Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 14, 1984)
Opinion Page 2/The BattalionAThursday, June 14, 1984 Stopping alien flow What to do about illegal aliens is a question that has plagued U.S. lawmak ers for years. U.S. Border Patrol officials say they never have enough manpower to stop the flow of illegals. The deputy director of the Immigration and Naturalization ^Service in San Antonio says the Patrol is “grossly understaffed and has been for years.” But Congress is taking steps that will further damage the Border Patrol’s abil ity to do its job. A House proposal — which passed overwhelmingly this week — will require U.S. employers to verify each employ ee’s legal right to be in the United States. Employers could be fined or jailed if they don’t comply. But who’s going to have to check up on the employers? The Border Patrol will. One official calls the plan an “admi nistrative nightmare” that will neces sitate a major personnel increase. The Congressional approach to the problem indicates a desire to treat the symptoms rather than rather than at tacking the disease — an over-bur dened, under-staffed Border Patrol. If the Congress is really concerned about the illegal alien problem, it should give the Border Patrol enough money to do its job right. Whether you believe in penalizing employers or pardoning illegal aliens — two widely differing perspectives — doesn’t matter. Neither proposal will stem the flood of illegal aliens entering the United States each year. And those proposals won’t fund the Border Patrol. — The Battalion Editorial Board Slouch by Jim Earle zaklh .. “I think I can give you a sug gestion as to how you could im prove your image in class. ” The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member of Texas Tress Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Rebeca Zitumermann, Editor Bill Robinson. Editorial Pa^e Editor Shelley Hoekstra. City Editor Kathleen Hart, News Editor Dave Scott, S(>oi is Editor The Battalion Staff Assistant News Editor Dena Brown Staff Writers Robin Black, Kari Fluegel, Sarali Oates, Travis Tingle Copy Editor Trade Hohib Photographers Peter Rocha, Dean Saito Editorial Policy Letters Policy The Hatl.iliftn is a non-prtUit. letters to the F.tlimr shnuhl not scir-stii>fjniling o/kt- exceed $00 wnttls in length. 1 he atctl sis a cnmnninin set dec in etliinri.il stall reserves the i ight in Texas AXM anti lit van-College etlii lei ten lor stile anti length Inn Station. will make every elTnii lo maintain Opinions exprcssrtl in The Hat- the author's intent. Each letter must talinn are those ol the Ftlilorial he signet I anti must inclutle the atl- Ihtartl or the author, anti do not dress and telephone numher ol'the necessarily reptesent the opinions writer. ol Texas AXrM administrators, lac- I he battalion is publisheil Mon- ulty or the lloattl ol Regents. day through Friday during Texas AXrM tegular semesters, except lor The battalion also serves as a holiday and examination fteriotls. lalmratory neuspafter For students Mail suhst riptions are Slti./Ji /kt in refxnting, ethtittg anti photogra- semester. $$$.25 /ter school year phy classes within the Department anti 5$5 /kv Full year. Atlvettising oFConunttnications. rales Fut nidted tin retptesi. United Press International is en- Our adthess: I he battalion, 2W titled exclusively to the use For re- Reed MtDonaltl buiUhng. Texas production oF all news tlispatt lies AXM University. College Station, cretliietl to it. Rights oF icprotluc- I S 77S I$. lion oF all other matter hetx'in t e- Sectuid class funtage pah! at (a>l- scrvetl. lege Station. TX 77X1$. weew Sweeping up network TV programming By ART BUCHWALD Columnist lor The Los Angeles Times Syndicate U.S. hospital patients need 'golden arches' By ART BUCHWALD Columnist Lor The Los Angeles Times Syndicate I have a friend who is a hospital administrator. When I saw him the other day he was very de pressed. “I’ve just been to my hospital’s board meeting,” he said. “They okayed a $5 million nuclear scan ner, but refused to let me pay $45,000 for a new chef.” “Why is that?” “They said food has nothing to do with medi cine, and the hospital was losing too much money on the kitchen as it was.” “You would think that decent meals would have as much effect on people getting well as anything in a hospital.” “I tried to make that case, and they all looked at me as if I was crazy. They said sick people don’t really care what they’re served. Since there was so much pressure on the board to hold costs down, the only place they could cut them was in the food.” “Can’t you get the medical staff of your hospi tal to help you get some decent meals for your patients?” “The doctors are afraid to speak up when it comes to the food because they believe that if we spend more money feeding our patients it will stop the hospital from buying new equipment. They’ve told me, off the record, that they try never to make their rounds while the patients are eating off their plastic trays, because it makes them sick to their stomachs.” “Why do you believe hospital food has tradi tionally been so bad?” “Very little research has been done on the sub ject. If a patient doesn’t eat, the doctor usually prescribes more tests to find out what is wrong. Instead of sending more blood down to the lab, they would probably find the answer if they sent the meal down and had it analyzed. I’m sure they would be shocked when the results came back.” “But there must be some learned men in the medical profession who are aware that the food going into their patients could be retarding their recovery.” “They’re reluctant to speak up because all their colleagues would laugh at them. I know one physician who did a study with sick white rats. He fed half of them a typical hospital meal consisting of a piece of gray boiled fish, a half-cooked por tion of noodles, and jello in a paper cup. The other half were fed broiled shrimp, chicken and matzo balls, and a French creme caramel on china plates. The rats who had the boiled fish re fused to eat their meals and got sicker, and the ones who ate the chicken and matzo balls became well in no time. With scientific evidence to prove his case, the doctor delivered a paper before the American Medical Association, proposing medi cal institutions pour as much money in their food as they do in ther equipment.” “What happened?” . “Blue Cross brought him up on charges of malpractice for trying to bankrupt the American hospital system.” “I can see where that would discourage all fu ture research in nutrition.” “One of the biggest problems in trying to im prove the quality of hospital food is that students, when going to medical school, have no choice but to eat hospital food when they are in training and they lose their taste buds before they complete their residency. There for, many of them are ob- libious to how bad it really is. I’ve seen patients in my hospital who have taken their plastic trays and thrown them on the floor in rage. Instead of a doctor trying to find out why he did it, he pre scribes tranquilizers to calm the person down.” “Do you think if hospitals served better food, the patients would get well faster and be out ot the hospital much quicker?” “It’s hard to say because no hospital has ever been rich enough to afford it.” The TV network program schedulers are 1 coming more ingenious with each passingseasi The other day I walked into a TV product| center and I saw a man sweeping up all videotape from the floor. I thought he wasajrI tor, but he turned out to be a vice presidem charge of “Creative Programming.” “Why are you sweeping the floor?” 1 ai him. “There are a lot of good shows here,"hesi| “I’m looking for TV bloopers and gaffes tin can put together for mext week’s special.” “You mean mistakes people made that at I left on the cutting room floor?” “You got it. The outtakes of the goofs hj now become more popular than the showslhti selves. The audience loves them and it docs cost us a dime. The trouble is that we’ve useil | so many real goofs that we may soon havetosc producing fresh ones just for our show.” “You mean you want people to purposj make mistakes when they’re doing a straight]* gram so you can use them on your program “That’s correct. We sent out a memotoi news departments and production companfc mess up as much as possible so we can use 1 foulups on our special. And we’re now writ into our contracts that a TV performer hat produce three bloopers for every straight sf that can be aired.” “You’ve really come up with a cheap fontii entertainment.” “All the networks have gotten into the att) one believed there was gold in all the screwupsi TV.” He finished sweeping the floor and hatii the videotape to an editor. Then he said, “Hit to check on whose birthday is coming up so> can do a special honoring the person.” “I notice there have been a lot of shows feats ing old-time TV personalities lately “It’s a big business. You find some starfra the Fifties and Sixties and you give a dinner! him and then you invite all his friends to for nothing to say funny things about theperso and you can fill up an hour and a halfofprir time. The only one we have to pay is the caterer “You have to be a creative genius to thinkofi idea like that.” “That’s what we’re paid for.” “Holding down cost seems to be the name the game in TV.” “You use what you’ve got. I’m not organ!®! all our soap operas to compete in theTV‘S« Olympics.’ But our biggest special this year* be a mud wrestling match between the princip of‘Dynasty’ and ‘Dallas.’ If I can arrangeitwti talking about a 45 share in the ratings.” “Are you working on any new shows?” “What do you mean new? The materialma) old, but the concepts are original. Anyone create a brand new show, but it takes imagina® to recycle what you’ve shown already.” We went outside and the vice president stam going through the trash can. “What are you looking for?” I asked him, “You never can tell what shows are in here,® til you hit the bottom of the barrel.’ Listening to presidential runners-up By DAVID S. BRODER Columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group WASHINGTON — Gary Hart is getting a great deal of advice these days on what he should do, now that it’s clear Walter Mondale will be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. My own advice would be simple: He can relax and wait for history to justify his good judge ment. Hart has been telling the Democrats they must update their message and their image if they are to regain power. Odds are, he will be proven right. Among the more overlooked principles of our politics is the Harold Stassen theorem, named for the man who unsuccessfully sought the presi dency so many times. In its majestic brevity, Stas- sen’s Law states: Runners-up are always right. The law got its name in 1948, when Stassen was a serious challenger to Thomas Dewey. Stas sen tried to tell the unheeding Republicans that Dewey had the voter appeal of a turnip. But would they listen? Hah! From that day to this, the American voters have stubbornly refused to heed the wisdom of those who finished second. Hart is just the latest in a long tradition. In 1980, George Bush said it was “voodoo eco- monics” for Ronald Reagan to suggest that he could cut taxes, boost defense spending and still somehow balance the budget. No way, said Bush. Four years and several hundred billion deficit dollars later, he has been proven right. Also, in 1980, Edward Kennedy warned that if the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter for an other term, they would forfeit the election. Car ter, as it turned out, was able to carry only six states. Go back to 1976. Reagan tried to tell the Re publicans that they could not win with the un elected President, Gerald Ford, who had risen to his post through the good graces of the disgraced former President, Richard Nixon. But, of course, they wouldn’t listen. Ford had the delegate votes. On the Democratic side, the permanent No. 2 to Carter, Rep. Morris Udall, advanced what should have been an obvious proposition: Don’t nominate a man who lacks a sense of humor. Even if he is elected, Udall said, you will live to regret it. least favorite source for unwanted truths. Whfl he finally won something — the vice presideno by appointment of Ford — the habit of scornini him was so ingrained he was forced to yield» Bob Dole at the next convention. No one in modern times has outdone Rockf feller in dramatizing paraty indifference to wisdom of the challenger. Who will ever fo the spectacle of the Republican delegates howli«! down Rokefeller’s message at the Cow Palace® 1964, when he tried to say that the odor of es tremism” surrounding Barry Goldwater’s canifr dacy would doom him to defeat? He was. And they did. Do you wish more examples? Skip over Hubert Humphrey’s comments on what awaited the Democrats if they ran George McGovern in 1972. Go to the classic case of Richard Nixon, of whom the Republicans were thrice warned and by whom the Republicans were thrice burned. In 1972, it was Rep. Pete McCloskey (R-Calif.), who ran against Nixon in the New Hampshire primary, saying that Nixon was congenitally inca pable of telling the truth. Four years before, it was Gov. George Romney of Michigan who ques tioned whether Nixon had any intention — let alone any “secret plan” — to end the war in Viet nam. And way back in 1960, the first time Nixon ran, there was New York Gov. Nelson Rockefel ler telling fellow-Republicans that Nixon would not lead them to victory but to shame. Dr. I oceanoj associat plannin ciences announ man. Schir Septl, lilies fr Fried m: rell ma; roles as the new ject anc tive will Instituti Deep E; Merr associat Fahlqui for acad The ; papers ports, J A&M f promoti 1976. A ch< earned College graphic lm Uni A U.5 Wednesd provision reform b trative ni Mexico b are up as j Don Ci the Bord said maj< be necess IVk Ui BRCP dogs ru leashes ; their ne< border v and fort Becar der tha Matamo working Grande travel fr Askec help cat amoros, f< / 0 / F The examples can be extended indefinitely, clear is the rule that the runner-up is rijM Equally true is the corollary proposition that it 11 weaker the challenger, the greater the perilf® 1 the unwarned country. McCloskey was just* gnat-bite to the Nixon campaign in 1972—W look where Nixon and the nation were two yea® later when Watergate confirmed his warning Similarly in 1964, Democrats gave little heed® George Wallace’s suggestions that Lyndon Jolt® son’s Great Society plans just might overstra® the management capacity of those “point' headed bureaucrats who can’t even park tht| bikes straight.” \ t] Three times the challengers were right on the subject of Richard Nixon, and all three times they were ignored by the recidivists of the Republican Party conventions. Rockefeller practically made a career of being the Republicans’ runner-up and, therefore, their Given our history, the worst portent of R® 1 gan’s possible second'term is that no one in l 11 party is willing to be the runner-up who warn®® us about it. But Democrats have no excuse. Gary Harti® sacrificed himself to fulfill his historic mission* prophecy. Pay close attention to what the man saying. The runner-up is always right. He