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.