer Tlu
editorial staff reserves the ri^ht to edit such lettirs and does
not guarantee to publish any letter Each letter must In
signed, show the address of the uriter and list a telephotu
nutnlnr for nrification.
Address correspondence to lA tters to the Edititr. Tlu
Battalion. Boom 216. Reed McDonald Building- (ollcn*
Station. Texas 77643.
Represented nationally by National Educational Adver
tising Services, Inc., New York City. Chicago and Lo?
Angeles.
MEMBER
Texas Press Associ
Southwest Journalism
Editor
Associate Editor
News Editor
Asst. News Editor Karen Cornelison
Copy Editor Dillard Stone
Sports Editor Mike Burrichter
Focus Editor Rhonda Watters
. . . Roy Bragg
. Keith Taylor
Rusty Cawley
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday from
ieptember through May except during exam and holida>
>eriods and the summer, when it is published on Tuesda>
hrough Thursday.
Mail *
school y,
on recpi
ihscriptions are $16.75 per semester. $33.25 per
nr; $35.00 per full year. Advertising rates furnished
•st. Address: The Battalion. Room 216. Reed
McDonald Building, College Station. Texas 77843.
United Press International is entitled exchisiveh to the
use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it
Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved.
Second-Class postage paid at College Station. TX 77843.
City Editor Louie Arthur
Campus Editor Diane Blake
Staff Writers Nancy Andersen,
Tricia Brunhart,Angelique Copeland,
Laura Cortez, Meril Edwards,
Carol Hancock, Kathleen McElroy,
Debbie Nelson, Richard Oliver,
Tim Sager, Steve Sisney,
Becky Swanson, Andy Williams
Chief Photographer Lynn Blanco
Photographers Lee Roy Leschper,
Steve Clark, Ed Cunnius,
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. 1 he Battalion is a non-profit, self-
supporting enterfyrise operated by students
as a university and community newspaper.
Editorial policy is determined by the editor.
Viewpoint
The Battalion
Texas A&M University
Tuesday
March 4, 1980
Ai
Government crackdown hints he
labor showdown in Australia
If your 1
Ar
*ss majes
By JOHN SHAW
Not long ago, mechanics employed by
Sydney’s public bus company staged a mild
but significant protest demonstration.
Their complaint was that the new Mer
cedes buses bought by the company were
so good that they would require minimal
maintenance and thus threaten jobs.
That gripe reflects a widespread attitude
among Australia’s organized workers, who
are generallly indifferent to productivity,
suspicious of modernization, unconcerned
with the national welfare and mainly fo
cused on their own security.
It also explains why both the federal and
state governments are overwhelmingly
supported by Australians in their efforts to
legislate curbs on the power of the coun
try’s labor unions.
To be fair, it should be pointed out that
many Australian employers have provoked
labor hostility by their conduct. They are
often reluctant to share rising profits wiht
employees, disregard their views in mak
ing decisions and neglect industrial safety.
Indeed, a good deal of the current ten
sion might be resolved if labor and manage
ment ceased to mistrust each other. But
much of the unrest is also caused by dis
putes among unions, or between unions
and workers.
In some instances, workers have ob
jected to compulsory union membership.
Fights have erupted between craft unions
over jobs rights. And federal and state
branches of the same union frequently
squabble over acceptable wage scales.
With increasing inflation, growing un
employment and a stagnant labor market,
the unions have become more and more
agressive. Strikes have been frequent, and
the government’s introduction of laws to
tame labor has added a political dimension
to the problem that is certain to be a major
issue in this year’s election.
Tough laws have been passed by the
states of Queensland and Western Austra
lia, which are run by conservative parties.
Heavily dependent on coal, bauxite and
other mineral exports, Queensland has
banned strikes in “essential’’ industries and
threatened stiff fines for individuals or un
ions that violate the prohibition.
The federal government headed by
Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, a mil
lionaire rancher and outspoken critic of
labor militants, has meanwhile introduced
a more complex package to limit strikes. He
calls it “anit-inflation” legislation, while
organized labor refers to its as “union-
bashing.”
Fraser has challenged Australia’s auton
omous Arbitration Commission, the
world’s oldest labor court, founded 75 years
ago. He contends that the Commission,
which has granted wage hikes higher than
his government believes to be compatible
with its attempts to halt inflation, has been
undermining the economy.
In amending the Commission’s author
ity, Fraser has made it easier for the gov
ernment to deal with the unions more firm
ly. Among other measures, unions could
lose their right to engage in actions that
have an “adverse effect on the safety,
health or wealth of the corpmunity. Work
er could be deprived of unemployment
compensation if fired for striking.
The unions have reacted to these stiff
steps with relative moderation, largely be
cause they anticipate that they cannot be
enforced. Some judges also subscribe to
that view.
jn quartz
3 tune i
But the confrontation betweaHK^'"^
and the unions could come to aktU'
an actual case, which would bei-|-j. exas ^
relative strength. Each side insudL p art 0 j
would have considerable clout. erv j ( . ( , i<
Australia’s unions have deep a
country. They have inobilizeda[[t^ m j n ^ y
the nation’s workers, whose duesv-j-jj,^,
the Labor Party, the largest single
movement here. ffriends
As they face their conflict wti fOU P
the unions plan to assert that heL rea ; co ^
to keep his pledges to reduceinfk j* ct * onet *
er unemployment and cut taxes-®
mic difficulties that he is blamin^K
Fraser, on the other hand, Ik*
tiiH
rely on the public’s impatiencevl
to argue that the power of the un»j
be broken.
The fight promises tobefierce j
clearcut winner is likely. Tbe|
though, may be Australia’s j
caught in the crossfire of a battletiil
some ways, been going on hereij
cades.
(Shaw, an Australian newspaA
umnist, writes on current affairs ‘
stralia.) Th( , Tc
:D<
iP
ate squa
akes ho
tate Uni
i Hunts'
Die te
thei sch
oma.
In the
lichael!
rst plao
The p
Letters Abortion may lead to more ‘legal killing ^
Editor:
I would like to personally address Starr
Moore, in the letter presented to The Bat
talion Feb. 28.
First, a quote from Dr. Leo T.
Heywood, Professor of Obstetrics and
Gynecology and Chairman of the Depart
ment of Creighton University School of
Medicine in Omaha:
“I am against abortion. It is not neces
sary in the practice of medicine, and it
destroys the very thing the physician is
dedicated to preserve — human life.”
To preserve human life. You say than an
unborn baby is not a child — let me inform
you that upon the moment of conception,
every characteristic that human being will
ever have — whether physical or emotion
al — is contained within the genes. It has
only now to develop in life, to follow the
pattern laid out in the genes, until the
point of deh. Human life is one continuous
change — it begins with conception and
ends with death.
You then state that children who will be
unwanted or unloved should be killed. If
this statement is true, then why not kill all
children already born who are unwanted or
unloved should be killed?
Dr. John L. Grady, who has held such
titles as Chairman of the Department of
Obstetrics and Chief of Staff at Glades
General Hospital, Medical Examiner for
the States Attorney, State President of the
Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons, and is now National Chairman if
Americans for the Right to Life, speaks of
the growing occurence of infanticide, or
the killing of babies after birth:
“In instances of abortion when the baby
is delivered alive, it is killed by one of
several means: placing it in a plastic bag
(suffocation), leaving it in a container on
the surgical table or in the refrigerator (ex
posure), or putting it into a container of
water or formaldehyde (drowning). It is
subsequently burned in an incineratror.
However, in some medical centers, fetuses
aborted alive are now being used for live
research specimens.”
While you’re at it, you might as well kill
the handicapped and aged, for you say that
the unborn child is totally dependent on
the mother, therefore the mother has the
right ot decide whether or not her child
will live. You cannot argue that many hand
icapped and aged persons also are depen
dent on others for survival — should those
who take care of them also be given the
right to decide if they live or die?
Killing unwanted children does not
clean society — it only adds to its evils. If
you really are concerned with cleaning up
society, then start opposing immorality,
promiscuity, porno-movies and magazines;
work toward stricter criminal laws; and
take efforts to re-establish the family as the
basic unit of society, for anyone who has
studied history quickly leanrs that the first
step in destroying a society is to destroy the
family unit. Take positive steps to make
this world a better place for children to be
born into.
The fact is, once conception has taken
place, it is no longer a question of whether
or not you wish to be parents — for you are
already parents, and must accept that re
sponsibility.
If some parents do not wisht
that responsibility themselves,
many, many married couples toif
physically cannot have children BE At
have a place in their hearts to rdered
'unwanted - ' child. Is that not the:: lie Wo i
man thing to do? > expla
The United Nations C barter or. .'dt be f<
Rights, written in 1948, guarantefift'his i
ery person the right tolife.cliildreAlated i
be given special consideration in feGu If (
and that the right to life shouldkie funu
nateed before as well as after bird ave enj
If you feel that you have arighl-tace si
then do not deny that same rigl
other person — whether it beating
within a womb, a handicappedyw
or an elderly man or woman.
For if today society supports tl(J
paying doctors to kill our unborn^
then who is to say that one day it"
also allow the killing of all!
any human — even you?
Debbie