North Carolina Newspapers is powered by Chronam.
6The Daily Tar HeelMonday, November 7, 198a.
latlt cHar Mni
91st year of editorial freedom
Kerry DeRochi, Editor
Alison Davis, Managing Editor
CHARLES ElLMAKER, Associate Editor FRANK BRUNI , Associate Editor
KELLY SIMMONS, University Editor
KYLE MARSHALL, State and National Editor
MICHAEL DeSiSTI, Sports Editor
MELISSA MoOREt News Editor
John Conway, City Editor
KAREN FlSHER, Features Editor
Jeff Grove, Arts Editor
CHARLES W. LEDFORD, Photography Editor
U.S. no Messiah
For mayor, White
When votes are counted Tuesday night, the results in the Carrboro
mayoral race should show a difference not in platform ideas, but in ex
perience to make those ideas work. Both candidates have spent the last
few weeks speaking eloquently on town concerns ranging from the lack
of a stable water supply to future growth and development. Of the two,
however, it is James G. White Jr. who shows the experience to develop
those concerns into changes. As a member of the Board of Aldermen,
he's proposed plans that reflect a knowledge of the specific workings of
Carrboro town government.
Throughout the election White and Jim Porto have spoken of the
Carrboro "identity' and how to retain it. Porto, a member of the town's
appearance commission, has based much of his campaign on the preser
vation of its architectural heritage. His proposals include the building of a
new downtown post office and the development of a recreation center.
He's spoken of adding new trees to the area. And he's refused to put up
campaign posters sure to clutter Carrboro.
White, on the other hand, has proposed a comprehensive plan of de
velopment with the recognition that additional revenue will be needed to
carry them out. He supports a half-cent increase in the sales tax now be
ing considered by the Orange County Board of Commissioners and has
recommended a bond referendum to raise money for the Franklin Street
extension. His ideas for the town include the construction of specialty
shops near Carr Mill, changes that would be carried out by a community
planning task force.
In addition, White has proposed the establishment of a community re
lations board designed to bring people back into town government
people that would include students.
It's obvious by now that with the election of either Porto or White, the
Carrboro future will be left in the hands of a leader concerned with the
town's image and growth. Yet, it's this similiarity in ideas that simply
magnifies the differences in experience. For the knowledge needed to get
the job done, students should choose White Nov. 8 as the next Carrboro
Vote... Vote... Vote
The issues with which the governments of Chapel Hill and Carrboro
concern themselves greatly affect the everyday lives of UNC students.
The freedoms we enjoy, the restrictions we tolerate and the housing alter
natives we seek are largely determined by the men and women who have
been elected to represent our interests. It is a matter of unfortunate fact
W&X a, great RJrY,ojF these, residents namely, students will not cast
ballots-in Tuesday's municipal elections, elections which include: four
seats on the Chapel Hill Town Council, three seats on the Carrboro
Board of Aldermen and the mayors of both towns.
Unfortunate because these public officers can enhance or hinder the .
lives of students at UNC. From Chapel Hill Town Council meetings of
recent years have come the decisions to ban drinking on public premises
and to issue a noise ordinance forbidding the loud playing of stereo music
past 1 a.m. The Town Council and mayor play vital roles in determining
the controversial fate of the Chapel Hill thoroughfare proposal, which
may very well result in an extension of Pittsboro Street and the destruc
tion of fraternity houses in the area.
With students forming about one-third of Carrboro' s population,
many decisions made by the Board of Aldermen address student needs.
The board holds the power to make a student's life a bit easier with im
provements and extensions of the Carrboro bus and bikeway systems, or
much harder with a curbing of apartment complex development.
As it turns out, few students will even be eligible to vote in Tuesday's
elections, because few students bothered to register this fall. Although a
certain degree of student ignorance concerning town issues is understan
dable, the meager number of registered students is saddening. Even
"Student "Government's registration drive earlier this semester failed to
capture the attention of most students.
Registered students, however, do exist, and the burden of speaking for
most UNC students falls upon them. Having taken the initiative to
register, they must now make certain that the quiet voice of student con
cerns is heard. And it is up to those procrastinators unable to vote in this
year's municipal elections to take note of what happens and to register
and vote in next year's election.
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Assistants: Bill Riedy and Gigi Sonner.
Assistant Managing Editors: Joel Broadway, Tracy Hilton and Amy Tanner
Assistant Nefts Editor Gary Meek
News Desk: Cynthia Brown and Pam Weber
News: Tracy Adams, Dick Anderson, Diana Bosniack, Keith Bradsher, Amy Branen, Lisa
Brantley, Hope Buffington, Tom Cordon, Kathie Collins, Kate Cooper, Teresa Cox, Lynn
Davis, Dennis Dowdy, Chris Edwards, Kathy Farley, Steve Ferguson, Genie French, Kim
Gilley, Marymelda Hall, Andy Hodges, Reggie Holley, Sue Kuhn, Thad Ogburn, Beth
O'Kelley, Janet Olson, Rosemary Osborne, Heidi Owen, Beth Ownley, Cindy Parker, Donna
Pazdan, Ben Perkowski, Frank Proctor, Linda Queen, Sarah Raper, Mary Alice Resch, Cindi
Ross, Katherine Schultz, Sharon Sheridan, Deborah Simpkins, Jodi Smith, Sally Smith, Lisa
Stewart, Mark Stinneford, Carrie Szymeczek, Liz Saylor, Amy Tanner, Doug Tate, Wayne
Thompson, Vance Trefethen, Chuck Wallington, Melanie Wells, Scott Wharton, Lynda Wolf,
Rebekah Wright, Jim Zook, and Stuart Tonkinson, assistant university editor.
Sports: Frank Kennedy, Kurt Rosenberg and Eddie Wooten, assistant sports editors. Glenna
Bun-ess, Kimball Crossley, Pete Fields, John Hackney, Lonnie McCullough, Robyn Nor
wood, Michael Persinger, Julie Peters, Glen Peterson, Lee Roberts, Mike Schoor, Scott Smith,
Mike Waters, David Wells and Bob Young.
Features: Dawn Brazell, Clarice Bickford, Tom Camacho, Toni Carter, Margaret Claiborne,
Cindy Dunlevy, Charles Gibbs, Tom Grey, Kathy Hopper. Charles Karnes, Joel Katzenstein,
Dianna Massie, Kathy Norcross, Jane Osment, Clinton Weaver and Mike Truell, assistant
Arts: J. Bonasia, Steve Carr, Ivy Hilliard, Jo Ellen Meekins, Sheryl Thomas and David
Schmidt, assistant arts editor.
Photography: Lori Heeman, Bryce Lankard, Jeff Neuville, Susie Post and Zane Saunders
Business: Anne Fulcher, business manager; Angela Booze and Tammy Martin, accounts
receivable clerks; Dawn Welch, circulationdistribution manager; William Austin, assistant
circulationdistribution manager; Patti Pittman and Julie Jones, classified advertising staff;
Yvette Moxin, receptionist; Debbie McCurdy, secretary.
Advertising: Paula Brewer, advertising manager; Mike Tabor, advertising coordinator; Laura
Austin, Kevin Freidheim, Patricia Gorry, Terry Lee, Doug Robinson, Amy Schultz and Anneli
Zeck, ad representatives. ' . i
Composition: UNC-CH Printing Department
Printing: Hinton Pres$, Inc. of Mebane.
By BERNARDO GARCIA
In "Unrest in Grenada" (DTH, Oct. 28), Julie Haack
gives some elaboration to support U.S. intervention in
Grenada. She summarized her stance on it as follows: "It
is not the unequivocable right of the United States to in
tervene in another country's affairs, but it was right in this
case. There were too many reasons to intervene."
The point I want to make here, as a Latin American, is
not that I firmly condemn the U.S. intervention in
Grenada (or in any other place in the world) and therefore
cannot agree with Haack's arguments. That's needless to .
say. No, my point here is about the supposed moral or
legal authority of the U.S. government to undertake such
moves. Haack seems firmly convinced, as unfortunately
some other Americans do too, of the Messianic role of the
United States in the world to preserve peace, freedom and
democracy, against the threat of spread of communism.
The first question should be: Who appointed the U.S.
government (I stress a clear distinction between the U.S.
government and the people of the United States) to such a
role? Of course, this was not an international agreement,
but kind of a self-appointment to the post of "inter
national policeman and morals keeper." All this in the
name of peace, freedom and democracy. Unfortunately,
the same U.S. government has done a lot to destroy any
trace of moral authority that it might have gained from its
fight against fascism during the Second World War. Ac
tually, the international discredit of the United States
started right then, when it proved capable to drop the
atomic bomb on civil population in Japan, in a barbaric
and unneeded act since Japan's surrender was imminent.
This gives the United States the very dubious honor of be
ing the only country in the world that has ever used
nuclear weapons against man. Since then, there have been
a lot of U.S. international performances, besides the
Korean and Vietnam wars, that have completed the ero
sion of the assumed "moral authority" toward the world.
This, of course, results in the impossibility of the United
States to be trusted by the world about its good faith and
genuine interest in preserving peace, freedom and
democracy. Evidence is overwhelming:
In 1954 the democratically elected civil government of
Guatemala was overthrown by a mercenary invasion
sponsored by the CIA. Since then, Guatemala has seen a
succession of repressive and bloody dictatorships, strongly
backed by the United States.
The U.S. government suddenly seems to be concern
ed about elections in Nicaragua and Grenada, and has
proved so indifferent to support elections in Chile,
Uruguay, Argentina and many other countries that live
under barbaric dictatorships, but nevertheless are con
sidered "friends" by the United States. Are we going to be
considered friendly countries by the U.S. government only
1, -' I Venezuela
if we are governed by bloody, rightist, anti-communist,
military dictatorships? Is that the model for American
Why has the United States become so impatient with
the four-year-old Sandinista government in Nicaragua,
and yet proved to be so patient and supportive with 45
bloody years of Somoza's dictatorship?
Why, if the United States is the stronghold of
democracy in the world, didn't it move a finger to support
Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of
Chile? There is even strong evidence, if not certainty, that
the military coup was sponsored by the CIA, making this
a "successful point" in Kissinger's resume for his appoint
ment by Reagan to the Commission on Central America.
How could we be trusting and innocent on these
hypocritical bases? Or should we conclude that the prin
ciples of self-determination and sovereignty of nations de
pend on the selfish U.S. economical and geopolitical in
terests? Is that the "legality" you are defending in
Right now Nicaragua is being invaded by Contras
(counter-revolutionaries), readily identified as former
members of Somoza's repressive National Guard. The on
ly support for these Contras comes from a worldwide
known covert CIA operation. Does the U.S. think that
democracy is more likely under a Death Squads Regime?
In El Salvador, the United States strongly backs a re
pressive government against a popular insurrection, which
has been distorted by the American press, calling it a
"Marxist-led guerrilla movement." Can anybody really
believe that is a democratic government, when elections
were held after the murdering of the opposition leaders
and when death squads jointly with the army patrolled the
The list could extend almost to infinity. Unfortunately
these are the facts that present the U.S. image to the
world. Sadly enough, the once-real democratic face has
been replaced with an image that identifies U.S. govern
ment interests with the support of the worst of the right
wing, fascist and repressive regimes in the world. These
are the reasons why nobody can trust the U.S. govern
ment's good faith in any military intervention, whether in
Lebanon, Nicaragua or Grenada. A demoUshing list of
facts would require a nonexistent, impossible explanation.
The worldwide reaction against the intervention in
Grenada proves this. Evidently, nobody has swallowed
the excuse of American concern for the safety of the
Americans in Grenada.
Right now, the U.S. government has the same moral
authority for a military intervention anywhere, as a rapist
to rape or a mugger to mug: brute force. The
"arguments" only change in scale. In the latter they are
knives or physical strength. In the former they are gun
boat diplomacy or Marine invasions.
The small fraction of Latin Americans like myself who
have had the chance to live in the United States knows
that the internal face of this country is much more likable
than the external. Indeed we have come to be familiar
with and aclmire a lot of its internal policy, rather different
from its erratic and inconsistent exterior counterpart.
But unfortunately, the United States has not chosen to
show its nice face to its neighbors. What is normally of
fered is a stone face, if not a fist. We really regret the
American lack of understanding of the real problems of
our continent. The exacerbation of tensions and the even
tual outbreak of open war in Central America and else
where will be blamed more on the U.S. obsession with be
ing the international policeman of the free world and the
stoical defender of the fundamental traditional American
values than to any supposed or real influences of com
munism in our countries. For once and for all, you have
to learn that the origin of change in Latin America and
elsewhere is not in Moscow or in La Habana, but in the
history of each region. To believe the former is tanta
mount to believe the Moscow charges that unrest in
Poland began in Washington. Both explanations are
childish, if not perverse.
The sad truth is that the United States has committed
itself to the very dubious cause of supporting the most
hated governments on this continent, and to the constant
attack of the regional attempts of change and progress. Is
it possible to defend this? Where is the old real U.S.
leadership as a young nation of change, democracy and
liberalism? It seems that this faded off at the end of the
American foreign policy has got to change, and the
burden rests mainly on the American people. Stop be
lieving tales and look at the facts. The stakes are too high.
Perhaps on the change depends the future of the U.S.
people, of the Latin American people and of mankind as
a whole. We all certainly deserve it.
Bernardo Garcia is an economics graduate student
from Guatemala City.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Trouble overseas? Check your own backyard
To the editor:
Absurd! Absolutely, incredibly absurd.
UNC is so totally crazy that everyone hav
ing anything to do with the University
should be straitjacketed and locked away
until further notice.
President Reagan and the powers that
be around the world are making this a very
exciting year on campus for political in
volvement and demonstrations. There
were two demonstrations Oct. 26 con
cerning the U.S. invasion of Grenada.
Weeks ago there was a die-in to protest the
deployment of the MX missile. Korean
students picketed to protest the shooting
down of the Korean airliner. There was a
rally in the Pit some weeks ago addressing
the question of Central America. And the
list can go on.
But while students are running around
waving flags for the Young Democrats and
the College Republicans and the Black
Student Movement and the Carolina Com
mittee on Central America and the Com
munist Workers Party and the Unification
Church and every other political group
there is, UNC graduate students elect five
students to fill graduate student seats on
the Campus Governing Council by an
enormous combined total of 107 votes
107 out of how many thousands?
Two of the five students elected are
members of a new progressive political
party called Students Effectively Estab
lishing a Democratic System. These can
candidates won landslide victories receiv
ing 18 (of 19) votes and 34 (of 40) votes in
each election. This is a powerful mandate
from the student body for more progres
sive political action.
And we're going to get it! As the DTH
reports, these two newly elected officials
are proposing everything from making the
campus a "nuclear-free zone" to "forcing
the University to divest its holdings in
companies that operate in South Africa."
Incredible proposals from two officials
elected by a handful of votes. Can this be
real? ..- .
The graduate students are to blame.
Maybe the Elections Board is to blame for
doing a poor job of publicizing the elec
tions. But whom will the blame fall on
Democracy starts here. Yes, Grenada
and Lebanon and Nicaragua and El Sal
vador and every other trouble area in the
world is important, and it is inspiring to
see people so interested. Policy decisions
need to be questioned because of the ef
fects they have on American lives and the
Cold War and the future of the Middle
East and everything else including
18:year-olds like myself who are card
carrying draft registrants.
But are these reasons to ignore what is
closest to us Chapel Hill and the Uni
versity of North Carolina? This is the time
to make the changes we can since 107 peo
ple have already done their part. They
should be the ones discussing Grenada
now while the rest of us sit uselessly bound
in our straitjackets, wondering why we feel
so helpless about 220 Marines dying in
Lebanon and the U.S. invasion of
To the editor:
After having spent $9.50 of my hard
earned money, after having dressed up in
a silly costume, and after having to sit
through a boring and feedback-ridden
show by The Breaks, the much awaited
appearance of The Tubes was very
welcome and gratifying. Yet after 45
minutes, I ended up leaving the concert in
disgust. Why? Because if I had had to
witness another song and dance number
full of sexually explicit material, I would
have easily lost my lunch.
Don't get me wrong. I am by no means
a member of the Moral Majority, nor am
I prone to censor everything I watch
because I am easily offended. Quite the
contrary. I think I have a very open mind.
But in the short time I sat in Memorial
Hall, I watched the simulations of
countless acts of fellatio, an attempted
rape, a murder (complete with spurting
blood) and several stripteases. Not to
mention the two girls who were hired, not
for their ability as backup singers, as they
are mistakenly billed, but rather for their
ability to prance and flaunt their T's and
A's, so to speak. The lead singer of The
Tubes, Fee Waybill, managed to remain
unclothed for the majority of the time I
was there by taking off his pants to reveal
a minute, silver-studded, black leather
The point I am trying to make is that I
don't understand why The Tubes felt this
need to try and titillate the audience. The
Tubes are extremely talented and I would
have been more than happy to just sit and
listen to their music without having to be
subjected to their idea of entertainment.
Do they assume that sex and violence are
the only means by which to provoke in
terest in their music? Whatever happened
to talent? Or perhaps, are they so unsure
of their musical ability that they fear if
they merely sang that they would lose
their audience? Whatever the case, I was
very disappointed with the entire evening,
and The Tubes just lost a fan.
Karen L. Youngblood
Silence condones U.S. militarism
To the editor:
We, the Executive Committee of the
Campus Y, are deeply concerned about
the growing level of human suffering in
Central America. As citizens in a
democratic society, we recognize our
right and our obligation to criticize the
policies of our government. We believe
that student and community involvement
is absolutely imperative in securing a just
and lasting peace in our hemisphere, and
we join forces to speak out against
military intervention in Central America.
By responding militarily to the
legitimate aspirations of people for self
determination, the U.S. government
denies our own heritage and fundamental
beliefs. Rather than support people
throughout Central America and the
Caribbean who are struggling to over
come decades of poverty, illiteracy, op
pression and powerlessness, the U.S.
government has allied itself with the
area's most repressive regimes, such as in
El Salvador and Guatemala.
We are opposed to the intervention of
any superpower that leads to increasingly
hostile rhetoric and further military
buildup. We cannot support a military
solution when a political solution is more
powerful, more peaceful and more just.
U.S. military aid and intervention in Cen
tral America have spiralled upward. Yet,
certainly U.S. attempts at imposed
military solutions have not resulted in the
stated objective of the "preservation of
peace and democracy."
It is time for us to learn from the past.
Our experiences in Vietnam should make
us wary of military failures used to justify
further military escalation.
Therefore, we join our voices with,
those demanding a stop to all U.S.
military aid and intervention in El
Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. We
call for an end to U.S. covert operations
and destabilization activity against
Nicaragua. We are deeply concerned
about the situation in Grenada and urge
an honest and balanced appraisal of the
U.S. role there. The situation is critical,
and with our silence we condone U.S.
foreign policy. Now is the time to act: We
urge you to organize and march on
Campus Y co-presidents
and the Campus Y Executive Committee
Longing no more
By BALRAM KAKKAR
Playing marbles on the streets and
flying kites from the mudroofs of my
house, I grew up happy and carefree
in Afghanistan. I looked with fascina
tion toward the hippies from America,
the land of freedom. They appeared
shabby, but it seemed that they had
nothing to worry about. Life was fun
for them. America a place where
everybody had a car, and could buy
anything they could pay for was a
land I thought I would never set foot
on. America was a dream I had built
in my mind.
Nothing was wrong with my life in
Afghanistan. Nothing. Then one day
the Russian tanks came rolling in front
of my house. Everything came to a
halt. A lot of my friends were im
prisoned and never came back. I
Now, five years since I left
Afghanistan, the shooting that I heard
on that night of 1978 still echoes in my
mind. But I should be glad that I am
in America, the land of my dreams. I
am in America, the "land of the free .
and the home of the brave."
One of my friends argues that
Americans want every family in the
world to have a house and a car. Let's
be realistic. Massive American
shipments of arms to poor and
underdeveloped countries to fight
wars fueled and inspired by im
perialism does not provide Third
World families with houses and cars.
Every person in those "prone-to-communism"
countries has to be fed
first. Houses and cars will eventually
The other day, as I left Classics 30,
another friend told me that Americans
had invaded Grenada. "We got there
just in time," said the president of the
United States. He also added that the
Grenadians, backed by the Cubans
and Soviets, had accumulated "three
warehouses full of arms." So they sent
in some more men.
In Monday's editorial section, there
was printed a most presumptuous let
ter by Peter Reiner ("Print what
CARP has to say," DTH, Oct. 31.) Of
course, America's freedom is asserted
by its free press. The free press is what
helps people make judgments after ex
amining both sides of an issue. I used
to criticize the Moscow radio for its
propaganda. Americans, on the other
hand, are proud to actually see what
their government is doing in other
regions of the world. Reiner further
asserts the vague assumption that "ir
responsible media coverage can result
in irresponsible foreign policy." There
is no such concept as "irresponsible
media coverage." As far as the
reporters are concerned, their job is to
give the news and their analysis. They
do their job. What matters is how
people interpret the news. On the
other hand, restricted media coverage,
and not "irresponsible media
coverage," leads to irresponsible
foreign policy." Thus, if the facts are
not fully given, I don't see how Reiner
reached his conclusion that the
Marines "got there just in time."
As for the reasons the administra
tion gave for this invasion, they are
not sufficient. To invade a country
just for the "protection of students"
sounds ridiculous. America is not only
violating international law, it is also
abandoning the basic American
philosophy: freedom to determine
one's own government. Time is the
only answer. History will catch up
with this administration too.
Meanwhile, it is agonizing that the
America of my dreams is not free. It is
the victim of "self-proclaimed-liberator"
ideology. The struggle for
equality by blacks is tearing the coun
try apart, and above all, the fallacy to
have a car and a house is marring the
sense of judgment of Americans.
As for myself, I am troubled by the
fear of intense American materialism,
and intervention ideology. My strugg
le to escape from my past is in vain. I
wish I had never, grown up. I wish I
were still playing marbles and flying
kites on our mudroofs. I wish I had
not heard the Soviet tanks, and above
all, I wish I had never longed for
Balram Kakkar is a freshman
business administration major from