Page 2AThe Battalion/Wednesday, September 11,1985
OPINION
Reagan dodges
embarrassment
President Reagan changed his mind over the weekend, sud
denly deciding economic sanctions were necessary to encourage
South Africa to abolish its apartheid government. Friday, Rea
gan believed his policy of “constructive engagement” was work
ing.
But threats of a sanction bill passing Congress over Reagan’s
l passing i
veto, seems to have motivated the president’s change of mind.
Reagan issued an executive order Monday which banned ex
ports of nuclear technology and computer equipment and pro
hibited the issuing of loans to the South African government,
except for those which aid blacks. Reagan also proposed a ban
on importing Krugerrand gold coins.
The order is an attempt by Reagan to avoid an embarrassing
veto override by Congress. Congress’s bill would have been
harsher, but would have contained most of the sanctions which
Reagan implemented.
The Reagan sanctions, except for the Krugerrand ban, are
nothing new. A ban on the sale of the computer equipment to
South African police and restrictions on the sale of technology,
which could be used to develop nuclear weapons, have been on
the books since the Carter Administration.
Reagan’s sanctions are long overdue, but lack sincerity. His
concept of “constructive engagement” doesn’t support the eco
nomic suffocation that the sanctions will create.
It’s good to see action taken against South Africa. Reagan’s
new stance on the issue isn’t heroic, but rather a maneuver to
keep out of an embarrassing situation at the hands of Congress.
The Battalion Editorial Board
Mail Call
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length. 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
be signed and must include the address and telephone number of the writer.
Laurels for Pallmeyer
EDITOR:
Congratulations to Karl Pallmeyer
for his column of September 4 in
which he raises the question that has
troubled me ever since the death of
Bruce Goodrich last August — why
has the Corps as an organization not
been called to account for the actions
of its members?
I was amazed to learn from Mr.
Pallmeyer’s column that Gabriel Cua-
dra, who was convicted of tampering
with evidence during the Goodrich
investigation, was involved only three
months earlier in an incident in
which freshman cadets were beaten
with ax handles. For his part in that
incident, he was put on probation, yet
he was in a position to tamper with
evidence in the Goodrich case. This
not only emphasizes Mr. Pallmeyer’s
question, but also raises the question
of how well the Corps is controlling
the activities of its members —or
whether it is even attempting to do
so.
If, as Mr. Pallmeyer suggests, the
Corps is primarily interested in main
taining an image as opposed to pro
moting the welfare of its members,
then what does it say for their image
to have two cadets who participated
in the Goodrich incident back in the
Corps this fall?
And what about the University
that sponsors and shelters this orga
nization? Mr. Pallmeyer notes that
hazing as a traditional (there’s that
word again) Corps activity has never
come to trial. The reason for this is
that Texas A&M cannot permit such
a trial. That would point a finger at
109 years of physical and mental
abuse that the University has implic
itly condoned by looking the other
way. If the Corps is image-conscious,
they are no more so than the Board
of Regents and the University as a
whole.
To those who would point out that
the cadets involved have been pun
ished, I would ask what a total of
$650 in fines, $750 in scholarship
contributions and 300 hours of com
munity service really represents? Is
this the value placed on Bruce Good
rich’s life? Just as important, does it
mean that any meaningful action will
be taken to eliminate hazing once and
for all?
Gary W. Guthrie
Lashings for Pallmeyer
EDITOR:
This letter is in regard to Karl Pal
lmeyer’s editorial of Sept. 4.
Mr. Pallmeyer, of course everyone
remembers the death of Bruce Good
rich and the strong words spent for
many months concerning the inci
dent. But, I don’t believe anyone,
even you, can comprehend fully what
took place that evening. Only Bruce
and the men involved know. Until we
can understand, should we in our
short-sightedness condemn these
men without searching out the whole
truth? I’m tired of the shallow
mindedness of The Batt — always
condemning things they are too igno
rant to understand. You never seem
to search out the feelings of all con
cerned, and this is a valuable journa
listic quality called insight.
Mr. Pallmeyer, you stated that “it is
obvious the Corps wants to forget the
whole story of Bruce Goodrich.”
Where were you when the Corps ate
its evening meal in complete silence
that following day? Who had the
backbone to tell about the cadets’
tears, frustrations, and angers? I am
not in the Corps and I cannot judge
the members, but at least I have the
courage to look at two sides of a very
sad story. You chose to use the word
“force” when describing the actions
of Bruce’s upperclassmen. He may
have been urged to participate, but
using “forced” is misleading and
false.
I know you realize the power of
words. I just hope that the next time
you do battle with any organization,
that you have the courage to not just
seek out one side of a story, but to
look in all directions and seek out a
whole truth. I remember, Mr. Pal
lmeyer, that you once wrote an article
about the National Guard and re
hashed how you had so often as
sumed it to be full of a certain type of
people. Perhaps if you did the same
for the Corps and other groups, you
could be equally enlightened.
This is not a letter set out to pro
tect or try to rescue the Corps. They
don’t need it. This is to point out that
ignorant, biased opinions in the
hands of journalists are the most vio
lent and dangerous weapons. I just
hope you don’t slaughter us all be
fore you learn what respectable, good
journalism really is.
Judy Redding ‘87
si
'TEAef»ts
bfUO'S M
Cost-efficient space luxuries
mean more research money
A couple of
weeks ago, as
summer jobs
came to an end
and the U-Haul
trailer business en
tered its peak sea
son, a very signifi-
cant event
sneaked by.
An astronaunt
had a Coke break
Camille
Brown
between orbits. Soft drinks in space.
Coke was quick to point out that its
product was sippped first, followed by a
Pepsi, tasted several minutes later. Of
course if the Pepsi people didn’t have
spies watching the Coke people, Pepsi
would have been left out of the deal al
together.
Coke arranged to send a Classic up with
the space shuttle, and when Pepsi found
out, they demanded equal space in
space.
Eight cans went up. Four of each
brand, in all fairness.
But if anyone should get a prize for
making history, it should be Pepsi. For
its four cans, Coke spent millions on re
search, compared to the couple hun
dred thousand Pepsi spent on its half of
the eight pack.
But this isn’t the first time ineffi
ciency has plagued the research on
adapting earthly goodies to the world of
weightlessness. It recently has hap
pened on a more serious scale.
A shocking news story hit the wire last
spring. The Russians moved ahead in
the space toilet race because their Space
John worked and the United States’
Space John flopped.
The U.S. spent millions on perfecting
the high tech toilet, and the Soviet
Union spent about as much as Ronald
Reagan makes in a year to develop a toi
let which is as basic as a remodeled out
house.
The outhouse worked. Our million
dollar museum piece is still in the repair
shop.
Which household necessity will be the
next most sought after space luxury?
Some common household items will
likely cost a fortune to redevelop, and
others will still cost a fortune, if this re
search trend continues. An item will be
expensively tailored for space, while si
multaneously someone will come up
with the same thing in cost-efficient
form.
For example, this scenario: One
spaceship totes space-adapted, de
hydrated, microwave-safe boil-a-bag
meals, and a passing space shuttle
laughs and points because they saved
millions by serving the old earthly favor
ite, foil-wrapped pinto beans and corn-
bread.
As result, spacecraft number two
has more money to spend on valuable
research projects, while spacecraft
number one can only chomp on the
delicacies brought about by boil-a-bag
research.
But as of late the U.S. is headed in
the right direction. The Soviet Union,
Japan and the European Space
Agency are spending millions on a
plan to intercept Haley’s Comet. The
U.S. backed out of the project because
of budget problems, and has taken on
a mission that could be just as useful to
science, and at a fraction of the cost.
The U.S. is sending an existing sa
tellite to intercept the smaller Giaco-
bini-Zinner comet, and if does it will be
the first man-made object to intercept
a comet. More importantly, particles
on the comet could help scientists in
vestigate the origin of the solar system.
So there.
We will win a race, and do it withina
very reasonable budget.
With space research in its neonatal
stage, engineers will have more oppor
tunity to choose between one of two
routes: very expensive or expensive.
When the choice exists, less money
should be spent on a perhaps less ex
travagant version of the same idea.
In the near future, when the space
suits are handed out, the companies
who spend millions solving a hundred
thousand dollar problem will be the
ones sucking for air.
Coke research team, take note.
Camille Brown is a senior journalism
major and a columnist for The Battal-
© 1983 by NEA, Inc
“Get back in your room and study. Do you want
to be Lee lacocca, OR NOT?”
The Battalion
USPS 045 360
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Rhonda Snider, Editor
Michelle Powe, Managing Editor
John Hallett, Kay Mallett, News Editors
Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor
Karen Bloch, City Editor
Travis Tingle, Sports Editor
The Battalion Staff
Assistant City Editors
Kirsten Dietz, Jerry Oslin
Assistant News Editors
Cathie Anderson, Jan Perry
Assistant Sports Editor
Charean Williams
Entertainment Editors
Cathy Riely, Walter Smith
Staff Writers Tamara Bell,
Meg Cadigan, Ed Cassavoy,
Ann Cervenka, Cindy Gay,
Doug Hall, Paul Herndon,
Tammy Kirk, Jens Koepke,
Trent Leopold, Mary McWhorter,
June Pang, Tricia Parker,
Lynn Rae Povec, Marybeth Rohsner,
Gigi Shamsy, Kenneth Sury
Copy Editors Rebecca Adair,
Mike Davis, Sifrah Oates
Make-up Editor Ed Cassavoy
Columnists Marcy Basile,
Camille Brown, John Hallett,
Karl Pallmeyer
Photo Editor Wayne Grabein
Photographers Greg Bailey,
Anthony Casper, Franlc Hada,
Kyle Hawkins, Jaime Lopez
Michael Sancnez
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper
operated as a community service to Texas A&M and
Bryan-College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the
Editorial Board or the author, and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty
or the Board of Regents.
vs pa per
students in reporting, editing and photography classes
within the Department of Communications.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday dur
ing Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and
examination periods. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per se
mester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Ad-
s turn'
vertising rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald
Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843. Editorial staff phone number: (409) 845-3316. Ad
vertising: (409) 845-2611.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battal
ion, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
77843
ByCHR
The gove
gether with
tries to furtl
nent spat
administrat
Texas A&M
Ray Coll
ministrator
technology
Space Rest
Engineerinj
Colladay
terns that a
group on a
ready being
But engit
tails are stil
said.
“What wi
what resoui
and univer
ment’s resoi
While N
mainly on
platform, a
search Cen
neers have 1
station coul
engineers ai
The Lan
encourage t
Sch
By KR
The Erie
begun fall
year of tht
child progr;
The prc
mothers ant
lary Blake,
tor, says.
The pro
year-olds b
most trying
says the two
ing as an int
“The pn
credible sui
Blake says.
Both mo
trust new s
time friend!
The schc
for new mol
they can lea