Slouch
By Jim Earle
“Now that we’re not going to the Olympics, the world will
never know whether or not I could have won the high
jump.”
Opinion
Primary system is a farce
This was to have been the year when the American pres
idential election was elevated to hitherto unattained emi
nence.
Thirty-five states, plus the District of Columbia and Puer
to Rico — roughly double the number of a dozen years ago
— scheduled primaries.
Relative newcomers were going to have a real shot at the
big prize. And the national debate was to reach a level
commensurate with the massive problems confronting the
United States. bw , r
What a dream! What a comedown! ’ K
Barely into April, the races have been resolved. Jimmy
Carter once again will carry the Democratic colors. The
GOP standard bearer, barring some wholly unexpected de
velopment, will be Ronald Reagan. Neither fits the image of
presidential greatness.
What went wrong?
The winners in early primaries establish momentum and
become favored wards of the print and electronic media.
The new politics makes it possible for an inexperienced,
issues-ignorant nobody to come out of nowhere and win on
the strength of a slick set of slogans. And maybe to win again.
Or for a fading, issues simplifying somebody to do the same
thing.
Our standard of quality is no longer based on past achieve
ment or future promise as much as it is cumulative success in
the primary process itself. The losers are sunk without a
trace.
Between now and 1984, Americans must devise a nomi
nating system that can produce better choices.
The Denver Post
the small society
by Brickman
X Vo ALLTHE FAMILY
MY WlF£=
'SUFFER
FfZ^M A
FEAfZ
<2F Hl^H
WL\c&s. -
Washington Star Syndicate. Inc.
The Battalion
U S P S 045 360
LETTERS POLICY MEMBER
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words and Texas Press Association
are subject to being cut to that length or less if longer. The Southwest Journalism Congress
editorial staff reserves the right to edit such letters and Editor Roy Bragg
does not guarantee to publish any letter. Each Utter must A^nriat#* Editor Keith Tavlor
be signed, show the address of the writer and list a * ^
telephone number for verification. News Editor Rusty Cawley
Address correspondence to Letters to the Editor, The Asst. News Editor Karen Comelison
Battalion, Room 216, Reed McDonald Building, ColUge CoDV Editor Dillard Stone
Station, Texas 7/843 Sports Editor Mike Burrichter
Represented nationally by National Educational Adver- _ rn j i*r ..
tising services, Inc , New York City, Chicago and Los FoCUS Editor Rhonda Watters
Angeles. City Editor Louie Arthur
Campus Editor Diane Blake
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday from Staff Writers Nancy Andersen, Tricia
September through May except during exam and holiday Brunhart, Angelique Copeland,
periods and the summer, when it is published on Tuesday T j
through Thursday. Cortez, Menl Edwards,
Mail subscriptions are S16.75 per semester; *33 25 per ^COck, Kathleen McElroy,
school year; $35.00 per full year. Advertising rates Debbie Nelson, Richard Oliver,
furnished on request. Address: The Battalion, Room 216, Tim Sager, Steve Sisney,
Reed McDonald Building, College Station, Texas 77843. Becky Swanson, Andy Williams
United Press International is entitled exclusively to the Chief Photographer Lynn Blanco
use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it. PhotoeranherS Lee RoV Leschoer
Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved. ® P * * * c * * * r-’j ’
Second-Class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. Steve Clark, Ed CunnillS
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, self-
supporting enterprise operated by students
as a university and community newspaper.
Editorial policy is determined by the editor.
Viewpoint
The Battalion
Texas A&M University
Tuesday
April 15, 1980
With issues confusing voters,
candidates may win on charisma
By DAVID S. BRODER
Would gasoline rationing work, or just
add the aggravation of bureaucratic frustra
tion to the costs of ever-higher energy
prices?
Would wage and price control cut infla
tion by two-thirds, or simply set the stage
for a worse inflationary spiral down the
road?
Would the hostages be freed if the Un
ited States cut off diplomatic relations with
Iran, or threatened unspecified retaliation
if they are not back in our hands by a date
certain? Or would such a step simply in
crease their peril while dramatizing the im
potence of America in this situation?
Will the grain embargo hurt the Soviet
Union, or open up the opportunity for
Argentina growers to profit at the expense
of American farmers in the Russian market?
Will an American boycott of the summer
Olympic Games in Moscow embarrass the
Russians in the eyes of the world, or simply
leave the U.S. athletes frustrated specta
tors while their international rivals com
pete?
Does a deep cut in federal income taxes
promise the restoration of incentives for
growth and productivity in the American
economy? Or does it guarantee deeper de
ficits, more federal borrowing, higher in
terest rates and worse inflation?
These are some of the issues the voters
are being asked to decide as they weigh the
choice of the Democratic and Republican
presidential nominees. All of these ques
tions — and more — are being argued on
the campaign trail in 1980. Despite the
complaints that the candidates and the
press are “ignoring the substantive ques
tions” in this election year, the impression
of this reporter is that just the opposite is
true.
There is more issue content in this cam
paign than in any other recent election.
Candidates have found that the voters are
insisting on such discussion, because they
recognize the seriousness of the problems
facing American at the start of this new
decade.
It is not coincidence that Ronald Reagan,
the Republican front-runner, is also the
Republican whose advertising and
speeches have been strongly issue-
oriented from the start. John B. Anderson
escaped from the GOP pack by stressing
“the Anderson difference” on the issues.
George Bush, getting the message, switch
ed his faltering campaign from vague talk
about being “up for the Eighties” to speci
fics on foreign and domestic policy.
Ted Kennedy’s whole struggle has been
to shift the focus from personal issues to
substantive policy questions. And Fritz
Mondale, the chief surrogate for President
Carter, has talked endlessly — and speci
fically — of the administration’s energy,
economic and foreign policy inititives.
If there is a problem in the content of the
1980 campaign, it is not that issues are
being ignored or incompetently defined by
the candidates. The problem is that the
propositions the voters are being asked to
judge are not questions on which most pru
dent people would want to give categorical
answers.
There is little in the national experience
— or in most people’s personal experience
— that prepares us to cope with a world of
double-digit inflation, recurring energy
shortage, nuclear parity, Islamic militance
and Asian tribal wars. The solutions to
these problems are less obvious than the
experts would like to pretend.
It there is great volatility in voter opin
ion, as there has been, it may
irrational response toagamewl
card dealt seems to be a joker,
Faced with this kind of
impression is that voters are
putting aside the search for haii]
to policy questions they cannol
ed to resolve satisfactorily for
and are focusing on something
judge: the character, capacityuj
of the candidates.
Those judgment have been
ing shape, hut there is no nee
Each state brings its own conshlnH
active participation in the prow Ted I
first time. hyperl
Those who would decry thepr|
cause it seems to produce presi
didates of whom they do not
approve are probably not
Rather than wracking their braini
resolve inherently equivocal
tions, the voters are making
precise jusgements on the sldliij
candidates.
That may not meet everyoneij
of excellence in picking a Preside
will do until a better systemco«
(c) 1980, The WashingtonPostl
B
Salting streets in Hamburg killed trees
Massive effort used to spare foliagr
ersity p
n for th
ondemr
it grou]
flicial ai
f wome
Dr. W
;t, has
diether
regnan
earch 1;
arm th
hows n
jckness,
“Ten y
dth pre
)K whe
ase of tl
“But d
cted, I
ithing
ie said.
To cor
r one of
compr
imulate:
handier
*'ater. T]
Decor
ommon
aused v
'ubhles;
fter son
'erson s’
kater toe
|es can 1
nd blooi
abides <
y causir
®in. At i
'anently
dng dea
«med t
aice no s
he fetu:
tarmed i
*1, rese;
Keep h ;
Ye has f
ken t
By GUNTER HAAF
International Writers Service
This winter, for the first time in years,
the municipal authorities in Hamburg used
cinders rather than salt to than the city’s icy
streets. But the change, brought about
under pressure from environmentalists,
has come late.
For the millions of tons of salt already
spread across Hamburg in years past have
caused irreparable harm to its trees, and
the prospect is that the only green that may
be visible in the future will be traffic lights.
As far back as 1968, Hamburg botanist
Ulrich Ruge was warning that salt was des
troying the city’s foliage, and his observa
tion was echoed in other quarters else
where in the country.
Engineers pointed out, for instance, that
salt had a corrosive effect on steel bridges.
And hydrologists complained that salt,
used to create traction on rural roads dur
ing snowy winters, was polluting streams
and lakes.
Professor Julius Speer of Munich disco
vered, for example, that Schlier Lake in
Upper Bavaria had a salt content that
approximated that of the Atlantic Ocean.
Until recently, these findings made little
impact on local officials, who argued that
their primary responsibility was to motor
ists. But last December, a new study pre
sented to the environmental commission of
the Hamburg city legislature altered old
attitudes.
The study, undertaken by a university
research group here, concluded that salt is
not washed away when snow melts in the
spring, but accumulates from year to year
in the soil bordering streets, thus attacking
trees, shrubs and other plants.
The researchers documented their con
clusion with photographs showing that
numbers of shade trees lose their leaves
unusually early as a result of slat infiltrating
into their roots.
The lindens that line the Esplanade, one
of the main thoroughfares here, were found
to be standing in soil that contains 55 times
more sodium and 24 more chloride than
normal.
A heavy concentration of sodium is dan
gerous because it displaces potassium,
which is vital to foliage. It also kills nut
rients and chokes roots, affecting trees in
much the same way as drought.
Even if no more salt were spread on
streets, the soil in this city is so highly
saturated with sodium that many trees can
not survive. The older ones will die first,
and the younger ones are likely to be
stunted.
A similar phenomenon is taking place in
Vienna, where studies indicate that be
tween one-fourth and one-third of that ci
ty’s trees will be lost within the next
decade because of salted streets in winter.
Besides fighting against salt, moreover,
specialists here have been campaigning to
care for trees in various other
surgery, irrigation and building
to reduce sodium chloride f
through flooding.
This effort to save trees,
tremely expensive, often eats
environmental budgets. Forest r
cost of liquid fertilizer enriched* r
organisms may be more thantk e
new tree.
The increasing costs of
certainly contributed to the deci
to curb the use of salt, since the* 1
estimated that prevention is d* 1
attempts to cure dying foliage
A good deal of damage has ab
done. But it looks as if a lessee
learned — and in time, hopeful
apparent in this city’s greener
M
th
T(
(Haaf writes on science and-
for Die Zeit, the West Germ* 1
newspapers.)
THOTZ