New Braunfels Herald Zeitung (Newspaper) - January 20, 1984, New Braunfels, Texas
4 New Braunfels Herald-Ze/funp Friday, January 20,1984OpinionsHerald-Zeltung
Dave Kraaer, General Manager Robert Jokofoo, Editor
_ . ITradition spices up the name game
There are lots of time-honored traditions in the HeraldZeitung editorial department. We have hoary customs which, like the common cold, have been passed on from reporter to reporter for, oh, at least three or four months now.
There are several favorites. VDT beating is one. (VDTs are video display terminals. Sometimes they misbehave.) Playing the ever-popular “where to go for lunch" game is another.
But the eccentric folks in this department have one which tops them all: naming pets after people. It’s not like we name them George or Frank
or Doris, either. They get first and last names, followed by a noun to help distinguish the person from the pet.
Sports Editor David King started this tradition a couple of years ago. He named his cat “Robert Johnson-kitty." I didn’t know whether to be honored or insulted. All I know is that I sure was confused when I went over to the King household. Somebody would yell, “Robert, don’t do that on the carpet!" Usually, the shout would be directed at the cat.
Anyway, the practice caught on. Kaleidoscope Editor Wanda Lasater, former Kaleidoscope Editor Emily Hocker, staff writer Debbie DeLoach,
former composition department employee Christa Wetz and my wife, Sue, have had cats named after them. As Tevye said, “Tradition!"
A couple of months ago I decided to reverse tradition, but it backfired. Sue and I are expecting a bouncing new tax deduction (our first) this April, and, on the way to Ixickhart to cover a football game last October, I had this inspiration. Since we name pets after people, it stands to reason we should name people after pets.
So I decided our child should be named “Fluffy." (I liked that better than “Spot", “Fido’; or “Puff.")
It was supposed to be a joke. But the name stuck, although my staff
members have deleted the ‘y.’ They now ask Sue, “Well, how’s Fluff?” Debbie (the writer, not the cat) brought over a Christmas present last month and announced, “This is for Fluff."
Well, it could have been worse. I mean, when we found out that Sue was pregnant, I put this clever little memo on the bulletin board to break the news. Somebody wrote “Now taking suggestions for names" on the bottom, and here’s what the staff came up with :
Boys: Bubba H., Johnson N. (get it? Johnson ’N Johnson; ecch),O.K.,Son, Fifi (?), Blanche (?), Smithers,
Thumper, Beaver, Wally and Renay San Miguel.
Girls: Minnie, Ida, Pearl, Hilda Mae, Sadie, Zillah, Kitty, April, Shower and Flower.
That was a big help. But the problem is, finding a normal first name for a dime-a-dozen last name like Johnson isn’t easy. Conventional first names sound like aliases when paired with Johnson. I’d feel sorry for anyone named Joe Johnson or John Johnson (or Bob Johnson, for that matter, which explains why I use “Robert" instead).
If it’s a boy, I wanted to call him Magic or Marques or some other good
basketball name. Maybe with a name like that, the kid would have the vertical jump I never had. But Sue isn’t wild about that.
On the flip side, every girl’s name that Sue likes starts with a ’J’. I’ve told her, I don’t care how pretty the name is, I’m not turning our child into an alliteration or a rhyme or any play on words. Maybe it’s because I knew a kid named Chester Jester in high school.
We’ll come up with something — not that it will carry any weight with the staff. This poor kid is doomed to grow up wondering why all these people caU him “Fluff."
I’ll never tell.
Jack AndersonNew evidence in Aquino murder raises suspicionsSUPPORT OR NO SUPPORT, WE'VE GOTTk HANG IN THERE, SERGEANT-CONGRESS HfrSCOUJPSEb OH US, THE liEIAOCW^ HME WSEREP, THE FRENCH MV ITMANN LOOK SHAW AHD WE'RE QjJlCKiy LOSING
rn tmm WOW ' urn uke pretty soon nu be just US’*U$r BALSTER PRESIDENT T
Was anyone impressed with Reagan's peace offering?
WASHINGTON — Dramatic new evidence indicates that FiUpino opposition leader Benigno Aquino was murdered by one of the government security agents who escorted him off the plane that brought him home after three years exile in the United States.
This won’t surprise a world that is already skeptical of the Philippine government’s official verson of the assassination. The government stretched the fabric of truth when it reported that Aquino had been shot in the back of the head by a communist hit man named Robert Galman. Now the damning new evidence should tear apart the fabric.
For example, some witnesses — one spoke out only after he was safe in Japan — say they saw Galman standing with soldiers and facing Aquino. It would have been im-posssible for the accused assassin to shoot Aquino in the back of the head.
Even more persuasive is the evidence gathered by Gerald N. Hill, Kathleen HiU and Steve Psinakis, authors of a book called The Aquino Assassination, to be published this month. My reporters John Dillon and Bill Montague gleaned these highlights fron an advance copy.
The order to shoot: Security agents boarded the plane, took Aquino into custody and led him out the plane door and down the steps to the tarmac. Reporters and photographers accompanying Aquino were forbidden to leave the plane, and security agents covered up the lenses of television cameras that were filming the scene.
But the television sound men held their s»*»sitiv‘‘, boom-mounted microphones in the plane’s doorway. They picked up some startling dialogue, spoken in a Filipino dialect. The statement “ITI do it” or “Let me do it," was picked up twice by the mikes, followed by “Here lie is."
Most damaging of all, the command “Shoot him" was recorded twice — the second time just one second before the single shot into the back of Aquino’s head. The fatal order could not have referred to the alleged assassin, because Aquino hadn’t been shot yet.
A Japanese acoustics expert was able the match voice prints of the recorded statements with those of the security agents who led Aquino off the plane. The voices of tile two men giving the “Shoot him” order could not be identified, but the man who said, “I’ll do it" was a Sgt. de Mesa, according to the Japanese expert.
fhe time factor: By analyzing the videotapes and audio recordings, the authors determined that Aquino was shot precisely 9.2 seconds after he first stepped onto the platform at the head of the stairway. The timing is crucial, because the government claims Aquino was shot by Galman from behind, 7 to 9 feet from the foot of the stairway.
But in the government’s own reenactment of the shooting, recorded
on videotape, it took 9.S seconds for the actors playing Aquino and his escort to make it down the stairs — and they were practically running. So even by the government’s own reconstructed evidence, Aquino must have been shot from behind on the stairway or just as he stepped off. Galman was still several feet away, meanwhile, facing Aquino.
The autopsy evidence: The medical examiner’s report showed that the fatal bullet was fired approximately 18 inches from Aquino's head and entered his body in a downward direction. As the authors point out, Galman was either below or at the same level as Aquino. To inflict a wound with that trajectory, the alleged assassin would have had to hold the pistol high over his head and aim down. The government claimes the bullet was deflected downward by bone.
Galman’s picture: A photograph of the alleged assassin’s bullet-torn body lying on the tarmac shows him lying on his back with dried blood streaks on his face. But the rivulets appear to have flowed toward his face from wounds in the back of his head, thus defying gravity. The photo indicates Galman was shot from behind, fell on his face where the blood dried, and was then turned over to support the story that he was shot while fleeing the murder.
What does the evidence mean? It strongly suggests that the assassination order came from the highest levels. No mere captain or colonel would have dared to plan and execute an incident with such drastic consquences, without clear orders from high up.
The Food ana Drug Adminstration is reported leaning toward approval of direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs, despite evidence of widespread public opposition.
According to one internal memo, 60 percent of those surveyed unconditionally opposed allowing prescription drug advertising aimed at consumers instead of doctors. The opposition was “surprisingly unified," according to the memo.
Some of the most frequently mentioned objections cited in the
— Drug prices would go up to cover
— Consumers could easily be “confused or misled" by TV commercials or other ads, since the average person doesn’t have the medical knowledge to evaluate the ads’ claims.
— The patient-doctor relationship would suffer as patients lobbied for an advertised prescription or shopped around for doctors who would prescribe the product.
By R GREGORY NOKES Associated Press
WASHINGTON - To make sure nobody missed the point, the White House and State Department took pains to highlight the olive branch that President Reagan extended to Moscow in his speech this week.
A major effort was begun days in advance of the speech to focus attention on what was predicted to be its conciliatory tone
Advance briefings were held for reporters. Excerpts of Reagan’s remarks were released early. Secretary of'State George Shultz discussed it ahead of time with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin.
But if the Soviets were impressed, it wasn’t evident in a meeting Shultz held with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei A. Gromyko in Stockholm or in Gromyko’s public statements.
on the inunediate issue facing the two superpowers, the resumption of nuclear arms control talks, “We made no headway on that subject."
Gromyko told the European Disarmament Conference Wednesday that the United States was making “maniacal plans" for nuclear war. “New missiles, bombers and aircraft earners are being churned out in some kind of pathological obsession," he said.
Considering all of the harsh rhetoric about Moscow emanating from Reagan in the past, the White house evidently felt that a well-tuned orchestration in advance of Reagan’s speech was necessary.
The speech had little iii it that would be considered conciliatory if it were delivered by anyone other than Reagan
Reagan stated a U.S. willingness to
negotiate arms control and other differences with Moscow. But he
offered no new ideas or initiatives.
The speech itself was partly intended to help create a positive atmosphere for the Shultz-Gromyko meeting.
It also was intended to build an unage for Reagan as a peacemaker in advance of the 1984 presidential elections. Polls showed growing numbers of Americans doubted his commitment to peace.
Another purpose was to ease the concerns of the European allies, who seem most worried that Reagan is seeking confrontation with Moscow.
One of the initial indications (rf a major shift in emphasis came a week ago Wednesday when the State Department released a photograph of Dobrynin at a meeting with U.S. officials on ways of improving emergency communications with
Moscow. The White House issued a press release on the State Department meeting, also unusual.
Shultz picked up the conciliatory theme the next day at two press conferences. He told European reporters the administration was “prepared for a thaw" in UJS.-Soviet relations if the Soviets reciprocated. He said at a general press conference he was ready to meet Gromyko in a “constructive spirit."
I .ast Friday, the usual background briefings by senior officials were held in advance of Shultz’s trip to Stockholm. On Saturday, the White House resorted to the unusual to keep interest high and to make sure attention was properly focused. A senior official, who insisted on anonymity, held special briefings for reporters.
On Monday, there was the nationally televised speech itself, delivered at the unusual time of IO a m. But it was already midafternoon in Europe and the White House wanted coverage on the evening newscasts. The speech was beamed live by satellite to Europe.
Shultz told reporters Thursday that
San. Lloyd Gentian United States Senate Room 240 Russe!! Building Washington, O.C. 20510
Sen. John Tower United States Senate Room 142 Russell Building Washington, D C. 20510
Rep. Edmund Kuempel Texas House of Representatives P.O. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78769
Gov. Mark White Governor's Office Room 200 State Capitol Austin, Texas 78701