On Assignment; 1001; Privacy Under Attack, Unser Racing Dynasty, Taos Music School

The Podcast of on assignment is locally funded by K &ME viewer contributions and by a grant from the Mountain Bell Foundation. We've all heard the politicians promise to get the government off our backs, but lately they tell us our urine and our bedrooms are quite another matter. That's exactly what the drug testing program is. Let's go into everyone's body and see what we find there. There are America's royal family of auto racing, Bobby and Al Seen, Al and Bobby Junior, the answers of New Mexico. Well, I have an uncle who, one piece of your time, nine times. When I was a young lad, I used to aspire to be better than he was. I used to call him the king of the milk. And I used to tell people, somebody, if there's going to be a new kid, his name's going to be Bobby, he's going to be an advocate.

Every summer, some of the world's most talented young musicians converge on the high valleys of northern New Mexico, where legend, history and natural beauty abound. It is a mix of study and performance at the annual House Music Festival. These stories tonight on assignment. Good evening. I'm Hal Rhodes and welcome to the premiere of On assignment. We're broadcasting tonight live from this fairly typical American neighborhood. Indeed, the landscape of cities like Albuquerque are to a very considerable extent, defined

by places like these, places to which normally, at the end of the day, we retire, shut our doors and say to ourselves, I'm home. This is my territory. And we think ourselves at liberty to live our lives pretty much as we choose. Lately, however, it turns out that at least some of our neighbors want to tell us what to do behind our own closed doors. At issue is something called the Privacy of Individuals, versus the authority of governments and other large institutions, to intrude into areas of our lives which are good many people probably think to be pretty private. The growing practice of your undrugged testing. The recent United States Supreme Court decision bowers versus hardware, popularly known as the Sodomy ruling. These and other measures have been interpreted as significant intrusions into the privacy of individuals. Is it Big Brother Shades of George Orwell's 1984 two years late?

Or do government and big business have a legitimate interest in your bedrooms and your urine? These are fundamental questions, of course. We were born as a nation committed to the doctrine of limited government. Convince that there is a line which separates the rights and privacy of individuals on the one hand from the powers of government on the other. And momentarily we will probe these recent developments right here in this typical American home where our privacy is perhaps most precious and perhaps threatened as well. This with Mickey Barnett, a New Mexico attorney, former member of the New Mexico State Senate, and a proponent both of your undrugged testing and the hardware decision. And for a contrary view, Myron Jones, a distinguished New Mexico writer and lecturer on public policy, currently a Woodrow Wilson visiting fellow at universities around the nation.

First, let us take our bearings. Not long ago the politicians were promising to get the government off of our backs. But what happens when the government ends up in our bedroom and our toilets? And last but not least, the Americans. Land the high love and the white love and life through the night with the light from above. Think for a moment how special it is to be an American. Can we doubt that only a divine providence placed this land, this island of freedom here is a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breathe free. The revolution out of which our liberty was conceived, signaled an historical call to an entire world seeking hope. Really involved in putting together

the starting framework of this country, took the position that a government should be the servant of the people and it was the individual person who was paramount in all society. Everything that the government can't do is reserved to the people, to be able to do, that humanized individuals can create our lives in whatever way seems appropriate to us. In the lives of our children and our life together, we get to decide at least in principle how it is we want our world to be. That was America, my only home. When we all come together, united, striving for this

cause, then those who are killing America and terrorizing it with slow but sure chemical destruction, we'll see that they are up against the mightiest force for good that we know. Then they will have no dark alleyways to hide in. The Fourth Amendment requires there to be probable cause and it's exactly that kind of invasion for which the Fourth Amendment was written. And what was going on, I forget the blanket writ I believe was the practice of the crown in colonial days where the soldiers of the crown had the right to go into every home and look for whatever they could find. That's exactly what the drug testing program is. Let's go into everyone's body and see what we find here. Certainly the statute is on the books and any statute that is on the books as a criminal

statute of the state should be enforced and that's what it's for. I had understood our theory of government to be the opposite. That is that the majority rules with respect to everything except certain limited decisions which have to be left up to the individual. And prior to the Georgia Sodomy case, one of those decisions was sexual privacy. Therefore, the Georgia Sodomy decision, Bowers Against Hardwick, is to me the most salient evidence right now that we are swinging away from a sort of classical notion of liberty towards a more egalitarian regime. You refused to answer that question, that correct? I have told you that I will. Or I believe my affiliations are here to announce you. The copy was not an aberration because he had a tremendous amount of popular

support in his country. We better recognize that Americans are just as susceptible to having claims made to their emotions as or anybody else. Very highly confidential secret, State Department documents. That's what's happening now. It seems to me is very much like from the Carthia era where we are so terrified of crime or terrorism or the evil regime or whatever it may be that there are people now in the United States who are willing to say, gee, maybe in order to preserve what we have, we should give up what we have. That's what I see at Warren down to is that our system is so precious and these things are so threatening that maybe civil rights and liberties are as important in this circumstance. That's a very frightened prospect. It's taking a whole new point away from what founded this country. We've turned our

backs on the base of dream and vision that resulted in this country. And once we do that, then it's lost. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Fascinating video essay by our line producer

tonight, Matthew Snedden and Mickey Barnett, I'll start with you and I confess I'm something of a conservative person about these matters and probably a little shy, but I really think I never anticipated the time when I'd find myself sitting on a television program like this, talking about whether government has any business in places like our bedroom and our urine, yet here we are and you generally support those ideas. Now I have heard you say you want to get the government off the people's back. Is this really what you had in mind? Yes, I want the government off people's back. I also want to have a right to my privacy, not to be harmed by someone else who's operating heavy machinery, who's perhaps an air traffic controller, and I'm on an airplane, and they're using drugs and they're not being tested, and because of their drug use it's been hundreds and maybe thousands of lives are injured or lost, and so there's competing ideas of who's safety and who's privacy are we talking

about, and as an attorney, I can tell you that employers are facing enormous possible live abilities, if they have heavy truck, if they have drivers of heavy machinery, users of heavy machinery, and they don't, and it's just to get some time of testing, and one of their employees does injure someone, then the question becomes, is it you're going to hold in liable for failure to do proper testing? All right, let's separate these issues out, and let's stick with drug testing for a moment. I am confident there isn't a person watching this program, and I know there isn't a person in this room, who would not have themselves safe and would not have the workplace safe, and would want all persons who are doing important work in important jobs, affecting the public welfare, public safety, drug -free, but is urine drug testing the only, even the most appropriate, means to that end? That's probably more policy decision, and then I think you have to separate that into the private sector and the public sector. In New Mexico,

we have in the private sector employment at will. In other words, I can hire as a private employer, any employee I'd choose to hire, and I can fire them for any reason I choose to, as long as it's not discrimination on the basis of sex or race, religion, things of that type. I, as an employer, have a right to decide to hire employees who will be productive. Drug usage then becomes a very important factor in productivity. Now, it's not just drug usage, in other words, we're seeing articles today on caffeine about the very significant effects of caffeine and stress, and how that can cause problems. We've got numerous instances of these people going berserk, a stress -related type of, we as employers, I think if we want a better society, and we really want to rid society of drug usage, which our legislatures, our national legislatures, has both the creed that drug usage is unlawful. We don't want it. Then as private

citizens, we want to assist in that effort, we could ask our employees to be drug -free while it work. Well, I guess the question still goes back is, you know, getting into people's body fluids, I mean, the only, and even the most efficient means to that end. I think, of course, it's certainly going to be voluntary. I don't believe, I disagree with the professor's article prior to this, about that the Fourth Amendment's involved, because it will be the employee's choice. He does not have to submit to drug testing. If he chooses to continue working at this place, he may have. Does it pretty substantial sanctions, though, aren't they? Well, I mean, I think it's just like, you must wear a uniform to work, you must wear a suit and tie, I have to wear a suit and tie to court. I guess if I don't want to wear it, I don't have to. Those kind of things. I think it has to be a uniform policy, it has to apply to all people. I don't think it could be discriminatory, and only apply to certain employees and not others. The Georgia Sodomy case, we heard the Attorney General from the State of Georgia say the law is on the books, and therefore, because it's on the books, it must be

enforced. I don't know where this leads us. I suppose I could envision circumstances in which we end up putting television cameras in people's bedrooms, monitoring their sexual practices in order to enforce a law. Now, when we get into a person's bedroom, we're in what I know is always a very private place. Well, I read the opinion quite differently than that, and I read the opinion of saying the 10th Amendment to the Constitution says the United States Supreme Court will not interfere in state legislatures actions unless their statutes in fringe on the United States Constitution. They ruled that the legislature has a collective right to pass certain prescriptions. Others, or we have numerous other statutes, Sodomy happened to be the one here. We have the same arguments on incessants as an example. We have the same arguments on

an older person and a very young person, a 10, 12 -year -old person. Those things are morally wronged by a collective wisdom situation by majority of the public. And yet, that's just an opinion. But still, nonetheless, as I understand the court's decision says, it does indeed, if the governments of the states choose to put themselves into the business, if governments can go into the business of monitoring behavior in your bedroom. I think that you have the 4th Amendment that says they have to have probable cause to go into the bedroom. You couldn't go in there, begin with. In fact, in the case, their probable cause to go into the bedroom didn't have anything to do with Sodomy. And they were in there for other illegal activities and had probable cause to go into the bedroom. So you think if there's probable cause government ought to be in the bedrooms. Well, I'll give you an example. I

think I'll make it a little tougher in reverse. What if we have evidence of a 40 -year -old man and 11 -year -old girl engaging in sexual activity? Not Sodomy, particularly beneath sexual behavior. That's a crime in this state. In fact, it's a serious felony. And if you had probable cause that was occurring, I would not be offended by the fact that you had to go before a magistrate, show your probable cause, obtain a search warrant, and then go into the bedroom. But of course, those laws are already on the book, not talking about Sodomy laws in this instance. Myring Jones, your critical of these ideas of urine drug testing, the hardwood case, why shouldn't government have access to these places and this stuff? Well, first of all, I agree with Mickey on the issue of danger. I don't want to get on a plane with a pilot who's drugged out. In fact, if I could choose my pilot, he would be Mr. Rogers, possibly Mrs. Rogers. Only in the cabin, I don't want Mr. Rogers talking to me during the flight, but I was the safest possible

person. The problem with drug testing is that it selects only one kind of behavior that threatens our safety. I worry as much about pilots who drink, about pilots who haven't had enough sleep, about people who are simply not ready to do their job for whatever reason. And ideally, I'd be very happy with a simple test, some sort of simple test that any pilot gets on his ability to function before he goes into the cabin that will find out whether or not he is at that moment fit to fly, because that's the real issue. Let me give you a personal example. In 1951, I was a control tower operator in New York, and Okinawa, and we were short of control tower operators, which meant that we all had to work six hours on and six hours off. That meant we never really got enough sleep. That also meant we could not

party at all. There were no drugs around, and drugs weren't an issue. But partying was an issue. Being hung over was an issue. Simply not getting enough sleep was an issue. And what we did, there were two of us in the tower, and we worked it out with each others. One guy would say, I'm really tired, I didn't get enough sleep, or I had a few beers after work. I still don't feel quite ready to go. Why don't you handle the A position, which would be the position talking directly to the aircraft, and I'll handle the B position, the clerical word. So that if we in fact then did not take care of ourselves, if we were not ready to be alert, we represented the threat to the pilots, which had nothing to do with drugs. But what bothers me about the drug testing is that it seems to me, not simply to violate civil liberties, but it seems to me to be specifically selecting out only one kind of disability. And it feels terribly hypocritical to me. I think of the World Series commercials. You see Reggie Jackson, and for the first time in his life

doesn't sound tough saying, drugs can kill you. You hear me talking. And the next commercial is the boys in the bar, whooping it up and drinking. Now, in fact there are far more deaths resulting from the boys in the bar than there are from drugs, and everyone in the world knows that. So that's a mixed message. The real issue is not that drugs are more apt to kill you than hanging out in the bar and getting loaded. Well, where does that lead to the issue? Where does that lead to the issue? The real issue with drugs and drugs are in fact illegal, but if you say we're going to test for drugs alone for competency in the job, then you in fact have invaded people's privacy. Because no one has proposed breathalyzer tests following the three martini launch. No one has proposed tests for hangovers. People have decided to invade the privacy of one particular group, the people who are using drugs, for one particular activity, and they're justifying it in the name of

competent performance. All right. All right. What about the issue of the hardware case? The argument, as I understand it here, is that governments, notably state governments, if they choose, can go into the business of prescribing sexual practices, which occur in what probably we all would consider our bedrooms. I'm sure private places, boring sometimes, but private. Why shouldn't the government get into the business of prescribing sexual conduct? Because people, indeed, have a right to be left alone. I don't agree with Mickey's examples of parallelism, of an older man and a younger woman or incest. The issue is, the issue of privacy is, do consenting adults have a right to sexual privacy? That's the issue. There's nothing to do with an older man and a younger woman. No one is defending that, but the four member minority in the Supreme

Court arguing against the state of Georgia, argued for the right to be left alone in sexual activities between consenting adults. And interestingly enough, the Georgia law, Georgia itself doesn't believe in enforcing its own law. They don't believe in enforcing the law that the Georgia state legislature passed, because their Sodomy law applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. And during the oral argument before the Supreme Court, the Georgia Attorney General said he wouldn't even try to enforce it against heterosexuals, because he doesn't believe it would stand up constitutionally based on a Supreme Court decision on contraception in 1966. So that he has, in effect, told the court, this is going to be enforced perhaps someday, but only against homosexuals. So he has arbitrarily followed the path on only one part of his own state's law. It's very arbitrary behavior. The second part of it is, he doesn't even tell the court when and how he's going to

follow it. The person he brought to trial who he didn't chose not to bring to trial has said, yes, I committed Sodomy, and I intend to go on committing it. And the Attorney General chose not to prosecute this person. So it's something that's there for selective enforcement to be used someday against whom. But I cannot imagine, and I'm sorry the Supreme Court didn't get into this exchange, how they could possibly justify enforcing a Sodomy law that applies in 19 of the 24 states that have Sodomy laws, it applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals, including married heterosexuals. I find it impossible to imagine how someone could possibly enforce that. How do you enforce that, Mickey? Well, I don't think you do. I think it's a practical matter. So the Mexico repealed his law in 1973, and I think

it was a realization that this state didn't want to have a Sodomy law. Myron has raised an issue that causes me in a way to think of the great American Puritan descent or Roger Williams who argued and promulgated one of the world's first really persuasive doctrines of toleration. And his contention was, it's not the fact of differences amongst us which causes society grief and disturbs the civil peace. It is the attempt on the part of government to enforce uniformity where none exists, and if individuals are left to their own devices, the civil peace will not be disturbed. I understand what you're saying about the majority in terms of its values as concerned sexual practices. But aren't we really so insecure of people that we need the government to prescribe these kinds of behaviors for us? I think that again goes back though to the idea of a representative form of government. We may

argue persuasively against the passage of such laws, but the federal constitution doesn't prohibit their passage. I think you're going to see a reverse trend upwards if in fact what I read about AIDS is true. You're going to see it argued on the basis of a health hazard. Well if it is arguing on the basis of a health hazard, then people have a far more difficult problem because in fact AIDS is spread by regular heterosexual missionary, if you will, I think that's where you still use missionary sex, so that one of our against any kind of sex can indeed spread AIDS, including heterosexual vaginous sex. And so if people are going to stop that to prevent this spread of AIDS, then we're going to have to get 20 million cops who can and a moment's notice disguised themselves as bedstands, climb under beds and take a

gun and say, we caught you. Actually the only way to protect against AIDS is to rule out sexual activities. I don't agree that's what I've read. I've related, there's only anal sex that spreads AIDS. Actually the experts say it's all kinds of sexual behaviors. I think both of us agree we're about out of time here, that there's one great liberty in this country which we can take great joy in. That is the liberty to debate these kinds of issues in the form of this sort. I think you both for being with us tonight, it's going to pleasure talking to you. Thank you. If there is a single word to describe

the history of auto -racing in the United States, it is surely the name Unser and not just the famous Bobby and Al's. But before them an earlier generation, a generation which was present for the birth of high speed auto -racing in this country has been a long road and a journey occasionally dotted with grief and danger. But tonight New Mexico's Bobby and Al Unser, that is the seniors, are relaxed on camera and on assignment. They are America's premier auto -racing dynast, the Unser of New Mexico. Three generations of them. Perhaps most famous today, brothers Bobby and

Al, each three time winners of the crown jewel of auto -racing, the Indianapolis 500, the famed Indy. But before superstardom came to Bobby and Al, there was an earlier generation of racing answers. Uncle Lewis, known as the King of the Pikes Peak Hill Climb, one of the oldest and most prestigious auto -racing events. For 37 consecutive Pikes Peak races, Uncle Lewis was a forced to reckon with, winning nine times, ultimately to be forced into retirement by racing officials of the age of 71. That was in 1967. Uncle Joe, perhaps the fastest answer of his generation, killed on a Colorado highway in 1929, while testing the car he was scheduled to drive in that year's Indy 500. And finally in that first generation, daddy answer, Jerry Senior, himself a racer of everything

from automobiles to airplanes to motorcycles. So far, now we're talking three generations of racing answers. I guess you can understand, sons following in the footsteps of fathers, but that first generation, your father's generation, what caused them to get so interested in the machine in speed? Do you ever think about that? You know, I started with motorcycles, ironically. My dad and our two uncles, his two brothers, were motorcycle riders. And of course, today, as we said here, we say, in those days, you know, they race motorcycles, they race race cars. Well, they were so little nothings in those days. I don't mean the people, I mean the cars. My guys motorcycles were just a low skinny tires on them. They had a low putt, one engine, deals you know, and race cars were not much, and there weren't very many race fans. Racing just wasn't

the big spectator sport that it is today. But our family, our father and our uncles, just love mechanical things. They put the first motorcycle inside car in the history on top, Pike's Peak. As an example, that was before there was ever road up there. And for some reason or another, my dad had four boys and all four of us wanted the same things. Bobby and Al's father, the patriarch of the Unser Dynast. The senior Unser brought his family to Albuquerque from Colorado in the middle of the year of the 1930s. Opened an auto repair shop, and with his wife Mary, Mom Unser, raised four sons whose destinies would be tied to racing. My father let us do what we wanted to do. He was a little bit against the racing in the beginning. My mother was a little bit worried about it, maybe kind of pushing, hey, what do you want to be doing this for? Type of a thing. But both of our parents, just as soon as they saw that

that's what we really wanted to do. They didn't try to steal neutral. They didn't try to discourage us. They instead got in and helped us. We talked about one of them. Great ladies of racing. One of the great ladies of Albuquerque in New Mexico, your mother, Mom Unser. Bobby was talking about her the moment ago. Her green chili was legendary. This is how many times you've been to the race now? Oh, I don't know. I can't count. There's been quite a number of years. Your chili has become famous nationally. The chili you served. Did you do it again this year? Oh, sure. We did it between the two qualifying weekends, had it one day. What was the reaction this year? Always usual. They think it's terribly hot. She must have fretted a bit about what you guys were up to. Well, you know, I think grown up, you never realize what your parents go through and care you become one. You know, we've all laughed and heard the old saying.

As the parents have said, the older I get, the smarter I get. Well, now Bobby and I are paying parents and watching our kids in racing. I can't imagine what our folks went through with four of us. In addition to Bobby and Al, older brother Jerry Jr. The first answer to make it to the Indy 500. That was in 1958 when he was caught in one of the most spectacular accidents in Indy history. One year later, while practicing for the 1959 Indy. Jerry Jr. like his uncle Joe before him died as a consequence of a racing accident. And after Jerry's tragedy, I would think as a mother and father they're concerned for the best collated. Well, Daddy and Mom, when Jerry got

killed in anapolis, never once, ever wanted us to slow down a quick race. And that was always stuck in my mind, how about it? Daddy and Mom said, don't let that fracture. Jerry was killed in 1959. And I remember that it wasn't very long before. I was 19, after that, it was 1962 that I came home and I told my folks that I had an offer to go to anapolis. But I was going to go take my driver's test, finally lined up a car, finally jumped for me. And I can remember that day and Mom just went off in the room, she cried for a little bit. And she came back and had nothing but a big smile on her face. And when it was going to be and what was going to happen this night and that was the end of it. Never one word about, well don't do it. And there was never a thought, or I guess

they had some thoughts, of course, but never a thought between us about what happened to Jerry. And would something befall myself? Just didn't happen. Though Lord knows what they talked about in the quiet of the night at home while you guys are out, letting around. You know, our dad would not have done that. Really? Yes, this family is a bit different that way. Now, if my dad established the rules, that's just not going to happen, then it wouldn't happen between Daddy and Mom either. Is that right? Yeah, and that's right. And my dad ruled this family, and that's exactly the way you ruled it. If he said that it's okay for the boys to race, then Godly Mom is going to go along with it. Now, I don't care if you like it or not. And then there is Brother Lewis, who despite a 25 -year battle with multiple sclerosis is known as the engine builder and mechanic to the champions. And not just to his brothers, but to other racing legends as well, including AJ Foight and Mario and Dredy. All in all, it is

a remarkable clan, and the second generation has spawned yet another. Bobby's two sons, Bobby Jr., who recently started his own real estate and development company, is nonetheless an avid racing enthusiast and promoter. And in 1985 broke the Pikes Peak qualifying record. There's no India, I don't think, I never say never, but I don't think there's an Indian in my future. However, Carl, I do wish to pursue racing at a later date more and more than I am at this point. I think once I get my real estate going and get financially where I want to be, then I'll start playing around. But it'll be more of a fun thing for me than it won't be my livelihood. It'll be something that I'm able to do and have fun at. But still, yeah, take very seriously and go for the win. Then there is Bobby's youngest son, Robbie, 18 years old and working hard at developing his racing skills. And there's more in the third generation.

Al's son, 24 -year -old Al Jr., recently injured in a Wisconsin racing accident, but clearly the heir apparent to the throne of the uncertain dynasty, having finished just one point behind his father in 1985 for the National Driving Championship. Well, you know, going down for the championship and having your boy as your competitor, as the one that you have to beat or he has to beat you, either on whatever way you want to say it, it's a feeling that it's just terrific. You know, I think it's probably the best feeling in racing I've ever had. As far as Al Jr. racing, I think it's really neat because it's neat to see his dad react the way he does. And it's really interesting. He's real twitchy and real nervous. But it's really

exciting for him too. You know, that's his flesh and blood out there doing what he did. A close -knit family bound together by strong ties of affection. Yet as competitive with one another as they are with any other racetrack upon him. Ever that moment out there in competition with a member of the family, your head, you think, gosh, I'm gonna let him have this one. No, because that's the competition. You never have I ever towards Bobby or towards my son. Ever said, well, if I just back off a little bit, I'll let him win it and know it. And they haven't for me either. It just doesn't happen like that because if you had that idea of backing off sometime and other than, then sometime and other, you wouldn't be hired back. Bobby, ever that moment? No, there can't be. Hal, it's

very much like Hal said that it's a very big business. It's a very important business, a very competitive sport. Any way you want to look at it, it's big. It's one of the biggest sports in the world. And you can't let family be involved into the racing. If I were to drop out of a race, I can certainly want out of the win. That's permissible. And nobody would respect anything else. And for me to give a race to Al, or for Al to give a race to me, or for Al to give one to a son, just couldn't be. Then he would no longer be a professional. But by the same token, we have to be able to get along as a family. We don't have to. We want to. The answers are a very close family. We stick very close together. We play together. We play hard. But we don't let it be a contest. We don't we have fun together. The main thing is the family just sticks together. Except when it comes to racing. Each familiar with triumph. Each on speaking terms with danger. And brushes with death. My first race in Indianapolis

was in 1963. And unfortunately, I was involved in an accident. I think in the second or third lap of the race. And a lot of it was my fault in experience. Some of it was a little problem. Another driver did, breaking too quick too early. But starting in the back of the pack was always tough in Indianapolis. And traffic problems are always a problem. So my first year wasn't too good. Well, in 1971, of course, my brother Al won the race. And it was when he was in one of the big hot streets. But I was also starting a very big hot street, grinding for Dan Grady in one of the Grady Eagles. And we dominated and led that race for quite a bit. But Mike Mosley had an accident. In front of me and hit the wall in Glance in front of me, causing me to spin. Therefore hitting the wall and knocking this out of the race. Where do you think you faced the greatest danger? The brush with death was the closest. I had probably too

many of them howling. I went to an era that was kind of bad. And I went to an era, for example, that maybe only 50 % of the drivers were expected to survive. And it was 50 % of the drivers just were expected to die in a race car. And that was a tough era. When I was real young, I did the sprint car circuit, which was very dangerous in those days. And to survive that was just something else. But ironically, the bad wreck didn't come in those kind of cars. I didn't have one real bad. One got her once real bad. But the worst wrecks that I had were ironically, both at Phoenix on the same race track. One of them was where the wheel came off. Turned wheel came off the car and I went underneath the fence. And it was that arm -co -steel guard rail. And it should have just cut my head off, should have cut me off about to my shoulders. And it didn't. And nobody's to this day can figure out how or why it didn't. And

I came out of that with nothing more, a little tiny cut on my left arm than a headache. And when I went into turn one, just started in, the right front wheel just kind of fell off. And took off. I said, oh, man, this is going to hurt. Raise it to the yellow, I want to turn number 24. Well, Texas, I don't remember. Because I hit very hard. It was one of those wrecks that should have killed me. And I had severe concussion. You know, you can be so close and so many times, and yet something goes wrong and it just goes all away from you. And there isn't anything you can do. It's part of the heartbreak of racing. You know, you just say, well, just one of

those bad days at work. You want to know, you know, instantly, is he okay? Is he out of the car? You know, what you can't find out right away. So, naturally, you run to the hospital or the facilities at the track, you know, to be the first one there, you know, you want to know what's going on. Karen and I both decided that to become involved would eliminate a lot of that. So we both started scoring for Bobby and Al respectively early on. And by scoring, we are down in the pits, and in communications constantly with what's going on. And by our stopwatches, we know where they are on the track at all times or where they're supposed to be. There's a body of opinion today that Indy cars have become so fat, they become dangerously fast, and all kind of rule changes are contemplated and effective, perhaps, to slow them down. What do you think of that, Al? Al, I don't believe that the cars are too fast today.

You can always say, well, when we qualify, the speeds are so high. But if you look at the record book and shows the lap charts, shows that the race speeds themselves this year flows down about 10 miles into our lap. So, I don't think the cars are too fast today. They keep trying to make rules to taper the speeds off. They say, not to slow them down, but to taper them off. This year, the cars are safer, much safer than when we first got started in anapolis, even at the speeds that we're running and they're safe at that speed. So, I don't think they're too quick. Is this your feeling that safety is improved? You shouldn't worry as much about speed. It's fantastic what science can do, what engineering can do. And, of course, with the technology that we have today, the moon shots and things like that, racing is just like all the rest of it. It's just fed in and it's such a

scientific thing anymore that safety has just progressed a long ways. You just hardly ever, not going with a little bit, but you hardly ever see a bad fire in racing anymore. You'll see a little off -fire or a small fire. But a lot of that, I'm happy to say, and yet sad to say, came from Vietnam. And because the fuel cells in the race cars come from the helicopters in Vietnam, the concepts of them. And so, one hand has helped the other. And safety has just gone so far. The tire development, the fuels, the aerodynamics have helped the cars. And plus, the carbon fiber, the new material that replaces aluminum, or replaces steel, it's a carbon fiber is a product that is approximately half of the weight of aluminum, and yet roughly twice the strength of steel. And that's what the tubs, the frame of the race cars made out of now. And so whenever the car crashes, the driver has a whole, whole

heck of a lot better chance than he used to. Boy, though they do look spectacular when you're sitting home watching and on your television screen. They're not safe yet. That's for sure. Well, I have an uncle, who, one guy speak up, I'm nine times. When I was a young lad, I used to aspire to be better than he was. I used to call him the king of the mountain. And I used to tell people somebody that there's going to be a new king. His name's going to be Bobby, and he's going to be my advocate. Well, when you're driving Pikes Peak, you just have to concentrate on the road and try not to ever let the drop -offs worry you, because they're terrible drop -offs. Thousand -foot, two thousand -foot drop -offs are common up there. There's approximately 160 turns at Pikes Peak. So that means that if you were able to pick up just a second per turn, it doesn't sound like much, but of course everybody tries to do that. But if you did, that would be 160 seconds, and that would be two -and -a -half minutes

roughly. So you can't do it that easy, but if you equate that down, the person could understand it, to maybe a tenth of a second, or two tenths of a second per turn, and times 160, or maybe you just take out the easy turns and put that down just to the sharp turns, which you maybe have, say, 60 hairpin turns. Now, if you can pick up two kids of a second there on each hairpin turn, you're really going to have a big advantage on the other drivers. And that's what the concept is on my side of the street. Long the whole I did become a king of Pikes Peak. In fact, I set another record again this year. I was away from Pikes Peak for 12 years and went back with an Audi all -wheel drive this year and set another brand new record, all -time record. And I think that that's really neat. I think that that's been one of the biggest highlights of my whole racing career. Pikes Peak, I held the qualifying record, the overall qualifying record until this year, where my dad beat it, and with the Audi Quattro. And I hope to go

back with the car of the back caliber or better to get the record back again. Al, there's a fourth. At least potentially now, a fourth generation of racing answers, as it were in the pipeline, there's... is mini -al. You're grandson, is that what they... I'm told, call your grandson, mini -al. Well, that's what they call it. You've got to call so big, because then you've got three of them. Twenty years from now, you've picked your chance for us to be out or in the competing championship. Well, I hope so. You know, you never know what's going to happen, but my boy Al said the other day, where you've got to take mini -al out and teach you how to run a go -kart. And I looked at him, I said, let's tell you what, kid, I went through one diaper change, 13 with you, and I'm not going to go through another one. I says, I'll help him, I'll stand back and tell you to yell at him. I'm not a great yell at him. I says, I yelled at you now. That was your turn, Al, Jr., is that what you're saying?

Let's sing your turn now. Let's sing your turn. Who doing? Now, as we approach the end of tonight's program of postscript, something which will be a regular feature on us tonight. and tonight's post script takes us to Taos, New Mexico, where each summer since 1963, under the sponsorship of the American string quartet, no more than 19 of the world's finest young musicians fill the mountains of northern New Mexico with the glorious sounds of chamber music. It is called the Taos School of Music. A high valley in the Sangre de Cristo, on the upper reaches of the Rio Hondo. Unseen the air is

heavy with fentoms of another era. Gold and copper were the cries a century ago. It was the sound of pick and shovel against earth and stone. The miners built a town, and they called it twining. Today, it is the gentle swish of ski on snow that is heard, here on William Frazier's mountain of copper. And for the past 25 summers, this valley with its myths and its ghosts has become the wonderful setting for the Taos Chamber Music Festival. The

thing about this place that was attractive was its location and the faculty and the fact that it's so small that you get so much individual attention, which is rare. It's very rare. If you do something wrong, you know, there's something about your playing that needs attention, you get it. You don't spend the whole summer making the same mistakes over and over again. Because we're small, only accepting 19 students, ever. I mean, we don't want more than that. Then you have to have people that you think would be getting along who would enjoy being together, who could put up with each other for eight weeks of this horrendous work. My part is viewing the studio. You sounded great. It's difficult to wake up in the morning. And run through a large piece of music.

Well. Lawlessly. Lawlessly. It's like getting up at seven o 'clock in the morning and leaving through a Dickens novel. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I

don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Tonight's Post Scripts, Summer Sites and Sounds in Northern New Mexico at the Taos School of Music. Next week, an important and varied agenda of stories

comes to the air on assignment. A report on the growing epidemic and hints of hope as New Mexico grapples with this deadly disease. With AZT, I think we are probably closer than we have been. It seems like a very bright light in what has been a very dark environment for the last five years. A Mother's Diary, as Barbara Keybody, author of the Screaming Room, recounts her son's gallant but doomed battle with AIDS. Nobody deserves to get AIDS for any reason and that person who does get it does deserve the support of his family and friends as much as they can. I'm so scared. And the theater discovers AIDS as the director of Larry Kramer's award -winning play, The Normal Heart, reflects upon a tragic disease as politics and drama. Nobody wants to hear where dying. My purpose was not only to reach an audience here, but to

reach them here as well. So, even as we come to the end of this edition of On Assignment, we look forward to another next week and in some important stories about which you need to be informed. Until next week, Ben, I am Hal Rhodes on assignment. Thank you for joining us. Good night. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . .

.