Page 2/The Battalion/Monday, October 6, 1986
Opinion
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism (Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Cathie Anderson, Editor
Kirsten Dietz, Managing Editor
Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor
Frank Smith, City Editor
Sue Krenek, News Editor
Ken Sury, Sports Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper oper
ated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan-College Sta
tion.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial
board or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions
of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the I)oard of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students
in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Depart
ment of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during
Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examination
periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62 per school
year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on re
quest.
OUr address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216
Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station TX
77843.
The whole truth . . . ?
By staging a “disinformation campaign” against Libyan leader
Moammar Gadhafi, the White House not only manipulated the me
dia and the American people to implement foreign policy, it violated
the public’s right to know the truth.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that the White House
launched a disinformation program with the basic goal of making
Gadhafi think there was a high degree of internal opposition against
him in Libya, that his key aides were disloyal, and that the United
States was about to move against him militarily.
The campaign was confirmed by administration officials and a
three-page memorandum to President Reagan from John M. Poin
dexter, the president’s national security adviser. Reagan admits that
U.S. intelligence had been monitoring Gadhafl’s activities but denied
deceiving the public.
Secretary of State George Shultz disputes the seriousness of
spreading “disinformation,” saying that if he were a private citizen
and read about an attempt by the government to confuse terrorists,
he would “hope it’s true.”
But if Shultz were a private citizen who read about a government
attempt to spread false information about anything, he would then
have no way of knowing when his government was telling the truth.
Shultz’s approval of deceiving the American public to instigate
foreign policy is deplorable, but not out of line with previous admin
istration attitudes. As early as 1982, the Reagan administration at
tempted to show that the United States is at a disadvantage with the
Soviet Union because the Soviets have no qualms about spreading
lies through its media.
This is one case where the United States cannot stoop to the Sovi
ets’ level in a tit-for-tat exchange. Americans value their access to in
formation, and our government should also. An enlightened public
is the forerunner of justice.
The administration’s actions show no regard for this form of jus
tice. Instead it has made a mockery of this notion in the name of
questionable foreign policy techniques.
Monitoring Gadhafi is one thing — undermining his govern
ment at the cost of media integrity and public knowledge is another.
If a democracy is to work, those represented need to be kept accu
rately informed about the actions of their representatives.
We may never know whether the “disinformation campaign” was
a success. We also may never know when the administration is telling
the truth, and when they are “disinforming” for the sake of policy.
One administration offical tried to gloss over the severity of the
issue, saying, “You must distinguish between the audiences, you
must distinguish between deception and disinformation.”
The audience that deserves primary consideration is the Ameri
can people, who the administration apparently overlooked. As for
“disinformation,” although it’s popular political jargon, it’s not really
a word. That leaves only deception.
€>l<?86 HCV6TW P06T
With
and
fall comes football
reminders of lost glory
one Craig Renfro
When fall
comes around the
leaves begin to
turn brown, the
temperatures cool
down and our
thoughts turn to
such pertinent
subjects as aca
demics, intimate
dates and Ameri
ca’s number
sport — football.
In Texas, football is big business.
Whether it is played on a cow pasture in
Central Texas, Astroturf in Kyle Field
or the Semi-Dome in Dallas, you can be
assured that thousands of screaming,
obnoxious, lunatic fans will be there to
urge their heroes on to victory. And if
they lose, well, it was the referee’s fault.
With the talk of a possible national
championship in the air for our beloved
Aggies, I can’t help but think of my
glory days in high school. Those fab
ulous evenings of hard-packed, crunch
ing action, which, if we didn’t lose by
more than 20 points, we considered a
stunning upset.
We didn’t have the greatest athletic
talent at our school. One case in point: I
played on the team. I’m not saying that
I’m a horrible player, but when it comes
to blood and guts and pain and violence,
I wasn’t the most gung-ho player on the
team.
Robertson’s views religious, secular
Richard Cohen
My occasional
colleague in the
column business,
Washington Post
editorial staffer
Michael Barone,
recently chastised
people who ridi-
cule someone
else’s religion. He
specifically cited
Garry Trudeau
who, much to the
discomfort of some newspaper editors,
had a fine time in his “Doonesbury”
comic strip with the Rev. Pat Robertson.
Robertson did not complain, but some
readers did and in a few newspapers for
a few days “Doonesbury” was no more.
For some of us, “Mary Worth” did not
compensate.
Barone had a point. Of course, we
should respect each other’s religious be
liefs. That is not only a matter of com
mon courtesy, but in a pluralistic so
ciety, an urgent civic necessity. If
Americans of countless religions, sects
and denominations start to bicker about
faith, we would have little time for any
thing else. It is best to leave such matters
alone.
But Trudeau had the larger point.
Robertson is a hybrid: a religious-politi
cal figure, who is more of the former
than the latter. Having met with him, I
know he has a political program. It is an
extreme one, either radical or reaction
ary (choose your term), and certainly
outside the American mainstream. He
holds, for instance, that the states or in
dividuals can disregard Supreme Court
decisions to which they are not a party.
More than 100 years of legal precedent
and political tradition say otherwise.
To his followers and even to the rest
of us, Robertson’s politics are almost in
cidental. His religion is the broadest
plank in his political platform and the
reason he is in politics in the first place.
He says, for instance, that he will run
for president only if he gets the OK
from God and, in an exchange of letters
with his nemesis, Norman Lear, did
some awesome name-dropping. Rob
ertson pronounced himself an agent of
God and warned Lear that he was in
over his head: “Your arms are too short
to box with God.”
To me, to many Americans, those are
startling statements. Robertson is enti
tled to make them, but not under a
grant of immunity. If he says these
things in a political context, then it
seems to me that Trudeau can criticize
him in the same context. That’s not the
same thing as picking on him for his re
ligious beliefs. In Robertson’s case, his
religious beliefs are inseparable from
his politics, and in this country we de
bate those matters, often in a rough-
hduse fashion.
Can we not judge Robertson by what
he says? Are we not entitled to comment
on a presidential candidate who has
made his religious views his main selling
point? Do we have no opinion about a
man who says he is an agent of God and
who claims to have “rebuked” a hurri
cane by making it veer from its course?
If he says in a political context that he
has heard from God on an issue, can’t
we at least ask if the Lord called collect?
Increasingly in this country, we shy
from any confrontation or criticism of
religion, even when it intrudes upon the
secular. No journalist has covered any
of the recent so-called creationism trials
with the bite and ridicule that H.L.
Menken brought to the same issues in
the 1920s. We tend, instead, to treat all
ideas as if they were equal: On the one
hand evolution, on the other creatio
nism. A balance is thought to be struck,
but the scales are out of whack. Creatio
nism is religious doctrine, unprovable
and a matter of faith. Evolution is a sci
entific theory for which there is plenty
of evidence. One does not balance the
other. They are simply different.
Robertson is given the same sort of
leeway. His pronouncements are con
sidered unassailable simply because they
are religious and, perhaps, because crit
icism of him would offend his followers.
He is thus excused from offering any
evidence of his statements, from the ob
ligation to be logical or, even, to be fair.
No one wants a theological debate, but
the debate is not about theology but how
Robertson applies it to politics. That de
bate ought to be vigorous.
Like those who demand that the Bib
lical story of creation be taught in public
schools as fact, Robertson nas crossed a
line by taking his religious beliefs into
the political arena. He is in our court, a
secular one where his religious beliefs
will be treated like an ideology — re
spected by some, ridiculed by others —
with no offense meant. They are no
more off-limits than Ronald Reagan’s
quaint views on government, and we are
entitled to judge him by them.
Trudeau, in fact, has been almost
alone in doing so and rather than being
censored or condemned, he ought to be
praised. In his own way, he too rebuked
a hurricane.
Copyright 1986, Washington Post Writers Group
I think it had something to do with
the fact that I weighed only 130 pounds
— not exactly an intimidating player.
But we tried hard, and it was fun — ex
cept for the pain. Besides, if you didn’t
play some type of athletics you just
weren’t part of the “in” crowd.
Needless to say, we didn’t win many
games. Often times we were close, but
somehow in the end we managed to
snap defeat from the jaws of victory.
I remember one game from my
freshman year in particular. We were
playing on our home field, my adrena
line was flowing and the crowd was
cheering like crazy. I hadn’t been in the
game yet, but it was still the first quarter.
I knew the coach would let me get in my
obligatory four plays.
My first few plays were uneventful
because the coaches had me run 40
yards down the field just so I would get
out of the way of our running back, who
happened to be sweeping to my side. I
guess they figured that I would be more
helpful if I made someone chase me
down the sidelines rather than try a fu
tile attempt at blocking him.
The game was nearing halftime and
the score was knotted at zero. It was my
turn to get into the game again, and the
coach called my number. The play was
XYZ219-FLY. In layman’s terms that
meant the split end ran as fast as he
could down the field and the running
back threw the pass after he had suck-
ered everyone on the opposing team
into believing that he was going to run
with the ball.
I was the split end, and I remember
running down the field as fast as I
could. There wasn’t anyone within 20
yards of me and I could see the ball la
zily floating through the air with my
name on it. I thought touchdown for
sure, and delusions of grandeur took
over. I could just imagine all the girls
flocking to me the following week of
school, and how the coach would name
me most valuable player and maketnea
starter.
Just about that time the ball was
within my reach. I stretched out my
arms to cuddle that bladder of leather.
Instant hero, I thought. Then suddenly
my bubble burst — the ball went right
through my hands.
We went on to lose the game 20-0.
Needless to say, I wasn’t thrown the ball
any more that year. I managed to stay
with the team for two more years, but I
think it was just because the coaches
liked me and didn’t want to boot meoff,
My senior year I decided not to plav
because I wanted to work and make
money instead of getting physically
mangled at practice every day. Besides,
the co liege scouts weren't exactly
pounding at my door. 1 guess they had
better things to do than waste their time
on someone who would have been flat
tened by a linebacker if a pass was ever
thrown over the middle.
Those days are behind me now,bull
still manage to throw the ol’ pigskin
around and play intramural flag foot
ball. I have now ballooned to 155
pounds and probably lost some of my
once-blazing speed that so impressed
the coaches. But sometimes I wonder
what if. . ..
No, I really don’t. I like playing the
role of spectator because you can drink
beer the whole game and not worry
about throwing up the next day at prac
tice.
Craig Renfro is a senior journalism
major and a columnist for The Battal-
Mail Call
An invaluable ally
EDITOR:
Why is everyone against the South African government? South Africa
supplies us with many valuable natural resources, it is pro-American and the
government is anti-communist.
People who feel we can afford to lose an ally like South Africa are out of
their minds. The close-minded liberals in this country that think we have a
“moral obligation to break off financial support” to South Africa need to
open their eyes.
What happened to our “moral obligation” while the Soviet Union was
slaughtering innocent people in Afghanistan and while the Chinese govern
ment murdered millions in Cambodia? South Africa’s human rights record is
spotless when compared to our “friends” the Soviet Union and the People's
Republic (joke) of China.
Why not get our priorities straight? President Reagan’s South African
policy can work if it is given time. Racism cannot be wiped out overnight, and
Reagan is obviously intelligent enough to realize this fact. The South African
government is making progress and we need to stand behind them, not try to
punish them.
Mark Dean VanClause ’90
Shuttered memories
EDITOR:
A friend from Europe visited Aggieland for the Southern Mississippi
football game. He lost his camera at the Memorial Student Center ping pong
area about 3 p.m. Sept. 27. Let’s demonstrate our Aggie Code of Honor.
It’s a Yashika 35mm camera in a black case. The film is very important
because he took pictures of the campus and all his new American friends.
Please contact me at 260-4809. Thanks.
Yvette Santiesteban ’89
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 classification, address and telephone number of
the writer.