page two
Editorial
Dulling the atom
By Brian Carey
Editor
In our media-bombarded world, there is a strong tendency for
the mind to be deadened by repetitionof important topics and
decisive crises. This eventual dulling of the mind is a danger which
is silent, coming unannounced and silencing any opposition that
might be raised.
Before this becomes true of the facts concerning nuclear warfare
and the unleashing of atomic forces, I'd like to take an opportunity
to yell like hell.
It's almost crazy to imagine that the fears of the fifties can, in
twenty years, mellow into complacent acceptance and tail-wagging
acquiesence. People vowed never to let the horrors of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki; scar our collective consciences again, but now news
abounds of arms escalations of first strike capacities.
Battered by constant reports of Soviet build-up, American
nuclear technology, pions, muons, and right-on's, we have become
a race of the walking numb, intoning "Yes, Almighty Atom" with
every step. We'll accept anything we're told.
A symptom of this malaise is the popularity of movies like "Dirty
Harry."Our fragile sensesareso brutalized by the constant gore and
violence flashing by on the screen that they snap. We can only
mutter, "Of course, it's all right."
Well, I'm screaming it's not all right! Violence is still nasty, and
nuclear explosions are still horrifying. There is no such thing as
sustained nuclear casualties or any other fictional euphemisms for
killing people. Instant disintergration, massive destruction,
lingering death: these are still the results of nuclear explosions.
Instant dismtergmtion, massive destruction,
lingering death:
these are still the results of nuclear explosions.
Before we're fast talked and bludgeoned by media rationaliza
tions, let's say stop. I don't want to live in constant fear of those
men holding the buttons. I don't want my life to end in brilliant
flames or in a cancer ward. I don't want my kids to inherit this crazy
situation simply because I was too spineless to solve it now.
SALT II does nothing to alleviate the problem. Instead, its
technical explanations and detailed prescriptions grind down our
resistance even further. An international SALT II need only contain
three words: no more nukes. Leave the fancy language to the
diplomats.
This newspaper is also a member of the media, and there is the
danger that this will be filed away in the anti-nuclear section of a
dulled brain. Wake up! Take it as a slap in the face! Nuclear
weapons are no joke and must be outlawed while there's still time.
GmlJforcli&fiL
Editor Brian Carey
Layout Editor Beth Eakes
News Editor Paul Holcomb
Features Editor Gordon Palmer
Sports Editor Cintonya Allison
Photography Editor Steve Lowe
Business Managers Frank and Mary Merritt
Columnists Douglas Hasty, Bryan Smith
Campus Contact Tamara Frank
Circulation Joost De Wit, Peter Kothe
Layout Russell Tucker, Sharon Ehly,
Stephen Harvey, Karen Oppelt
Lisa Schweitzer, Austin Burns
and Marsha Halper
Advertising Kathe Luther, Fred Zumwalt
Typing Susan Franklin
The Guilfordian reserves the right to edit all articles, letters,
and artwork for taste, veracity, and length. The deadline for
all copy is midnight on the Friday preceeding the Tuesday of
publication. Articles may be left on the office door in upstairs
Founders, or mailed to Box 17717. The opinions expressed by
the staff are their own and not those of the paper or of
Guilford College.
Guilford ian
" Uell uW, do yOU fl&fS iaJce, rrvajor- c-ced't Ca r dStl*
r I~ M'- Letters to the Editor
'jl Keep thofe letters coming; it*> better te debate an issue without I
settling it than te settle an issue without debating it. All letters I
' must be submitted by Friday, and should be no longer 200 words'!
' * n length. Letters can be left on the office deer in upstairs 1
Founders, or mailed to Box 17717.
BeMaMBaaBWMMnPWMMMMMWWWSaMWHWMBO——MUMWUMWa—■——*^
Rotten here too
Dear Editor:
Let's all give the 1980's
version of the fish cheer. Gim
me a "K" . . . Cimme an "I"
. . . Gimme a "C" . . . Gimme
a "K" . . . What's that spell --
KICK . . . whats that spell --
MAIM . . .
"Come you Americans along
with me
We'll kick those Iranians one,
two, three
Let's all bind them to a tree
One for you and two for me.
In the past few weeks the
media has done a commendable
job in stirring up emotions
within the American public, in
veiw of the recent Iranian
"crisis." You're mad, I'm mad,
Exxon is mad, Billy Carter is
MAD litterally, but, let's quit
channeling all of our anger at
Iran, let's save some for the
U.S.
It's about time that the U.S.
with its "Hey, we're the good
guys" policy got an empty oil
barrel caught in its craw! We've
always been so insistent on
being the worldwide savior and
healer of heathens that we've
finally been nailed to our own
cross . . . and we don't like it.
Don't get me wrong; I'm
red-blooded, and I like apple pie
and Russian made M-16s as
much as the next guy, but let
this be a lesson to those who
don't leave anything alone.
Now what's this about the
"Aya-Lost Out-Tullah" being
as stupid as a fox? What about
our man Henry Houdini Kissin
ger who is so sneaky that . . .
(fill in your own). Why is it that
he was so interested in getting
the Shah into New York's
$250/ day hospital beds? Cer
tainly rot to show off our
nurses, or his personalized bed
pan collections!
You haven't heard much
about the Egypt Israel issue
lately, have you? I give Mr.
Kissinger credit in manufactur
ing this whole Iranian "con
flict" so as to take some of the
heat off the smoldring E/l issue
for awhile. Things getting a bit
too hot with the Egyptian/
Israeli talks, huh, Henry? In the
meantime Begin and Sadat can
go throw darts at eacl other's
pictures for awhile.
Of course these are my own
conclusions, possibly rash, but
don't fool yourself into thinking,
that Henry isn't capable of this.
I hope that my puppet strings
don't break off in Henry's
hands or I might fall onto the
Golan Heights and feel kinda
stupid!
Sincerely,
Rolf Dammann
Golden opportunity
Dear Editor:
I am writing to express my
concern, displeasure and dis
appointment with the response
to the Student Committee for
Promotion and Tenure.
Many students have foregone
their golden opportunity to state
their views about their profes
sors and have real input into a
very important decision-making
process that affects their educa
tion.
We are an independent and
parallel committee to the Facul
ty Affairs Committee, designed
especially to represent student
views. Our report is supposed to
carry the same impact that the
faculty's report does.
Frankly, thus far your re
sponse has been pathetic. At
best only one fourth of our
letters were answered. How can
we be reasonably expected to
reflect your views on whether or
not a given professor should be
promoted or granted tenure?
With only twenty views or so,
we cannot do our job as tho
roughly as the importance of the
report dictates we should. You
have effectively tied our hands.
Our decisions, in the long
run, affect the value of your
sheepskin. With as much work
as is invested in it, it is well
worth your while to take fifteen
minutes or so to help us protect
your investment.
Enough time has been spent
on talk, it is time to do
something. If you recieve a
letter from us, please respond.
Thank you,
Karen Everett
Co-Chairperson
Jerry makes sense
Dear Editor:
I would like to take exception
to the editorial of November
20th, "Was That Jerry?." Jerry
Rubin would be the first person
December 4, 1979
to acknowledge your freedom to
express your own opinions, but
I believe that you are also guilty
of some of the same "fuzzy
contradictions" of which you
accuse Rubin.
You accuse Jerry Rubin of
being a hypocrite and a sell-out
for demanding payment for his
appearances, while at the same
time "raving" about socialism
and economic equality. There is
no contradiction I can see
between making a living and
protesting against the economic
injustices so evident in our
society. There is really little
similarity between the huge oil
monopolies against which Ru
bin was "raving," and a man
making a couple thousand dol
lars (or however much) from a
speaking engagement.
Of the protesters their
complaints may have seemed a
bit more legitimate had they
taken place in response to,
rather than before, Rubin's
lecture. And I wouldn't doubt
that college administrators
would feel that they have a bone
to pick with Rubin -- times are a
changin,' but not so drastically
that people in authority would
appreciate a person known for
attacking the powers that be.
Rubin's belief in "the Ken
nedy mystique" is hardly "ir
rational;" he did say that he
recommended Kennedy despite
serious instinctual reservations,
and he had more than one
reason for his preference. A
man who recognizes that the
Mafia is into everything is
hardly "obsessed;" law en
forcement agencies across the
country would agree with him.
You lifted five quotes entirely
away from their contexts.
Didn't Rubin say that more than
half of U.S. citizens believe that
oil should be nationalized? Are
all these people also "blind?" I
think they're fed up.
Rubin's a convincing speaker
- he convinced me most of the
time -- and I pride myself on my
skepticism as much as he does.
The man has strong opinions,
just as you do, but his credos
hardly seem "confused." I
think part of the confusion on
your part may have been the
result of selective listening.
Sincerely,
Gwen Bikis