Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 8, 1986)
Page 2/The Battalion/Wednesday, January 8, 1986 Opinion Space: beacon of hope or harbinger of doom? Umllid Fttlun S/oJIciu The dawning of the new year brings with it the beginning of a crucial era in space technology. America has en tered the age of the reusable spacecraft. Trips into orbit have be- come common place, receiving only small notice on in side pages rather than the front-page attention they used to command. But just as these space missions are being taken for granted, so is the poten tial of space exploration. Obviously, space means vast scientific acheive- ments, but it also can be the means of political advancements. Satellites and astronauts from many foreign countries have hitchhiked on our space shuttle. Many more cooper ative missions are planned with groups such as the European Space Agency. A joint mission to Mars with Soviet cosmo nauts also has been discussed. Therein lies the greatest potential of all — coop eration. Working together, the United States and the Soviet Union could overcome not only scientific hurdles, but political stonewalls as well. The potential for peaceful cohabitation has never been greater, yet we cloud this opportunity by attempting to develop weapons which will carry our terrestial squabbles into the heavens. In the name of defense, we are pro posing the placement of armed satellites in orbit. The effectiveness and effi ciency of the Strategic Defense Initiative (or “Star Wars”) is unclear, but the polit ical motives are obvious. President Reagan is trying to sell Star Wars as an end to nuclear war. The nickname is the best advertising gimmick. It’s taken from one of the most popular movies of all time, in which a fearless young hero single- handedly defeats the menace of an op pressive Evil Empire. But how can a defense system, no matter how fool-proof, end the arms race? Better defenses merely mean bet ter offenses will be developed, perpetu ating an arms buildup, not a freeze. Many countries, not just the Soviets, oppose SDI, claiming it violates the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Ger ald C. Smith, director of U.S. negotia tions for the treaty, said those signing the treaty agreed it banned testing and development of space-based de fenses. But more im portant is the moral argument. Righ t now we are setting the pace for future space explora tion. So far un armed space craft outnumber armed ones. But how long will this blissful im balance con tinue? If we arm satellites, how long will it be be- fore we arm space shuttles? When will we leave our earthly grievances on Earth and explore the heavens as hu mans rather than individual countries? If we arm spacecraft to help fight our terrestrial disputes, what will happen centuries from now when we travel to other stars? Will we continue to battle over differences that were spawned tril lions of miles away? Space is final frontier. It’s our last chance to do things right — to work to gether to overcome our prejudices, so that even if we can’t find peace here, we may be able acheive it elsewhere. We are embarking on a brand new year, one in which the space progre could take some giant leaps for na kind — if it doesn’t trip over somesm steps for man’s hatred. Loren Steffy is a junior journal ism a jor and the Opinion Page Editorfi The Battalion. Everything you wanted to know about Gramm-Rudmar Repeat after me. Gramm-Rud- man! Gramm- Rudman! It doesn’t ring a bell? Don’t worry, I’ve anticipated all your questions. What is a Gramm-Rudman? Gramm-Rud- Art BuChWOld man is not a what, ' but a who — actually three whos — Sen. Gramm of Texas, Sen. Rudman of New Hampshire and Sen. Hollings of South Carolina. They spearheaded the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. Hol lings is usually dropped from the credit because most newspapers do not have the space to include all three names in the story. Is Gramm-Rudman-Hollings for real? No, it’s a dream decreeing that by 1991 the government must balance the federal budget by not spending any more money than it takes in. This has been man’s fantasy since he learned to fly. It sounds like a musical comedy. Some people consider it a tragedy. The military hates Gramm-Rudman be cause they fear their appropriations will be severely cut. The Democrats are afraid Gramm-Rudman will knock out all the progressive legislation achieved over the past 50 years. And the presi dent fears Gramm-Rudman will wipe out his authority to dictate a budget he can live with. You will hear a lot about Gramm-Rudman but don’t expect it to get a standing ovation. What kind of money are we talking about? The first cut is $12 billion, followed by another of $50 billion for fiscal 1987. Isn’t that a drop in the bucket for Washington? It’s peanuts, especially when we’re spending a trillion a year. But Gramm- Rudman’s goal is to eventually chop off $200 billion. Now you’re getting into street the ater. It could develop into a good fight be cause President Reagan has no intention of cutting “Star Wars.” At the same time, Reagan has no problem using Gramm-Rudman as an excuse to shut down the Small Business Administra tion, the Job Corps, the Student Loan Program and the Department of Educa tion. Why did Congress vote for Gramm- for it because they didn’t understand it. Rudman? Didn’t Congress realize that there Some voted for it because 1986 is an would be a day of reckoning if they election year. Others voted for it be- threw in with Gramm-Rudman? cause they believed the bill would em- Most of those who say they are for it barrass the president. Still others are hoping the law will be declared un thought Gramm-Rudman would help constitutional. They even put a clause in the president. But the majority voted the bill saying it had to be brought to the courts as soon as possible. Where does the president standi Gramm-Rudman? Nobody knows. When he signedik bill, he said he would be happy toset tested in the courts. But nowhewai the Justice Department to keep it fn getting to the courts. The thinkingisll president loves the idea of Gramm-Rit man but not the bill itself. Reagan'ski gest worry is that to meet the requii ments of the act Congress will dew that he raise taxes. If the president won’t raise taxes nt can he do to meet the Gramm-Rudiu conditions? Ask for revenue enhancers, whichi not taxes although they look like W feel like taxes and taste like taxes. Why are they called enhancers} Because if the president called tin taxes the Democrats would accuse ki of going back on his pledge to lo*i them. What else does the Gramw-Rudm act promise besides burlesque, tragti melodrama and musical comedy? Try soap opera. Art Buchwald is a columnist fori Los Angeles Times Syndicate. Mail Call B A mi develop A&M [ reading element student the proj The ! progran two gra< progran "Man standinj as the ' says. Biogt are usee culture’: traditioi Not vanced two gra them to In 19 change After c< own, Ni grant fi AUS Joe Dit day wh road C tinue c oil pipi tally sei Out< plicatic Co. sa which contint ion sti quired Atto the Ra sent r guaran import 1 Unsportsmanlike conduct EDITOR: After the Cotton Bowl, I witnessed five young men with “Twelfth Man Towels” taunting some Auburn fans. Other schools may display such lack of class, but I always thought Texas A&M’s pride would be above this type of thing. If you see any of your friends displaying such behavior, please remind them A&M stands for good sportsmanship, win or lose. Carolyn Goodwin Bowl coverage inadequate EDITOR: Bowl. I think that the CBS team that produced the telecast from Dal las did an entirely inadequate job. The broadcasting crew did not mention one single time during the telecast the down or the yards to go, and the down and yardage to go was never displayed on the screen. The viewer was left to keep track of the downs and yardage himself, not an easy task to do with out the benefit of a scoreboard or a view of the referee sticks on the sidelines. The camera angles used throughout the game were also poorly chosen. It is not easy to see the action of a play from the sideline shots that you presented. During the last 30 to 45 seconds of the game, the only shot seen was a view of Jackie Sherrill on the sidelines with his team. The viewer had to depend on the broadcaster’s inade quate play-by-paly anncuncements to find out that Texas A&M had indeed scored. The viewer never got to see the last A&M touchdown or the two-point conversion. I feel that your telecast of the 1986 Cotton Bowl was far below the usual high standards seen in your cover age of professional football games and other sports events. It is unfortunate that the Aggie and Auburn fans were stuck with a third-rate broadcasting crew and director. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to the return of the high quality sports coverage generally seen on CBS. Michael Allmann Just another ‘State U’? EDITOR: About a year ago there was a lot of talk going on — big articles in The Battalion and letters on the Opin ion Page —about Texas A&M striving to become a world-class university. Then came the budget cuts for Texas and the gov ernor’s promise to save the state university system from any curtailment in funds, which he kept. But Gov. White forgot about the students — the major portion and the purpose of Texas’ postsecon dary institutions. Tuition was raised and with it the potential for A&M to become a world-class university was razed. We may beat t.u., but the Aggies will never have ago university. How then can the regents hope to achieve the lofty statuso premier university if out-of-state and international students! forced not only to pay upwards of $2,000 more in tuition than If residents, but are allowed no means to pay that sum in installmen How can a university become world-class if it caters to a predoi nantly regional student body? It seems to me that A&M is destined to become just another gional “State U” while the governor’s alma mater, Baylor, achie national and international acclaim. William H. Clark II Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial si/ 1 serves the right to edit letters for style and length but will make every effort to® tain the author’s intent. Each letter must be signed and must include the addres telephone number of the writer. The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Michelle Powe, Editor Kay Mallett, Managing Editor Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor i erry Oslin, City Editor ie Anderson, News Editor Travis Tingle, Sports Editor Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper operated as a community service to P A&M and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the Editorial Board or the author and do not) 1 essarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and phciC phy classes within the Department of Communications. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A&M regular semesters, exetf holiday and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school fai ( $35 per full year. Adverdsing rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M University, College So*’ TX 77843. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.