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.