The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, March 04, 1980, Image 2

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

[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