Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 20, 1986)
Page 2/The Battalion/Monday, October 20, 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 Kei> 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 Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Depart ment of Journalism. 77ie 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. Reagan plays for high stakes; in CIA’s Nicaraguan games No happy hour The Texas Supreme Court’s decision that restaurant and bar owners can be held liable for traffic deaths caused by drunken pa trons makes it too easy for careless drinkers to avoid responsibility for their actions. Bar owners do have a duty to motorists, as well as to their cus tomers, not to allow intoxicated drivers on the road. But this does not justify holding bar tenders responsible for actions taken by pa trons after they leave the establishment. A bartender or waiter has few means of detaining a drunken customer aside from uttering the cliche, “1 think you’ve had enough.” How can a bartender be absolutely certain customers are not in toxicated before serving them a drink? Will breathalyzer tests be come mandatory before drinks are served? Will waiters be given le gal authorization to detain customers against their will if they show signs of inebriation? The National Alcoholic Beverage Control Association says that 41 other states have laws that place liability on commercial servers of alcohol. But a bad law, whether in one state or 41, is still a bad law. When it comes to alcohol-related legislation, Texas never has been quick to mimic other states. Texas legislators stubbornly refuse to enact an open container law despite the example of other states, not to mention the dictates of common sense. But the court seems oblivious to a common-sense doctrine. While state prosecutors complain of insurmountable caseloads, the court has opened a hornets’ nest of potential lawsuits in an already litigious society. Other cases will have to determine the extent of “dramshop liabi lity.” If drinks are served in a private home, is the homeowner re sponsible for guests’ actions after they leave? Is a gun dealer liable for the actions of a customer who purchases a weapon and uses it to rob or murder someone? The court’s decision makes an important point, but it also ab solves drinkers of responsibilty for their actions. Bartenders should not place profits above human decency by encouraging already in toxicated customers to purchase more drinks. They should exercise concern for customers and try not to let them leave if they show signs of inebriation. But at the same time, it is the customers who are doing the drink ing. They must accept the consequences of their weakness. The mes sage should be clear — think before you drink. Or, to quote first lady Nancy Reagan, “just say no” if you’ve had enough. Instead, the Supreme Court has given irresponsible drinkers, es pecially drunken drivers, undeserving credit and are making restau rant and bar owners pick up the tab. There is a Monty Python skit in which Eric Idle sits beside Terry Jones on a park bench. Idle begins asking sexually in- si nuating ques tions about Jones’ wife. Jones, play ing the role of a naive individual, has no idea what is going on. Craig Renfro Idle continues, “Is your wife good at games?” Jones acknowledges that she is. “I bet she is, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more,” Idle responds. And so the game continues. The Reagan administration and the CIA have been playing the same game in Nicaragua for the last two years. However, the stakes in this game are a little higher— the possibility of war. Congress barred military aid to the U.S.-backed Contra rebels in 1984, but it appears that the CIA has not paid at tention to the rules. On Oct. 7 a supply plane carrying 100,000 rounds of ammunition, auto matic rifles and combat boots to U.S.- backed Contra rebels was shot down in southern Nicaragua. The plane’s pilot and co-pilot were killed, and a third vic tim hasn’t been identified. However, one person survived the crash landing, and he has caused more problems than the administration would like to admit. Eugene Hasenfus, a Vietnam veteran who once flew CIA-operated missions in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thai land, parachuted from the plane. He was captured by Sandinista troops and placed in jail. Nicaraguan officials say he will be put on trial and could face up to 30 years in prison. If that were the worst thing to come of this the administration and the CIA would probably jump for joy. But that is not the case. Hasenfus admitted that since June he has made 10 CIA-sponsored flights over Nicaragua to drop supplies to the re bels. The CIA and the Reagan adminis tration have denied these claims. If their denials are true and the arms aboard the downed aircraft were provided by private U.S. groups, the Neutrality Act or the Arms Export Control Act could make the rebel aid effort illegal. Star Wars no answer to dreams of superpower arms agreement At the conclu sion of the Iceland summit meeting, the leader of one superpower held a press conference while the leader of the other super power led a pep rally before mem bers of his mili tary. U ntil the other day, any Americans, when they put their mind to it, can do anything. We will be com mended for our ingenuity, for the sort of people we are. To Reagan, Star Wars is just another Normandy invasion, this one mounted in the heavens. We can do anything. self as Franklin Roosevelt reading that famous letter from Albert Einstein about the possibilities of an atomic bomb: What if Roosevelt had said no? In the March of Time newsreel that plays in his head, Reagan cannot say no to Star Wars. Richard Cohen schoolchild could have told you which leader did which. But now, the roles have been reversed. It was Soviet leader Mikhail Gorba chev who held the press conference. It was Ronald Reagan who spoke to an adoring audience of American service men and their dependents. It was the Russian who came to Iceland with star tling new proposals. It was the Ameri can president whose proposals seemed unrealistic (abolition of all ballistic mis siles) and who flew home refusing to part with his Strategic Defense Intiative — “a bird in the bush,” in the words of Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., that may never take flight. The bird in the hand — star tling proposals for a reduction in nu clear weapons — was left, plucked, on a table in Iceland. The Soviets, too, seem to subscribe to this view of Star Wars and there is noth ing wrong in keeping them off balance with it. They, too, are impressed by American technology and daunted by the task of just trying to keep up. Theirs is a creeky economy, poorly suited for the computer age. Their strength is in missiles and land forces and predictably that’s the way they would like to keep things. An American president who overlooks that, and the sort of society Russia is, would be poorly serving his own country. But technology can be matched and, anyway, it has its limitations. The war on cancer remains unwon. The war on pov erty is a stalemate. Space has claimed its victims and every new weapons system is matched in short order. Our expensive gadgets have become pacifiers for the unimaginative, placebos for a genera tion that looks to technology as a substi tute for hard thinking, that hopes the “war on war” will have a technological conclusion. But at best Star Wars is 20 years from implementation; at worst it will never work. The president talks about it as if it exists, but it does not and maybe never will. It may turn out not to be the vaunted shield to protect the Free World and make weapons systems obso lete, butjust another weapons system. It could be used to protect missile sites — and also as an offensive weapon. In the coming days, there will be much debate over what the president did — much of it technical. There will be arguments over the efficacy of Star Wars, about what is technologically fea sible and, inevitably, the cost of such a program. It all will be flattering to Rea gan since it will enable him to pose as a futurist — someone who says that As a bargaining chip, Star Wars al ready has performed better than it probably ever will as a missile-defense system. And if Reagan is simply hanging tough to strike an even better deal with Gorbachev, then he is being nothing short of brilliant. But so far there is every indication that Reagan’s faith in the proposed sys tem is sincere and uncritical. Its promise is so sweeping, so bold, it has this presi dent in its thrall. Reagan must see him- America’s a free country. If private groups want to aid the Contras... Wl VOYAGE- there’s nothing* we can do to stop them. But once again this is not the case. The CIA has known about the supply program all along. Only now they have had to face up to their actions. Hasenfus said he began working for the CIA in June 1986 after being re cruited by William Cooper, one of the men who died in the crash. He received $3,000 a month for his work, plus trans portation and expenses. Other officials say that Americans once connected to the CIA are now part of a network of private U.S. advisers to the Contras, organized since 1984 when Congress banned the CIA from directly assisting the rebels in military activities. That CIA prohibition will be lifted now that Congress has approved Rea gan’s new package of $ 100 million in aid to the Contras. Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams said Hasenfus was lying be cause of threats by Nicaraguan authori ties. However Abrams also said that for mer CIA agents have been hired by civilian groups to carry out supply mis sions in Nicaragua, and these are “gene rally approved of by the administra tion.” This is obvious because Hight log books and other documents taken off the downed plane showed that during the past two years the cargo plane flew dozens of missions out of El Salvador. The Hight log also lists several landc at the Aguacate airfield in Hondi which was built by the U.S. ArmyCo; of Engineers three years ago and!*; turned over to the CIA. Secretary of State Geo; cie " cies ;. Alejandro Bendana, seer® e s u A mixt ileal faih icltdowr hernobi uclear 1 ifficial sa Harold ie Nucli branch 1 jlear Rf lade the ofT leering < lat had mniversa mentof^ Den tor a meetinf 4he Inten Agency, As a result of the activities theSas nista government has sent a formalj: test to U.S Shultz. general of the Nicaraguan Foreign!!: istry said, “We now have American!*1 ing in Mr. Reagan’s dirty war waged against Nicaragua. Thisbrinj! closer to a direct NicaraguaLn States confrontation.” Nations, fficials om 113 the disasti "If I 1 causes of said, “I’d dure, coi fre Reagan has acted in his usual suit: saying that the operation was likely work of free-lance adventurers on their own. If Reagan would wait from his Hollywood fantasy, hen realize what a Vietnam-type nigte he is alxmt to get us into. A vacan ost no ti and a smal 1 Several pve been ■eared on mercial d Streets hav The president has goneasfarto! Diane 1 Brazos Be “We're in a free country where pr j the prim; citizens have a great many freedom; Rations. Brazos I guess this includes workingcoir for the CIA. Wink, wink, nudge,n say no more. Craig Renfro is a senior jouraiil major and a columnist for The 1 ion. )n, is pa Ironically, it is the new Soviet leaders who seem to have grasped the truth of the modern world. For selfish reasons, they fear Star Wars, but they seem to understand, too, that its true promise is not the end to the superpower competi tion, but more of the same. It hardly matters that if the system works, it promises to make nuclear weapons ob solete: They are already obsolete. In practical terms, what — aside from tril lions of dollars spent — is the differ ence? And, anyway, even Star Wars could not cope with furtive nuclear armed submarines. Reality, like gravity, has its pull. The Iceland summit did not end when Gor bachev and Reagan returned to their re spective capitals. But the world aches for a superpower accommodation and that, to paraphrase Shakespeare, will not be found in the stars, but in our selves. Copyright 1986, Washington Post Writers Group Call In case of emergency... EDITOR: In a recent article in The Battalion there was a typographical errorthai exemplified a common misconception among the populus at Texas A&M I hope this letter will lay to rest some of the confusion on the sometimes complicated topic of what number to dial when presented with an emergency. A&M uses a modern concept in emergency service activation. Thisistk Single Number Emergency Telephone System, commonly abbreviated SNETS. The idea is a simple one. In the event of a emergency the caller needs only to remember one simple number to get an emergency operator, T his operator then forwards the call to the appropriate agency— police,fe or ambulance. At A&M, the University Police Department and Emergent; Medical Service (EMS) monitor the line directly. Thus, the calls do notneei to be forwarded, which further speeds response. The SNETS for campus (260- or 845- exchange) is 9911. It is import*j to notice that the number is not “9” to get out, then 911. The correctnumhetj for the cities of Bryan and College Station is 911, but not for the campus.Ini fact, if 91 1 is dialed from a University exchange, the caller will receive™ j response, because the computer will search for a four-digit number. If the caller is on University property and is not calling from a260orW exchange then he can dial 845-1111 ana get the campus emergency operaifi Of course, if there is any confusion or you are at a pay phone, the operator (0) can be dialed and informed that you need the University emergency operator. This will cause a slight delay, but the proper authorities willbe notified. So just remember “ninety-nine eleven” (991 1) for any emergency. Ify# dorm room or office needs phone stickers call 845-1525, and they willbe delivered to you. We certainly hope you don’t need emergency services,tat preparation eases confusion in times of crisis. Chief Nathan Schwade Texas A&M Emergency Medical Services Demagoguery and liberalism EDITOR: Reading about Dr. Larry Yarek’s statements on apartheid in the Mends 1 Battalion, I was disappointed to see that a sprinkle of demagoguery and McCarthyism tainted an otherwise benevolent demonstration. I’m referring specifically to the statement saying “all motives behinds reluctance to impose sanctions are based fundamentally on racism.” While this may often or even usually be the case, it is unfair to imply thatanyonf who does not agree with sanctions as a way to end apartheid is fundamen® a racist. It smacLs of self-righteousness and does nothing to explain how sanctions will work better than other alternatives. Is it fair to assume the “motives” behind such a remark is the hopethai people who don’t favor sanctions will publicly do so out of fear of being labeled a facist? Should we assume that Yarek believes that, even at a university, hyperbole, demagoguery and inflammatory rhetoric are belter than a dispassionate, reasoned discourse? While this type of politicizing always has been common, it is disturbing®! see it so soon in the budding liberal movement on this campus. When will"'; ever get to the point where we can respectfully disagree among ourselvesi Marco A. Roberts Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves ititni to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author'sn®* Each letter must be signed and must include the classification, address and telephonenunii* the writer.