Page 2/The Battalion/Thursday, March 10, 1983
X L°ve You, MeNRV, Bur iT’U- NeveR work.
Your Vipeo RecoRDeR i& BeTa, HfNe i& VH§;
You Have a SaTeU-iTe DiSH, r’M HaPPV WiTft caBiej
awo our coMPuieR& aRe ToTaU-Y iNcowPaTiBLe.
CEEcnJ
|0©©
c^IeiN mea
QOCKW MtW. HZuIS, .•83
How to restructure
your own bank loan
by Art Buchwald
Dunaway told Tinker and me the
other day that the bank was going to fore
close on his house because he was unem
ployed and could not make his payments.
He asked us if we had any ideas.
Tinker said he would go down to the
bank with him and see if he could help
him out. 1 tagged along to give Dunaway
moral support.
“We re here today,” Tinker told the
vice president, “to restructure Dunaway’s
loan.”
“And what exactly does that mean?”
the VP asked.
“Dunaway is not able to pay on his
note, and therefore we want to postpone
his payments until he gets a job.”
“We don’t do that.”
“The heck you don’t,” Tinker said.
“You people are restructuring loans all
the time. You do it with Poland every
year.”
“Poland’s a country. Mr. Dunaway is
an individual.”
“You’re doing it for Pan American
Airways.”
“Pan American Airways is a company.”
“Why isn’t Mr. Dunaway entitled to the
same treatment you give Poland and Pan
Am?”
“We can’t foreclose on Poland. It
would start a panic in world banking cir
cles. And we have to give Pan American a
chance, or we’ll never see our money
again.”
“How much does Poland owe you?”
“Somewhere in the area of a billion
dollars.”
“Well, Mr. Dunaway only owes you
$50,000, and you have a better chance of
getting that back from him than you have
of getting your billion dollars from Po
land.”
“You’re obviously ignorant as to the
way banks operate. When someone owes
us $50,000 we take his house. When
someone owes us over a million we have
to work something out to make it possible
for him to pay us back.”
“Then what you are saying is that Mr.
Dunaway doesn’t owe you enough
money to get any respect?”
“Don't put words in my mouth. What I
am saying is that we don’t restructure
$50,000 mortgage loans. It isn’t worth
our time to postpone the payments on
them.”
“Fair enough,” Tinker said. “That’s
why we’ve come to see you. We’re not
here to pay back the $50,000. We’re here
to borrow another $950,000, so we can
owe the bank an even million.”
I was tugging on Tinker’s sleeve ner
vously.
The VP said, “You must be crazy to
ask for a $950,000 loan. What kind of
collateral can you put up?”
“We’ll put up the same collateral Mex
ico and Brazil did to get their loans.”
“What do you know about Mexico and
Brazil?”
“I understand each of them owes you
$500 million and you can’t get your
money back,” Tinker said. “I have it on
good authority you are going to loan
them more money so they can pay the
interest on the money they’ve borrowed.
Mr. Dunaway is willing to work out a
similar arrangement. If you loan him the
money to pay the interest on his mort
gage, we won’t tell anyone about Brazil
and Mexico.”
“You can’t threaten me,” the VP said.
“That’s what you think. According to
my information, you have $4 billion in
loans outstanding to the OPEC countries.
Now that the price of oil has plummeted,
your OPEC clients have informed you
they won’t be able to meet their obliga
tions. If word gets out that these loans
could be in default, you’ll have a run on
your bank that will make the Penn
Square debacle look like a church picnic.”
“What do you want from me?” the VP
said, wiping his forehead with his hand
kerchief.
“We want you to give Mr. Dunaway
the same financial courtesy you extendea
to Poland. Allow him time to get a job,
and don’t foreclose on his house until he
gets back on his feet.”
“I can’t make this decision myself. It
will have to go to the Board of Directors.”
“Well, don’t take too long about it,”
Tinker snarled. “You’re not dealing with
some banana republic.”
USPS 045 360
Member ot
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion
Editor Diana Sultenfuss
Managing Editor Gary Barker
Associate Editor Denise Richter
City Editor Hope E. Paasch
Assistant City Editor Beverly Hamilton
Sports Editor John Wagner
Entertainment Editor ....... Colette Hutchings
Assistant Entertainment Editor . . . . Diane Yount
News Editors Daran Bishop, Brian Boyer,
• Jennifer Carr, Elaine Engstrom,
Shelley Hoekstra, Johna Jo Maurer,
Jan Werner, Rebeca Zimmermann
Staff Writers
Melissa Adair, Maureen Carmody,
Frank Christlieb, Connie Edelmon,
Patrice Koranek, John Lopez, Robert
McGlohon, Ann Ramsbottom, Kim
Schmidt, Patti Schwierzke, Kelley
Smith, Angel Stokes, Tracey Taylor,
Joe Tindel, Kathy Wiesepape
Copyeditors JanSwaner,
Chris Thayer
Cartoonist Scott McCullar
Graphic Artists Pam Starasinic
Sergio Galvez Thompson, Fernando
Andrade
Photographers . David Fisher, Dena Brown, Eric
Lee, Irene Mees, John
Makely, William Schulz
paper operated as a community service to Texas Ac'i-M
University and Bryan-Collef'c Station. Opinions ex
pressed in The Battalion are those ot the editor or the
author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions ot
'Texas A&M University administrators or lacttlty mem
bers. or ot the Board ot ticfrenis.
'The Battalion also serves as a laboratory neyyspaper
lor students in reporting, editing and photography clas
ses 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 dOO words in
length, and are subject to being cut if they are longer.
The editorial staff reserves the t ight to edit letters for
style and length, but will make every ef fort to maintain
the author's intent. Each letter must also be signed and
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, 21(5 Reed McDonald. Texas A&M L'ni-
versitv. College Station. TX 7784d. or phone (71d) 845-
2611.
The Battalion is published daily during Texas A&rM's
fall and spring semesters, except for holiday and exami
nation periods. Mail subscriptions arc $ 16.75 per semes
ter. $33.25 per school year anil $35 per full year. Adver
tising rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald
Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843.
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit. selT-snpportinir netr.s-
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.
Unfinished story of toxic wasti
by Maxwell Glen
and Cody Shearer
Almost daily revelations about possi
ble conflicts of interest and other indis
cretions at the Environmental Protection
Agency have prompted predictable
rumblings. Journalists here make odds
on how far the scandal’s taint will reach;
lawmakers have seemed more obsessed
with constitutional powers than with
public health.
Unfortunately, those outside this poli
tical drama deserve to be cynical. Sure to
remain after congressional committees
have stalked their prey are some legiti
mate questions about toxic waste.
For example, how safe is safe?
In Missouri an entire town has been
bought out by Uncle Sam because its
dioxin count exceeds safe levels of 50
parts per billion. Roughly speaking, a
part per billion is equivalent to a drop
within a train of 100 tank cars, one
second in 32 years, one Yankee fan in all
the sell-Cmt crowds in the history of the
New York club. Environmentalist Gus
Speth says the dangers of such “subtle
menaces” vary “in inverse proportion to
their ability to be quickly and easily
understood.”
from outright poisoning?
While the answers are too complex to
merit more than outline here, they have
roots in America’s tremendous industrial
and technological growth during the
20th century. Waste products from tex
tiles, metal Finishing, tanneries, steel
mills, pharmaceuticals, solvents and all
manner of chemicals have generally been
discarded by manufacturers in the
cheapest way possible. While consumers
happily reaped rewards of “better living
through chemistry,” producers often re
sorted to dumping byproducts to keep
overhead down.
At first, the wastes were nominal in
bulk; today the U.S. accumulates 350
pounds of hazardous waste per person
per year. And yet, according to Samuel
Epstein, a University of Illinois medical
professor and author of a recently-
published book, “Hazardous Waste in
America,” federal lawmakers — even
during the ecologically-oriented 1970s —
have attempted with only kid gloves to
llu
take on polluters.
Why do we allow the manufacture of
such deadly substances as dioxin, of
which only three ounces could wipe out
New York City’s population? Who de
cides to unleash dangerous substances on
an unwitting populace? Does Congress
have the political will to fully safeguard
the soil and water of future generations
Take, for instance, the Toxic Subst
ances Control Act of 1976, a well-
meaning law that, by all regards, has lie-
come practically useless. TSCA empow
ers the EPA to ban certain toxins before
they are marketed. Unfortunately, the
law remains only half implemented,
underfunded and excludes byproducts
from its purview. As a result, argues Ep
stein, the EPA has banned only a few
dozen the several thousand chemicals in
vented since 1976.
Or consider another 1976 statute, the
Resource Conservation am]
Act. The law exempted smat|
and any hybrid of toxic;
material from regulation; coj
mm h <>! i lie nation's danw
leeches through legal loopbi
Then there’s Superfund.J
law l>\ I’ii adoni Ri agan FiiJ
ly by contributions IrompruJ
the Superfund lawalsoencoi
to contribute money fon
However, most states, alreat
for cash don't set aside moa
cleanup; if the state doesn'ti
share to a cleanup effort, i
response is statutorily limi(fii|
Perhaps more discount
is that certain solutionsalreai
the safe management of i
Many substances can bereadj
or ini mri an d safely andprol
non-toxic substitutes areal
for many dangerous prodit
market. Yet the public andp
tors have been slow to reseanj
velop new applications.
Despite the ovenvhelminil
implications of ignoringthwj
meins m io\ii inanagementf
lawmakers may be emironiM
lent if oul\ I 1’ \ i hit I
loses her job in the comingvd
But America’s toxic moK
beyond the combined gloprpi
private dumps and poison-fact I
around the U.S. Without pro |
the grass roots, continues coni fc
disregard f or life-threateningi |
will assure the recurrencec
tion horror stories in the fuiJ
IP
pr
by
LQOKMKS.,.THERE<50R WALTER MATTHAU'S GARAS£.„
B:
I'ormer
erues De;
Rudder
dnesdi
A& M mus
dition to si
to beiom
Aliericas.
Look, s
year’s Uni
said that 1
efforts to
meet the
society,
f Look, i
lessor liei
worries of
next few' \
m—'find
come. Loi
gradual d
revenues,
ha\e to I
money.
»•— find
jwith “st
mint.” Ci
Payment
number <
ave tak<
People.
recr
students a
from Latii
Cook said
Letters: Sex a decision made by
Editor:
To: Shawn Stevens
It may be easier for you believing that
morality is a unified thing. Yet morals are
something every individual should de
cide for themselves. If morals include
pre-marital sex, they aren’t necessarily
based on having a form of contraceptives
available. Not all teens go around “secret
ly” getting contraceptives. The secrecy of
using contraceptives, comes after the de
cision to have sex, which eliminates diffe
rent beliefs and confrontation within a
family. If pre-marital sex is not wrong to
an individual, they will probably partici
pate in it with or without birth control
devices. Statistics prove that there are
many unwed “mothers” in this country.
Stating that pre-marital is a temporary
feeling is generalizing an attitude that is
different for every person involved. Not
In closing. I’d like to restate that
although all of us believe “morality can
not be enforced’^, it has been said that
parental guidance will help young teens
“accept the standard of morality and
make us act in a decent manner.” Why
should our parents make a decision for
us that we will eventually decide upon at
“legal” age? Is there a belief that more
girls decide not to have sex at eighteen
because they didn’t when they were
are ‘women promoting p. oducisi
other women more desirablf
aren’t the only ones that promoi!
joy “lust.”
younger:
Shawn ends with the thoughi
one must have sexual relations
must ... get married.” The imp
that premarital sex cannot be a"
ing experience” or “decent” is
I’m sure that more than four
would sign this letter.
C. Jackson ’85
Brian I
Sex vs. lust
Sex and taxes
Editor:
Editor:
everyone loses their dignity and feels
guilty about sex before marriage. Mar
riage may be the only commitment
worthy enough of sex for some, but the
belief of “love” is also a commitment in
itself.
This letter is in response to Shawn
Stevens’ naive sermon on sexuality and
morality. Her opinion on contraceptives
was so scrambled that I won’t even com
ment on it.
To say that Steve Patti has only his own
pleasure in mind may or may not be true.
The male race is not always the cause for
pre-marital sex. It is a decision made by
two people, so there is obviously a mutual
want present. If your morals outcast pre
marital sex you should be sure enough to
say no when the opportunity arises.
There are many girls in this country that
feel a desire and go with it. To rest the
guilt on Steve or all of the “lustful” male
population is overstating a fact that guys
have less to worry about.
When Shawn was in high school she
“knew it was wrong to be sexually active”
and about “the problems pre-marital sex
causes.” Wrong!? Says who? Sex doesn’t
cause problems, ignorance does.
Shawn also explained that American
lifestyle is lusty “because lusty men seek
to advance it.” As far as lust goes, it takes
two to tango. She asks why there is so
much lust in soap operas and advertising.
At least two of America’s soaps are writ
ten by a woman for a target audience of
women. Half of the television ads I see
I have but a few words tosaf 1
people who support the squeal
you support the squeal law, f#
your prerogative. But I alsohop^
willing to have your taxes increas (
ficantly so that welfare checks
issued to those unwed mothers*
not support themselves and theii
mate children.
Kids are bombarded with the
sex from all angles: television,pe (
ure, movies, magazines, etc. lftl 1,
to be sexually active and wanttoi 11
birth control method, (granted
nance is the best method), then
means, they should be able to do*
out the fear of their parents beii 1
fied. I can’t even begin to imagi 1
high the birth rate would soar
squeal law is passed. Can you?
Jan Grand