8AThe Daily Tar Heel Monday, August 26, 1985
READER FORUM
Car
93 r J year of editorial freedom
Arm: Rk:ki:rt and David Schmidt
Editor Editor
Stuart Tonkinson Managing Editor
Associate Editor
Dick Anderson Associate Editor
Janet Olson University Editor
AmyStyers News Editor
Andy Trincia State and National Editor
Leigh Williams
Mark Powell
. Lee Roberts
Frank Bruni
Sharon Sheridan
Larry Childress
City Editor
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
Photo Editor
U.S. needs a black eye
What's as disturbing as the violence
and oppression in South Africa
usually termed "unrest," which, in an
Orwellian sense, equates the bloodshed
with a case of insomnia is the Reagan
administration's policy toward it.
"Constructive engagement," through
which the United States has tried to
achieve reform in South Africa by
working within P.W. Botha's white
minority government, was a necessary
first step. But Botha stubbornly and
openly refuses to advance further. To
continue believing that he can be
convinced to initiate reform is to repeat
British Prime Minister Chamberlain's
mistaken faith in Hitler's professed
desires for peace on the threshold of
World War II.
(Too severe a comparison? It exists
when an uncompromising racist com
mands so much oppression within his
sphere of power.)
A new perspective
The South Africans who deserve the
sympathies and encouragement of
constructive engagement are the down
trodden blacks. The Reagan administra
tion needs to switch perspectives and
bargain for a peaceful settlement from
the black perspective rather than from
Botha's, as it is doing now. Working with
the blacks toward reform to build a
government holds more promise of
achieving equality than working toward
reform that the whites see as destroying
a government.
Perhaps it's too late and the blacks
won't accept U.S. aid. And deciding
whom to contact as being representative
of black aims also poses a problem,
although the exiled African National
Congress seems to be the best organ
ization through which to reach the
fragmented majority. But at least
Reagan must try.
Just by offering its support, the United
States shows Botha its ability to see past
the South African government's material
advantages and to make the right
choices: Between moral and economic
inducements. Between peaceful change
and violent revolution. Between helping
to construct a democratic government
that holds the promise of basic human
To the dth degree
freedoms and supporting a regime that's
anti-communistic only because the
whites, collectively, seem to border on
fascism.
Lesson from history
The United States has the opportunity
to prevent another Soviet Russia or
Cuba. By working with the forces
battling repression and inequality from
the start, the United States could guide
change influence it, at least and
avoid the rise of a dictatorship to replace
the first. That the blacks will come out
on top, as their intensifying spirit and
struggle indicates, is only a matter of
time.
Instead, Reagan continues blindly to
support the guarantors of law and order,
as if whites were the only ones who could
keep it. Granted, the South African
blacks are compromising their claim for
sympathy through their violence, but
their attempts within the system are
routinely rebuffed. All the more reason
to offer them U.S. help as a stabilizing
force, before it's too late.
A call for campus action
UNC students can contribute to a
push for reform by lobbying for divest
ment of University funds from South
Africa. Some have argued that the
economic losses ultimately hurt the
blacks, but these blacks are putting more
than their jobs on the line every day by
jeopardizing their life for their cause.
And how many of them have told
Americans not to divest?
In addition, divestment plans have
been devised at other universities that
target businesses to have a maximum
effect on the South African government
while minimizing damage to blacks. It
can be done here.
Acknowledging the limitations of a
student editorial about such a complex
issue but realizing its need for wides
pread attention, we urge students to
discuss and follow the developments in
South Africa on their own as often and
closely as possible.
There are no simple solutions just
directions that people can't afford to
ignore when injustice reigns.
Details, details, details
We haven't received many letters from
our readers thus far into the year. My
guess is that the most heated topics of
the year have yet to crop up. I have no
doubt that soon we'll be virtually
inundated with letters of all sorts. And
I can't tell you how much I look forward
to that prospect. Mm-mm, who's going
to ask me whether or not I dance this
fall? Anticipation is half the fun, they
always say.
For the time being, though, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to
expound upon a somewhat lesser issue.
Namely, this is the issue of what we
call "fine craftsmanship." It seems to be
a favorite among the young ladies.
First of all, this is an area of the paper
that few people question by way of letter
writing. More commonly, the rare
student who suffers to know the answer
to a nagging question spots me or Dave
stalking through the Student Union,
then musters the courage to collide with
said co-editor, and promptly spills her
textbooks upon the floor . . . At this
point, the co-editor is made aware of
the fact that the particular young lady
has a question to ask, be her methods
ever so frank. The question never fails
to relate to an aspect of the 'fine
craftsmanship we put into the paper.
After knocking heads together in the
ritual of gathering up the young lady's ,
textbooks, the two parties are obliged
to look at one another and to smile (as
if to say, mutually, "Gee, isn't it funny
how these thingsH happen?")
The young lady will then realize that
opportunity has knocked. "Aren't you
. . . (pause) . . . with the DTHT. shell
ask (and the gracious, knowing-eyed co
editor already will have begun to nod,
wondering what it will be this time). Her
next line will be somewhat of a further
tip-off: "I thought so," shell say, "so
which one are you?" For my part, I
always admit to being Arne. The
evidence seems to be indisputable. .
"Oh, really?" shell say (a question to
which I will one day respond quite
sarcastically, if asked often enough, but
to which I will only nod at present). And
then she will go in for the kill, her hunger
for knowledge being too great to
restrain.
"What was that thing in there the
other day about towers?" shell ask. And
thus, the long process at last will be
complete.
And yet, it could have happened in
no other way.
You see, these are the questions that
no one wants to ask in a letter. For no
one wants to admit that they failed to
understand something so trivial as a play
upon words . . . (Incidentally, in Fri
day's paper, we wrote, beside the
masthead, "Get an eyeful . . . You won't
find any towers in our special pullout
section." Get it? . . . Eyeful? . . . Towers?
. . . Eiffel towers? ... ho boy. . . .)
Well, at any rate, it's that sparkling
eye for wit that makes for "fine crafts
manship" at the DTH. It's not enough
for our front-page weather brief to tell
you what the weather will be like during
the day it needs to be done with a
creative twist, or at least a little warp.
And it's nice to know that so many
people appreciate our efforts so highly.
After all, if they're willing to spill their
textbooks for the sake of becoming
better informed, then I think we've done
our duty by making them so hungry for
knowledge. And that's what this country
is all about. And, and it just makes me
so goldang awful proud to be an
Amerrcun that ... well . . . shucks, it
makes me want to go out and write even
more unintelligible puns.
ARNE RICKERT
Union films:
nothing to
brag about
To the editors:
As an alumnus of UNC and a
Union privilege card holder of the
past few years who has enjoyed
immensely the films shown by the
Union, I was disappointed to see
the new film schedule, and appalled
to read the comments of the new
film committee chairperson in a
DTH article ("Union committee
sought film variety," Aug. 23),
particularly her absurd remark that
the movies this year are of a higher
quality than in previous years. It is
incredible that a person who brings
to the Union such garbage as The
Ghost and Mister Chicken, Brim
stone and Treacle, Texas Chainsaw
Massacre, The Nutty Professor, and
Beverly Hills Cop, and has appar
ently ignored the Union tradition of
playing a large number of documen
taries and foreign and art films,
would make such a comment. I have
no intention of purchasing a priv
ilege card this year. The money, I
am sorry to say, would be more
wisely invested in Duke's fine
Freewater program.
A.
James Pryor
Chapel Hill
X WAf (fl I
AWAuS.
r
O
i r
I 1
N6llHet2 UAt
-roe cAm ffzoM. 1 fAit oAteu mu-
--V A mill ii . .
v .....
JT
the xi-i tAr neeu
ft
Liberals a better style of patriotism
STEVEN B. EPSTEIN
It is quite disheartening to liberals, and
Democrats for that matter, when conservatives
and Republicans refer, in unadulterated demag
oguery, that liberals and Democrats are "unpa
triotic" because they criticize American relation
ships with right-wing dictatorial nation-states
and bloated domestic defense budgets. I would
like to offer a response "not a defense, because
this sophistic conservative claim is not worthy
of one regarding the liberal position on the
issues of right-wing dictators and defense
spending. .
The claim that liberals and Democrats are
unpatriotic because they criticize American
support of right-wing dictators is tacitly a claim
that they do not sufficiently criticize nations with
communist or Marxist governments more
diabolical than the right-wing dictators for whom
they have a particular distaste. Two responses
seem cogent here. First, it is completely untrue
that liberals and Democrats do not criticize
communist and Marxist governments. In the
U.S. Congress there exists a joint congressional
task force on Afghanistan in which the Soviet
draconian policies tormenting the people of the
sovereign nation of Afghanistan are brought
conspiculously out in the open. On this bipartisan
committee serve two of the most liberal
Democratic senators, Sen. Claiborne Pell, co
chairman, and Sen. Earnest Hollings of South
Carolina. Their outspoken solidarity (along with
Ted Kennedy's and others) with the people of
Afghanistan against the hegemony of the Soviet
oppressor poignantly express the sentiment of
the liberal community. Moreover, liberal
Democratic Rep. Stephen Solarz of New York
recently battled the White House and State
Department to gain approval for aid to
Cambodian refugees pushed out of that country
by the incessant war waged by the Vietnamese
communists on Cambodia.
The second point concerns the inherently
flawed logic utilized by the conservatives and
Republicans in their assertions that liberals and
Democrats do not sufficiently criticize commu
nist and Marxist regimes. I believe close
inspection of the facts similar to the ones IVe
chosen here will prove that these assertions
cannot be the issue of focus for one very profound
reason: the United States, for the most part, has
no significant relationships with the governments
of these nations (that is, no economic aid, military
aid, alliances, treaties, etc.), yet it does with such
despotic regimes as exist in the following
countries.
Guatemala where political opponents
often disappear mysteriously, only to be later
found dead.
South Africa where promulgation of
martial law has sparked a vociferous reaction
from the international community.
Chile and-the Phillippines where Pinochet
and Marcos have often resorted to martial law
and mass executions to bolster their fragile rule
in their collective three decades of rule.
South Korea where the current leaders'
main political opponent, Kim Di Juang, has been
imprisoned in his own home for months because
of fear that he might command enough political
clout to win that country's forthcoming presi
dential election. '
'It is nothing more than a
two-faced policy to maintain
relationships . . .with
right-wing dictators, while
chastising equally repugnant
left-wing regimes.'
It is countries and more specifically, govern
ments, such as these that the United States should
be making a noticeable effort to distance itself
from, similar to the way we reacted when Cuba
fell into communist hands in 1959, and when
Nicaragua dedicated itself to Marxism in 1981.
It is nothing more than a two-faced policy to
maintain relationships (often cordial, as in the
case of a recent visit by Vice President Bush
to the Phillippines) with right-wing dictators,
while chastising equally repugnant left-wing
regimes. If there is to be true patriotism in the
United States, a country that insists on moral
highground in the international environment,
then certainly our policies must be consistent,
and consistently attached to moral motivations.
The Reagan administration has so twisted
logic on defense spending that many Americans
believe their patriotic duty begins and ends by
electing representatives and senators who will
vote for $300 billion defense budgets. It was the
words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy during his
inaugural address that so captured the meaning
of patriotism as to inspire tens of thousands of
young men and women to volunteer for the Peace
Corps and fulfill their patriotic duties in foreign
lands. His memorable words, "And so my fellow
Americans, ask not what your country can do
for you, ask what you can do for your country,"
inscribed across from his gravesite at Arlington
National Cemetery, seem in 1985 to be buried
along with their creator. It is here that Reagan
has committed a murder so severe that the force
most likely to be the decisive factor on the
. battlefield, true patriotism, is evaporating at a
furious pace. This policy is not only very
dangerous, but it evokes ominous scenarios for
the future.
Moreover, the policy of "spend, spend, spend"
on defense is dangerous for two additional
reasons. The first has been in the news constantly
over the past two years. This "spend, spend,
spend" mentality decreases governmental
scrutiny on what we are buying and fosters
massive cost overruns, defective parts, weapons,
and machinery, and most noxiously, waste, fraud
and abuse. The ramifications surrounding these
problems are quite obvious. Second, and even
more important, is the fact that "spend, spend,
spend" operates in careless disregard of a national
deficit projected to exceed $210 billion at the
conclusion of this fiscal year. Does it make sense
to spend $320 billion on defense (as the
administration proposed in its original budget
submitted on February 6) when we have a deficit
as calamitous as ours? Is such a policy fair to
our children and grandchildren? Will not an
American economic collapse endanger our
national security? Does all of this truly constitute
patriotism? I should say not.
I believe I have accurately depicted the liberal
and Democratic response to the charge that they
are unpatriotic on the issues of right-wing
dictators and defense spending. Yes, liberals and
Democrats can be and are patriotic, yet in their
own, intelligent way.
( Steven B. Epstein is a junior political science
major from Oceanside. N.Y.
A miscellany from the wacky world of news
By JIM ZOOK
Did y'all miss Week in Review
last Friday that DTH oldie but
goodie? Well, we thought you
might. So to make up for it, here's
a few of those little newsbits to keep
you up to date until our award
winning, comprehensive, just-canV
get-enough-of-it, news in review
comes out again.
Equestrians around the world
galloped into their living rooms
Saturday night to watch national
newscasts in hopes of .catching a
glimpse of their top jockey, Pres
ident Reagan, who was expected to
take a trot around his southern
California rancn for the first time
since his surgery last month for
colorectal cancer. They weren't
disappointed.
Taking advantage of a great deal
of media hype over the anticipated
ride and a slow newsday, President
Reagan followed his weekly radio
broadcast with a picture-taking
session, I mean a leisurely jaunt atop
the ironically-named Elusive
Hobby. Adorned in full riding garb,
the president's ride was accompan
ied by the droning hum of camera
shutters rolling and television
cameras capturing the day's best
human interest story.
Presidential aides expressed
optimism that signs of growing
strength and returning vitality will
suppress any public doubts of
inability to perform under pressure
as the November Summit talks
with Mikhail Gorbachev draw
closer.
Blotto over Lotto
Another story that has topped the
news of the past couple of days is
the saga of another group of instant
millionaires, the beneficiaries of yet
another lottery. Three ticketholders
a computer consultant, a group
of 21 factory workers and a barmaid
will split the whopping $41
million grand prize in the New York
State Lottery, a North American
record. After dividing the purse
three ways, each recipient will
receive apaltry $13.6 million.
Debora Turcotte, the barmaid
from Troy, N.Y., deserves addi
tional congratulations for her frank
statements about winning the for
tune. How many times have you
seen winners of past lotteries who
have sworn they'll keep their job as
a garbage man or McDonald's fry
cook? C'mon, be serious. Well,
nobody had to question Turcotte's
sincerity as she told reporters this
weekend that her days of serving
up cold, frosty mugs of beer are long
gone. '
Letter from the Editor
You could say that Jim McCaf
frey was a little irked when his
camera was stolen from his car.
After discovering that his equip
ment was pilfered, the editor of the
Glenn's Ferry, Ida., Pilot addressed
a letter in the next issue of the paper
to the "street cur" who "took my
trade tools," putting a "curse on
your head" and hoping "you travel
through this world alone and
. 41' I "X'
Jf m I
unloved" and "your children die
young (so) that you may never see
the fruits of your love."
Now, that's the kind of stuff we
like and hope to see in letters to
the editors this year. Of course, first
y'all will have to write us. Hint.
Hint.
Nevertheless, if a similar event
should occur to one of our editors
or if someone writes back in a vain
attempt to refute one of our edi
torials, we at the DTH promise a
slightly higher level of civility and
understanding than Jim's antics.
Well, maybe.
Jim Zook, a junior journalism
and political science major from
Little Rock. Ark., is an editorial
writer for The Daily Tar Heel.
ml.
i i
mm TsT
m