Page 2/The Battalion/Friday, June 20, 1986
Playing games
The almost unanimous approval of harsh sanctions against
South Africa by the U.S. House of Representatives was too good
to be true. The bill was designed to be a strong statement to Pre
toria that the United States will not support government-sanc
tioned racism. Instead, House Republicans turned it into a polit
ical powerplay to ensure that sanctions of any kind are never
passed.
“This whole bill is dead,” said Rep. Mark Siljander, R-Mich.
“Sanctions are dead.”
The bill, proposed by Ronald Dellums, D-Calif., would end
all U.S. business operations in South Africa, prohibit importing
and exporting operations (except for strategic minerals), perma
nently ban the importation of Krugerrand gold coins and with
draw landing privileges for South African aircraft.
If approved by the Senate and signed by the president, the
measure would order all U.S. companies out of South Africa
within 180 days.
House Democrats were on the verge of passing less aggres
sive sanctions, for fear the call for total and immediate disinvest
ment would not gain the necessary support. But the Republi
cans, most of whom support either more moderate sanctions or
the Reagan charade of “constructive engagement” had other
ideas.
The passage of this extreme bill means a compromise with
the Senate, after it passes its own sanction bill, will be nearly im
possible.
The United States has dragged its feet on the disinvestment
issue long enough. The mosquito-bite-sized sanctions imposed
by President Reagan last September do not have the teeth
needed to encourage the South African government to dis
mantle its system of apartheid.
The Republicans, however, seem more concerned with play
ing political games than with actually dealing with the apartheid
issue. They have made a mockery of the earnest attempts of
their colleagues who truly are concerned with ending the gov
ernment-sanctioned racial oppression in South Africa.
The Battalion Editorial Board
Crosswalks aren’t
just for the blind
Motorists on
the Texas A&M
campus have
more to gripe
about than the
campus police, al
though the police
are everybody’s
favorite scape
goats. Personally,
I’m bothered by
another pesky an
imal.
The pedestrian.
Not your average, look-both-ways-be-
fore-you-cross-the-street pedestrian.
I’m talking about Texas A&M pedestri
ans — kamikaze street-crossers who
throw themselves without fear in front
of moving vehicles, causing unsuspect
ing motorists to put years on their tires
(and lives) slamming on the brakes.
It's common at most colleges and uni
versities for pedestrians to have the
right-of-way on campus streets. That’s
fine, as long as the privilege is used with
a little common sense and courtesy. But
pedestrians on this campus use neither.
If you’ve ever been caught in your car
on campus between classes, you know
what I’m talking about. You might as
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Michelle Poue, Editor
Loren Steff v, Opinion P;ige Editor
Scott Sutherland, City Editor
Kay Mallett, Sews Editor
Ken Surv, Sports Editor
Editorial Policy
llic Battalion K a nun-fyiolu. sclt-sui>i>auing nci\ spu-
f)ci opcnitcd ,i' .i (ommunii\ savin' to Texas A&M and
lit \ ,m-C(tllcirc Si.ninn.
Opinions exf)!csscd in 1 Ik* Battalion me those at die
Tditoii.il lio.ud oi die .inthoi. and do noi necessmih lep-
lesent die oijinions ol Texas A&M adininistimois. t.unh\
oi the lioaid(d Ke^ents.
I Ik- Battalion aTo sei \ es as a lalxnmoi \ new spapci tot
students in teiiottiini. editing and photogiapln (lasses
n it Inn the Dep.n tinent oT loin luilistn.
I Ik- Battalion is published Mond;i\ through hi ida\
dining Jexas A&M legnl.n setncsteis. except tot holidas
and examination periods Mail suhsi i iptions ate
pei setnesiei. S.TTlU pet st hool veat and 5.0 pet hill
\ eat \d\ a Using tales Ini nished on ret/nest.
Out addiess: flu* Battalion. - lb Reed McDonald
linilding. Texas \&M L ni\ et sitx. (.allege Station. 7 X
77N7.T
Set and ( lass postage paid at (iollegc Station. TX 77S-4.I.
TOS l MAS I TR: Send addiess changes to flu* Battal
ion. '216 Reed \h Donald. Texas A&M I niversitx. College
Station 7 A 77S-46.
well turn off the car and pull out a good
book, because you’re not going any
where. It seems it’s too much to ask, say
every two or three hundred students or
so, for the wave of bodies to pause and
let one car pass. But no. Instead you idle
for 20 minutes until the masses have
gotten to class.
Then you can proceed. Carefully.
The coast never is clear entirely because
there are always a few stragglers lurking
in the shadows, waiting to step in front
of oncoming vehicles.
If they would act alarmed — these
daredevils on foot — and jump back in
fear, I would be more understanding. I
might even stop for them. Instead, they
glance, unconcerned, at the car and
keep walking. It’s maddening.
It’s also dangerous — for them.
Are these people being brainwashed
at Fish Camp to ignore motor vehicles?
Surely the parents of these students
taught them at some point to watch out
for cars. Where did those lessons of yes
teryear go?
What sort of rationale directs a per
son to willfully step in front of 2,000
pounds of steel-on-wheels? Are these
people confident that the motorists they
challenge always will be compassionate
or concerned about manslaughter
charges? They shouldn’t expect such
protection once they set feckless feet off
campus; they’re fair game out there.
I do my best while driving on campus
to watch for Aggies wandering aimlessly
into the streets, but I can’t be held re
sponsible for the safety of Aggie pedes
trians any longer. Someone has to re
teach Aggies how to look both ways be
fore crossing, before they are thrust
into society and toward their own inevi
table doom.
Although it is difficult to prove, there
is strong evidence that Aggies have the
highest mortality rate in auto-pedes-
trian accidents of any college graduates
in the nation. I believe it.
Even if administrators, health and
public safety officials continue to ignore
this problem, it won’t go away. Even if
we motorists continue to outdo our
selves protecting these pampered pe
destrians, motorists outside of Aggie-
land will not.
So remember pedestrians, you may
be safe on campus, but the crosswalks
aren’t so candy-coated in the real world.
Michelle Powe is a senior journalism
major and editor for The Battalion.
Michelle
Powe
Opinion
r
TUNYkKTKii;
WAtfWM-'-lUlS
w&swmY
COONTR/ MltlKX?
TO YOU'.
By (
■he Al
iccaine t
ommit i
ite, buyii
ent to Si
itell east
■he fr
une 5 fr
and clevi
,y SVilliai
nirjdied?
I Station,
Valiev res
A 30-b
)eeti des
detjed as
/ear. said
Janima 1
'he fratei
las guar
/ear mort
Pat Vk
3anima 1
inning di
"ions the
,vith the \
■he A
:overs ap
■n for
©$S£> U TtEd FEtfUrtiW
ABM treaty needs scrutinizini
EDITOR ’S
NOTE: This is the
first in a three-
part series on the
ABM treaty.
The Soviet
Union was sud
denly speaking, in
Geneva, about
how maybe we
ought to just re-
new the ABM
William F.
Buckley Jr.
treaty for maybe 10, 15, 20 years. De
fense secretary Casper Weinberger’s re
action was: No; this is an ambush. But
other voices have been heard, urging us
to go ahead, and perhaps to use the for
ward momentum to ax all those new
missile systems.
The president, meanwhile, had of
course announced that he would no
longer feel bound by the terms of SALT
II, and the reaction to this was as ex
pected from the disarmament lobby.
But the feeling is that the the events of
1972 (SALT I and ABM) and 1979
(SALT II) are in flux. It is time to re
view the ABM treaty, because the con
text of what happened bears critically
on good judgment in the days ahead.
developing the safeguard program,
given the technology of the day. The
second factor was the Vietnam War:
Congress was being fractious with re
spect to anything that had to do with the
military. Yet another was the spirit of
detente. Nixon had just opened the
door to China, and now he was traveling
to Moscow to sign a treaty designed to
cut drastically the inventory of nuclear
weapons — indeed, one sometimes for
gets that SALT stands for exactly that:
Strategic Arms Limitation ( Treaty).
There was a rosy glow in Washington-
Moscow, and there were those who be
lieved that true strategic disarmament
was finally under way.
Accordingly, Nixon signed not only
SALT I, which spoke of limits in the
number of launchers, but also the ABM
treaty, which (as modified in 1974) lim
ited to single site the use of no move
than 100 interceptor missiles.
During the period between the Sovi
ets’ first atomic bomb (1949) and 1972,
the United States was concerned with
protecting itself from a nuclear enemy
fusillade. The system went under the
name of safeguard, and contemplated
complex radar stations, fighter planes
and missiles. Gradually, this evolved
into what was called an anti-ballistic mis
sile program.
But by 1972, several factors came to
gether to persuade the Nixon adminis
tration to move in a dif ferent direction.
One of these was the huge expense of
What then happened, over the next
dozen years, was that the Soviet Union
continued to spend prodigious sums of
money to reduce its exposure to nuclear
weapons. More than 50 percent of its
expenses on strategic weapons (which
are huge) was spent on what one might
call defense-oriented activity. Over the
years, the Soviet Union has deployed
12,OOO surface-to-air missile (SAM)
launchers at more than 1,200 sites. It
has in place 1 (),()()() air defense radars
and more than 1,200 interceptor air
craft dedicated to the strategic air de
fense mission. Greater Moscow is heav
ily defended by anti-ballistic missiles,
civil defense is in high gear, and com
mand headquarters are protected
deeply. The Soviet Union has become a
mighty def ensive fortress.
Meanwhile, the United States more
or less gave up any thought of defense.
Civil defense died completely. We al
lowed, through obsolescence and attri
tion, the v ii tual dissipation of owd
git aii defense system, to quotfj
Defense Department official. \'od
was made to harden our ICBMsorltj
ership facilities. We have noSAlli]
strategic air defense warningradana
a mere 500 aircraf t assigned loI
tensive purposes. What hadbejM
common commitment to muuiil
suied vulnerability had evolvedH
Soviet Union not by any means yd
pregnable, but headed in that did
at great speed, while in the id
States we were king on the bl
naked as a newborn babe, svlm,M
ever, held in his hand a fearfulliiykt
rod in case he was disturbed.
Then, in Julv ol 1983, mn said
revealed what was happening atH
noyaixk. m Sibeiia. I here theM
Union has built a pbased-array™
cility, 470 miles from its nearestIw
but oriented toward a horde/ 5]
miles away. The nature ol vkIw
being built there was obviouslv-
futablv — designed not to uans..
an impending attack, but loimemv
lackers bv guiding missiles to I?
them down. A very good idea,ft
that it was in clear and explicitviri;
of the ABM treaty, which liniiteifi
installations of that character to pr 1
ery use — i.e., purelv for tliepttip
detecting incoming eneim tuitb
Tie.
Krasnoyarsk was spotted by ns
four months after Reagan atinoii-
his Strategic Defense Initiative
seek to insinuate that Krasi/orash
response to Reagans aimmiiKf
that vve would seek a space shill
(fiat does not wash. Kra.s'nopmkJ
the other projects aimed at delciK
begun vent s eat lie) . Weludsyrf
project well along toward complete
What to do about theABMiii
(Please stay tuned.)
$TV\
mi
rht
a.r
tin
:OL:
of
his
mm
>k
? v
Ra
ret
IBRY
tvi:
cat
Dt
cal
TAM
tw
(SAIL
Ov
Fo
jAGG
§0
MSC
m
sh
ON i
re
tm
fit
an
dt
Kt
co
Use
of
sh
or
Item
21
Copyright 1986. Universal Press Syndic^
Mail Call
EDITOR:
Mark Udeseems to think that perhaps AIDS should to
be allowed to run its course and rid society of
homosexuality once and for all. It’s easy to see how
ridiculous that scenario is. About 10 percent of the
population is homosexual, and that number is thought by
many to be cross-cultural and constant over time.
If all of the practicing male homosexuals were
eradicated, they would simplv be replaced in a few years by
a generation w Inch is now learning to read and write.
Maybe even Ude’s future children will be among them.
AIDS simply is not a practical way of exterminating a
significant portion of our population (gas chambers would
work a little better).
There is no doubt that promiscuity has contributed
greatly to the spread AIDS, but promiscuity is not a gay
phenomenon. I think heterosexual men would be
promiscuous if women stopped saying no. I don’t promote
promiscuity. In fact, if AIDS has had any positive effects it
has opened the eyes of many gay men to the joys of
monagamy.
Ude didn’t mention the other half of the gay
community: women. It should be noted that gay women
are often less promiscuous than heterosexuals, and as such
run less risk of contracting AIDS.
I don’t understand why Ude opposes gay marriages,
since they are in essence monogamous, and would help
slow t he spread of AIDS. But then, Ude wants us deal
Kevin McLeod Baily
Vice President, Gay Student Services
EDITOR:
Mark Ude’s Wednesday column makes his incrediM)'
uncompassionate bigotry obvious. The AIDS virus runs
rampant in Africa where it first began to infect humans,
did not begin in the gay community in the United States
Mark’s theory that AIDS is God’s way to take venganceo'l
homosexuals, does it then follow that God is taking
vengeance on black people in underdeveloped countriesl
guess if they all died we wouldn’t have to worry about |
famine relief, would we?
Also, Ude’s proposal that AIDS be allowed torunitsj
course and that the United States not spend money to I
research treatments so as to kill off the homosexuals,“anI
undesirable element of American Society,” is and ideal 1
is strangely reminiscent of Adolph Hiker’s attemptsatT
elimination of undesirable races.” Besides, AIDS is a j
potential threat to everyone.
I think it a good idea if Ude would “reconsider liviiuf
these United States”. Adolph I filter types are the most |
undesirable of all types of people.
Gregory Graybill
Department of Biochemisty
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. TlieetiL'
staff reserves the l ight to edit letters for style and length, but will!’
every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each letter mustbtsi;
and must include the address and telephone number of the writer.
i
%