Skip to Content
North Carolina Newspapers

The daily Tar Heel. (Chapel Hill, N.C.) 1946-current, November 07, 1983, Page 6, Image 6

Below is the OCR text representation of this newspaper page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

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 mayor. 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 features editor. 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 'United States Vj Nicaragua 1, -' I Venezuela DTHJanice Murphy if we are governed by bloody, rightist, anti-communist, military dictatorships? Is that the model for American "friends"? 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 Grenada? 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 voters' booths? 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 eighteenth century. 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 next time? 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 Grenada. Louis Corrigan Hinton James Rude Tubes 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 loin cloth. 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 Ehringhaus 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 Nov. 12. Andrea Stumpf Ken Smith 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 escaped. 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 follow. 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 America. Balram Kakkar is a freshman business administration major from Kabul, Afghanistan.

North Carolina Newspapers is powered by Chronam.

Digital North Carolina