Viewpoint The Battalion Tuesday Texas A&M University June 9, 1981 s • Becai igh, tl Slouch By Jim Earle “My letter home came back saying it was undeliverable, and no forwarding address. Probably just a post office mistake, but then maybe ... Debate sponsors begin looking ahead By DAVID S. BRODER WASHINGTON — The last things on most people’s minds these days are the presidential debates of 1984. But the Lea- que of Women Voters is not like most peo ple. Having sponsored the Carter-Ford de bates in 1976 and the Reagan-Anderson and Reagan-Carter debates in 1980, the women of the League are already turning their minds to keeping this fledgling tradition alive in 1984. As one who has publicly questioned the appropriateness of the League’s sponsor ship of these debates, I was a bit disarmed by the invitation to join League officers and some interested politicians, lawyers and academics in a discussion at League head quarters last week about the future of the debates. Two things became clear during the ses sion. The League is awfully anxious to con tinue as prime sponsor of presidential de bates. And its leaders are probably more aware of the risks in the debate game than any of us who have criticized them from the sidelines. Naive they are not. The League regards the debates as an exercise in civic education, which they are. But they are also prime pieces of political theater — which guarantees that the fight over the timing, location and casting of the debates becomes a matter of major import ance to the campaign strategies of rival can didates. The 1980 Carter-Reagan debate had the largest audience in television his tory and played a big part in the Reagan landslide. What first bothered me about the League’s sponsorship of these debates was the fact that an avowedly nonpartisan orga nization — which, in fact, has constituency pressures of its own — was playing a critical role in an affair on which a whole election could turn. To whom was the League accountable, when it excluded indepen dent candidate Eugene McCarthy from the 1976 debates, included independent John Anderson in the first 1980 debate (boycot ted by Jimmy Carter) and excluded him from the last debate? The answer is no one — any more than the Nashua Telegraph was accountable to anyone for its now-famous decision to invite only Ronald Reagan and George Bush to its debate before the 1980 New Hampshire primary. If the Leqgue is going to continue as sponsor of the debates, the discussion made clear, it would be better for its own sake — and for the credibility of the debates — if the ground rules could be laid down public ly in advance, rather than negotiated under heavy pressure and in deep secrecy with the candidates’ representative who are reading pre-election polls. The League officers would like such stan dards to be worked out in advance, if only to avoid the charges of arbitrariness such as those that followed their decision to set a 15-percent poll standing as the cutoff for Anderson and other independents seeking admission to the 1980 debates. Based upon the defeats of Ford in 1976 and Carter in 1980, there is beginning to be a suspicion among campaign managers that the debates work against incumbents. That may not be true, but it will make incum bents even more assertive than they have been in the past in setting down conditions for their own participation. They have not been shy about arm-twisting the League officials. Looming always in such negota- tions is the threat that if the League balks, some other organization can be found that will give the President what he wants — and thereby grab the glory of sponsorship. Is there any escape form this escape from this dilemma? Two suggestions were made. Many of the League officers and many of the kibitzers were attracted by the proposal of television producer Jim Karayn, who staged the 1976 debates, that a blue- ribbon, bipartisan commission be formed to lay down in advance “fair’’ ground rules for the next round of debates. I see nothing wrong with that as a way to try to constrain the arbitrariness of an in cumbent in manipulating the eventual negotiations. But first I would like to see the Republican and Democratic parties challenged to join in proposing their own permanent rules for presidential debates. They are the organizations that choose presidential candidates, and it would be appropriate for them — through a negotiat ing committee named by their national chairmen — to set forth the terms of future debates, and then commit their respective candidates, through a party bylaw or con vention resolution, to participate. It is a challenge the parties ought to con front, before we resign ourselves to more frantic, closed-door negotiations in the League’s offices, with campaign managers using boycott threats to impose conditions on the debates that no one — including the League — finds easy to defend. Warped Proposal warrants scrutiny nient is said M ■Transit] sity. I “You water i Editor: There is a proposal floating around which should be closely scrutinized, and I believe reflected as not being beneficial to the student body. As it is rumored a deci sion will be made in June on this proposal, those opposed to it need be informed and move quickly — such is my aim. The current proposal is to create a new intramurals complex, without lights, equip ment shed, irrigation system, or infields constructed. In essence services will be asked to clear an isolated piece of land west of the current Penberthy facility, fence it, and that is all! Included in this plan is the turning over of Field 14 of the Penberthy facility to the exclusive use of the Women’s Softball Program. This field would there fore be fully fence enclosed, have a mix sand-humus infield re-installed, be worked daily, and be restricted to the use of the 20 some odd women’s fast pitch players, and coaches.This plan will take a field away from the Intramural Program. In essence the student body will lose the services of one conveniently located, well constructed (if ill kept) field, dedicated for mally to intramurals less than two years ago, for a vacant lot (you remember them from when you were 6 or 7 and played in them). This will be a long trek away from campus (most people will use transprota- tion of some sort), and will cost the Intra mural Department the ability to offer: 12 football games per week in the early fall; 12 soccer/flickerball playing hours in the late fall; and 8 softball hours per week in the spring. If these figures alone were all we are dealing with, then the case for injury to the whole student body would already be made. However, the Women Softballer’s will certainly not want Intramural games going on while they are playing. I certainly would not. The fans which they are moving here to get (a subject we will touch upon later), sitting in a well built facility, should not be subject to distracting noises, flying softballs from other fields, and from players warming up. Nor does the congestion give the Women’s Fast Pitch game the prestige which it deserves. If we estimate only 1 hour of interface per week during the spring (surely a conserva tive figure knowing their large schedule — and nothing we are not figuring in any inter face in their fall schedule), and thus cancel lation of games on fields 11-13 for 1 hour (also a very conservative figure since the idea will be to minimize congestion all ab out the event. Since their games usually last 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 hours, a clearing of the com plex for 2 hours would be more likely asked for. However, just the exclusion of 1 hour of fields service on 11-13 will make the point). This will eliminate another 3 participation hours per week in the spring, bringing that total to 11 hours per week being taken away from Intramurals. The Intramural Department, as exempli fied by their recent “open house” meeting with interested participants, is on the verge of limiting the amount of team entries. (This past year we operated at 98% capacity). This proposal’s adoption would assure this occuring, and in fact would force a reduc tion in team entry numbers substantially from current levels. Further, those who are fortunate enough to participate (those who are in the block long line at 7 a.m., the first day of sign up for football, softball, and possibly soccer and flickerball) in the future would do so in a facility far inferior physical ly, and isolated from campus. Why did this proposal come about? It surfaced because the Women’s Softball Team has trouble generating attendance at Bee Creek Park (their present home). It is felt by them that a location within walking distance of the campus could facilitate their games ability to draw a crowd. There is some logic in this, and it might work!? However, there are two very large ques tions to be answered before this can be said to be a viable plan. First, how can we sub stantiate the use of a field, historically com mitted to the enjoyment of the whole stu dent body, by only 20 plus members of the student body 365 days a year? In reference to the number of playing hours curtailed by this proposal, and extrapolating those fi gures to see how many teams and thus per sons will be excluded suggests that 1672 participants will be excluded from Intramu rals. This is not to mention the accompany ing exclusion of fan participants, and re venue to student officials would i| tailed due to fewer games beingjl Thus, 1672 (a very conservativefis. not be able to participate so posedly “equal” students can i to themselves close to the Universtl is not my definition of equality does come close to godhood! Semi has it been proved that WomeusSi when their games have been raovetj door” will draw substantially crowds? Yes, they may get a dropii! since they will now be so near (a!; they already get a drop-in crowd dents from the Arbor Square Ap® ^ ( near Bee Creek which will notfe na ] ers ar she sai Thi [emini! jnic st; iefs, L softball (the number one people America), but an extremely com] game appreciated by only a close bit of loyalists. If this proposal goes thi will not be supporting the advance the Women’s Fast Pitch Team’s si fans, but rather we will be neglei needs of many for the selfish inters^ verv few. Beware of neutron mothballs govern ited taxatio termer mg rec By DICK WEST United Press International WASHINGTON — This is National Pest Control Month, folks. Let us celebrate accordingly. In a commemorative statement distri buted, not to say solicited, by the National Pest Control Association, President Reagan urges all Americans to “support and partici pate in responsible and effective pest man agement practices whenever we can.” The path is clear. It behooves us all to swat a fly, spray or squash a roach and take a termite exterminator to lunch. Actually, however, the modern trend in pest control has been away from direct fron tal assault. Thanks to the leadership of the Agricultural Research Service, the emph asis has been on developing subtle ways of doing in insects. One of the landmark experiments in volved the sterialization by radiation of male screwworm flies. This is one area where we may only have scratched the sur face, or whatever is itching. If large areas can be rid of screwworms by rendering males incapable of propaga tion, it stands to reason that radiation has a bright future in home pest control. The outline for the next chapter may have been written on Three Mile Island where the management of that troubled nuclear power plant reported finding radioactive “mouse droppings” on the pre- the conventional sense. But build a better mousetrap using the principles of nuclear engineering and the world surely will beat a leadlined path to your door. And if a nuclear-powered mousetrap is just around the corner, there is no reason why the principle couldn’t be applied as well to insect control. The latter prospect seems further en hanced by the advent of the so-called “neut ron warhead,” a weapon that causes rela tively little blast damage but greatly in creases the spread of radiation. Let’s say Elrood J. hears a strange noise in the attic and, upon investigation, discov- the small society ers that moths have chewed bolesi bellows of his bagpipes. He immei ;ures,’ heads for his friendly, neighborhd was pa control store and buys a neutron moil value- Instead of repelling moths, it alt charge them with the smell of bagpipes. Ilf: 1 bomb goes off. While the explosiond* ” ent damage to the attic, it releases e® radioactive gas to render moths incapal . parenthood. ^vh We may not see this in our lifetimt mg,- J it’s coming. Meanwhile, perhapssoffi man c ventor inspired by Reagan’s PestCd Conor Week message will build a radioaefe pass a featec The v istate i Bricbfc paper. “I \ ime t egan by 'Aoo-^o-Cl THiN^ WHAT gg: - THE TptolJ0L& l« THAT WE'|?E ZTlll WHAT we u-sep T3 ee- rnous ] busim ©1901 King Features Syndicate, Inc. World rights reserved. That discovery suggests the world’s first atomic moustrap may now be technically feasible. I’m not talking now about nuking mice in By Scott McCullar 5 ALLEN THERE? /V0, m AFRAID HE'S... HE PROMISED, HE SWORE TO /AR, I DEPENDED ON HIM, I WAITED ON HIM AND NOW I’M IN DEEP TROUBLE BECAUSE OF HIM AND BY GOD I'M GONNA 6ET H/M. I’Vv IN FACT, I'M COMING OVER THERE RIGHT WOW AND GIVE YOU THE BEATING OF your LIFE, THAT'LL SHOW HIM, AND THEN- The Battalion U S P S 045 360 MEMBER Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congres LETTERS POLICY Editor Angelique Copeland City Editor janeG. Brust Photo Editor Greg Gammon Sports Editor Ritchie Priddy Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff News Editors Marilyn Faulkenberry, Greg Gammon, Venita McCellon Staff Writers Bernie Fette, Kathy O’Connell, Denise Richter, Cartoonist Scott McCullar Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 length, and are subject to being cut if they are Ion? 9 editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for length, hut will make every effort to maintaintk*® intent. Each letter must also he signed, showthe** and phone number of the writer. Columns and guest editorials are also welcome,^ not subject to the same length constraints as ^ Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Edi |fI Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M College Station, TX 77843. EDITORIAL POLICY The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a community service to Texas A&M University and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Bat talion are those of the editor or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M Universi ty administrators or faculty members, or of the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Department of Communications. Questions or comments concerning any editorial matter should be directed to the editor. The Battalion is published Tuesday, WednesiM Thursday during Texas A&M’s summer semesleft subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 pe r year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates fun® request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald;.' ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, Bi‘ United Press International is entitled exclusivelyt 4 * use for reproduction of all news dispatches crcdiW Bights of reproduction of all other matter herein if* 4 *! Second class postage paid at College Station, R 1 "