Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 30, 1981)
i ! I i I: 1 t i •' ' The Battalion Viewpoint o November 30,1981 !■« Slouch By Jim Earle "What a break! After much hard and secretive work, I’ve managed to put together all of the final exams given in the course for the last five years. Do you realize that all I have to do is to review these tests and I can get out of studying for the final exam?’’ Forget nuclear weapons; U.S. falling behind in diaper race By DICK WEST WASHINGTON — In the opinion of the magazine Working Mother, some of this country’s best day care centers are operated by the Defense Department. Commenting that “day care is almost as important to the Pentagon as defense,” the magazine gives high marks for conveni ence, safety and dependability to the baby sitting facilities on 400 military bases. U.S. military day care centers are re ported by Working Mother to have a 500- kid capacity. They operate under babysit ting rules drawn up at the Pentagon with respect to such hardware as playpens and baby bottles. For instance. Working Mother says “no child may be left in a playpen more than 15 minutes at a time when awake,” and “all babies are held for bottle feedings until they are 11 months old.” What Working Mother does not provide, either qualitatively or quantitatively, is any comparison between U.S. military day care centers and those in the Soviet Union. We have all heard alarming reports that the Soviets have developed superior baby sitting techniques. Yet is has been my ex perience that hard information on the Soviet day care capability is hard to come by. According to some estimates, believed to have originated at the CIA, Russia already has deployed enough bottles and playpens to accommodate nearly 300,000 babies. By those figures, the Soviets appear to have a 6-to-l edge. It should be pointed out, however, that many of the Soviet day care centers are equipped with model SS-14 playpens that are inferior to standard American equip ment. The SS-14s actually are little more than modified bassinets, with only one-baby capacity and lacking the easy folding poten tial of more sophisticated playpens. U.S. military day care centers, by con trast, all have MB (multiple-baby) playpens whose sides and floors can be readily accor- dioned for quick storage and mobility. The newer U.S. playpens also are lieved to have better slats thansomeof Russian models. The slats of the Soviet Z-200 playpen, example, reputedly are so far apart tli some babies conceivably could get tli heads wedged between them. Other aspects in which American-bi playpens are deemed to have the lead elude: §0 — A greater number of colored beads — More advanced rollers. There also is doubt by some day a analysts whether Soviet baby bottles k the heavy-duty plastic composition need to withstand rigorous day care feedings If, as these analysts suspect, Sovietk ties are prone to develop leaks and In their shape when thrown from a crib, tin mere numbers alone are fairly meaningles On balance, although the Soviets maji somewhat ahead in burping tactics, i observers agree there is no disposable^ er gap. Coach Wilson has alumni support Editor: We will get right to the point: the reten tion of Coach Tom Wilson by Texas A&M Universitv. stating that coach Wilson is doing a great job and urging that he be retained. We want the Board, Council and President to do the same. The news media are having a field day with this and have done so since the day Coach Wilson was promoted to the job when Emory Bellard quit at midseason. Hardly a day goes by that some newspaper, radio talk show, or 'TV announcer doesn’t report a “rumor” from College Station that Coach Wilson’s job is on the line. Speculation by the news media destroys A&M’s credibility and our ability to attract the best athletes possible to A&M. Con stant innuendos and carping by A&M’s Board of Regents devastates recruiting and undermines our maintaining a positive, winning outlook. Coach Wilson was forced into his job by a shocking, sudden resignation by a good coach. He had not had previous head coaching experience; he inherited players who were threatening to leave the universi ty because of Bellard’s resignation; he was given only lukewarm support by the Board and the university administration and cer tain “influential” alumni who chose to “wait-and-see” before endorsing his selec tion as head coach; and his short tenure has been surrounded constantly from the Very beginning with specualiton and rumors ab out this imminent departure from Aggie- land. then? Who would want to work here? Who could feel secure for even one week, much less several years, with that type of attitude toward coaching? Good coaches are not found on trees — they grow and develop with the program just as the players do. Coach Wilson has brought this team a long way. He is just as upset as any Aggie grad or student over the very, very bitter losses we have endured in his tenure, espe cially this season’s. But he is not a quitter. He is a leader, a fine gentleman and a great coach. His work has barely begun to prove it self. Prove to all Aggies and the rest of the sports world that A&M is not a “coaches’ graveyard” with a revolving door. old gentlemen who can’t accept life and| changes. H.O. Wahrmund, Jr. ‘44 Tena Wahrmund H.O. Wahrmund, HI, ‘74 Houston John HampaBy BA Mineral Wit , "with froi ;c aft 972 < Why won t the Athletic Council, Presi dent of the University, and Regents issue one of their famous “unanimous” resolu tions backing Coach Wilson 100 percent? Why do certain members of A&M’s Board and other “influential alumni choose to purposely undermine and sabotage every effort Coach Wilson has made to upgrade the football program to one of honor, integ rity and multiple victories? The Former Students Association has voted to issue a proclamation unanimously Coach Wilson, however, has risen above the turmoil and given these outstanding players he now coaches a cohesiveness and desire seldom found anywhere in intercol legiate athletics. Other coaches, sportswri- ters and alumni testify to the almost spir itual quality of this year’s Wilson-coached team. They are a TEAM, not a bunch of talented individuals looking for individual honors — they win and lose as a team. Suppose we do fire coach Wilson. What Tike any other coach;' his credentials must,start somehwere and that happens to be Texas A&M. Coach Wilson and-his able staff are doing all thev can to improve and win. BUT THEY CANNOT DO IT ALONE AND THEY CANNOT DO IT WITH THEIR JOBS BEING THREATENED EVERY DAY IN THE NEWS MEDIA! Editor: With all the loose talk occuring in the news media concerning Coach Tom Wil son, why doesn’t the University president take a stand and give Tom Wilson a vote of confidence to continue his program of re storing guidance and respectibility to the' football program. Coach Wilson as well as his assistants and even the football players are only being placed under additional un due pressures because of the various is pr< f Jam at tl id an We are all loyal, dedicated alumni who have not missed a single football game, home or away, in the past 12 years, we ask that you immediatley issue a strongly worded resolution giving Coach Wison your utmost enthusiastic support as the head coach at Texas A&M for the next three years. rumors. My two oldest sons, Gary and Neil, class of ‘78 and ‘80 were both associated with Tom Wilson, as they both were varsity let- terman managers; and they like so many other young men are deeply impressed with Tom Wilson’s guidance, honesty, in tegrity and character. Why can’t the university guide the athle tic department and not several, out-of-step Editor: Isn’t it time that Texas A&M Univerc comes to its senses — that it grows up and stops its racket-like changes in footl coaches? How can any coach do his best from the date of his hiring, sniping by !»§" 20 erflil interests makes his life worse HelT 1 las Tom Wilson really had alairchani Can anybody do a decent job when a pad alley rats are biting his heels in every® ment, day and night, from the date of hiring? From my time, 1912-16, has A! coach, except possibly D.X. Bible, had chance at Texas A&M? Were I the coach in all our great land 1 wouldntev consider Texas A&M at triple the higb salary in all of football, university or proff sional. Let’s give Tom a real and fair chancf Palmer (Pat #1) H. Olsen Clifton, Tei The Battalion USPS 045 360 MEMBER Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congress Editor Anftelique Copeland Managing Editor Marey Boyce City Editor JaneG. Brust Asst. City Editor Kathy O’Connell Photo Editor Dave Einsel Sports Editor Ritchie Priddy Focus Editor Cathy Saathof! Asst. Focus Editor Define Nelson News Editors Phyllis Henderson Bernie Fette, Belinda McCoy Diana Sultcnluss StaH'Writers Gary Barker Frank L. Christlieb, Randy Clements Gave Denley, Nancy Floeck, Tim Foarde Colette Hutchings, Daniel Puckett Denise Richter, Mary Jo Rummel, Rick Stolle Nancy VVeatherley, Barbie Woe He 1 Cartoonist Scott McCulIar Graphic Artist Richard DeLeon Jr. Photographers Rose Delano Daniel Sanders, Colin Valentine, Greg Watermann EDITORIAL POLICY The Bnttiilion is u non-protit, selt-supportinf! newspaper operated as a community seniee to Texas A&M Vni\ ersity and Bryan-Collefie 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 faenlty members, or of the Board ot Heyents. The Battalion also sen es 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. LETTERS POLICY Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 winds in length, and are subject to being cut if they are longer. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author s intent. Each letter must also be signed, show the address and phone number of the writer. Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, and are not subject to the same length constraints as letters. Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Editor, The Battalion, 216 Heed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77S43. The Battalion is published daily during Texas A&M’s fall and spring semesters, except for holiday and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Build ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77S43. United Press International is entitled exclusively 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. On playing chicken and budget cutting By ARNOLD SAWISLAK United Press International WASHINGTON — A prediction — after Ronald Reagan leaves office, he or one of his aides will publish memoirs explaining the full reason the president put Congress through the wringer Thanksgiving week. The account probably will go something like this: “When President Reagan took office, he found the presidency so weakened by congressional inroads into traditional executive power that he decided he had to confront the Congress on that issue if he was going to succeed in the White House. “The problem dated back to the administration of Lyndon Johnson, when the Congress, reacting against his conduct in the war in Vietnam, began trying to limit the war-making powers of the president. “Heightened by Richard Nixon’s handling of Viet nam, it resulted in legislation that restricted presiden tial authority to commit U.S. military power in areas of the world where the president believed American in terests were at stake. “Watergate made it easier to curb the presidency. Congress took advantage of the situation to further limit presidential authority to withhold appropriated funds from domestic programs. “When Gerald Ford became president, his only re course against runaway federal spending was the veto, which he used freely, but with mixed success. Jimmy Carter came to office to find a Congress so hostile to the executive that it was difficult for the president to get his programs considered, let alone approved. “Reagan was fully committed to budget cutting, but that was only the visible part of his agenda. He could not declare his intention to restore presidential peroga- tives because that would have interpreted as a power play and strengthened the opposition. To re-establish presidential preeminence, President Reagan had to bring Congress to heel on the budget. ” This bit of anticipated historical writing is prompted by the feeling that there was much more to the hectic Thanksgiving week confrontation between Reagan and Congress than a couple of billion dollars. To be sure, that is a lot of money, but the the battle was over a temporary spending measure that eventual ly will be replaced by individual money bills. Reagan will have almost a dozen more shots at spending he believes is out of line. The stop gap “continuing resolution” Reagan vetoed was freighted with more psychological significance than budgetbusting spending because his leadership momentum, established during the spring and sum mer, had stalled after the fall recess. of chicken. ” Reagan’s victory in his confrontation with the Senate on sale of the AWACS radar planes probably was more to the point of nailing down presidential power than the budget fight, but in Washington’s shark-infested wa ters a president can’t afford to let Congress draw blood on any issue during the formative period of his adminis tration. Had the President ignored congressional nibbling at his spending cuts with the continuing resolution, he might have lost the ground gained earlier in the year. So he stood fast in what he described himself as “a game The worst Reagan got out of the budget battle was a standoff. At best, he may have convinced Congress that it has to go along with him to get along with its business. Which it was may become clear when the compromise measure that that broke the deadlock expires on Dec. 15.