4
6The Daily Tar HeelMonday, October 14, 1985
0 iatig Mm
93 rd year of editorial freedom
Arm; Ricki:rt and David Schmidt
Stuart Tonkinson
Ben Perkowski
Dick Anderson
Janet Olson
Jami White
Andy Trincia
Managing Editor
Associate Editor
Associate Editor
University Editor
News Editor
State and National Editor
Loretta Grantham
Mark Powell
Lee Roberts
Elizabeth Ellen
Sharon Sheridan
Larry Childress
City Editor
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
Photo Editor
In defense of indefensibility
Last week, the U.S. assistant secretary
for inter-American affairs, Elliott
Abrams, issued a reinvigorated hard-line
policy on Central America, referring to
Nicaragua's Sandinista leaders as "really
reprehensible people." Unfortunately,
the assistant secretary's rhetoric on the
Nicaraguah issue is based upon a belief
in absolute solutions to indefinite needs
disregarding economic realities in
favor of uncompromisable political
values.
As defense number one, Abrams
maintains that Sandinista censorship of
the "opposition" newspaper La Prensa
is indicative of the Sandinista's "com
munist" bent. He fails, on the other
hand, to mention the fact that nearly
all states under siege reserve the right
to censor the press certainly the U.S.
reserves the same right. Nicaragua's
former fascist leader Anastasio Somoza
engaged in brutal censorship techniques
and the National Guardsmen who
were once Somoza's censorship blood
hounds are now Reagan's "freedom
lighters.
Intercepting Egypt
These are the very Sandinistas who
in 1978 and 1979 repeatedly requested
U.S. recognition and aid in refonning
a nation long tortured by the Somoza
regime. U.S. ties to the elite landed class
of Nicaragua prevented two presidential
administrations from engaging in reas
onable, constructive talks with the
Sandinistas. Today, after having
abruptly isolated the reform-minded
Sandinistas, the U.S. maintains that
state censorship is the "norm" in
Nicaragua as though the current U.S.
effort to violently overthrow the San
dinista government represented a "nor
mal" situation. When Somoza's censor
ship suited the interests of U.S. investors,
no condemnation or action needed to
be taken; yet when the Sandinistas react
to U.S.-backed military assaults with
censorship, it is condemned as the
hallmark of a "communist" regime. It's
nice to know that the U.S. has one set
of values for every forseeable situation.
We wouldn't want to be caught applying
one set of values to all actions that
would be dreadfully consistent.
Holding a gun to an airline stewardess'
head and ordering the pilot to change
course is a crude way to hijack a plane.
The United States does it much better.
Thursday night, President Reagan
scrambled F-14s from the USS Saratoga
to intercept and divert to an airbase in
Sicily a EgyptAir jet carrying four
Palestinian hijackers. Unlike the terror
ist's action, the U.S. move was justifiable
by all but the loftiest legal standards.
The Egyptian denunciation of the
interception as piracy should be taken
for what it is - pique and domestic
politics, aimed at Egyptian radicals,
other Arab nations and the Palestinian
Liberation Organization, rather than at
the United States.
Two considerations put the intercep
tion in a wholly different category from,
for example, this summer's hijacking
leading to Beirut, Lebanon. First, the
purpose of the show of force was not
to coerce a government to take some
prescribed action but rather, in effect,
to serve a warrant for four internation
ally wanted murderers.
Second, the F-14 pilots who per
suaded the Egyptian pilot to change
course did not threaten the lives of
innocent civilians. The only passengers
aboard the chartered flight were Egyp
tian officials and six Palestinians, four
of whom had spent the preceding two
days holding 400 tourists hostage aboard
a cruise liner and allegedly killing a 69-year-old
wheelchair-bound Jewish
American. The success in forcing down
the plane in Sicily without loss of life
also is a credit to the Navy fliers and
a fortunate contrast to the Soviet
handling of Korean Air Lines Flight 007
two years ago.
Nobody was hurt, the alleged mur
derers are in jail (the other two Pales
tinians have slipped out of Italy to
Yugoslavia), and the Palestinian Liber
ation Organization has suffered another,
black eye. Why then is Egyptian Pres
ident Hosni Mubarek warning of "cool
ness and strain" in his country's relations
with the United States?
Mubarek has two understandable
grievances and two worrisome fears. He
is dismayed that Egypt has yet to receive
international acclaim for swiftly securing
the release of the cruise liner hostages
in the first place. He also is embarrassed
that the terrorists should end up in
Italian hands after he had promised to
deliver them to the PLO in Tunis, even
incorrectly claiming Thursday that they
were already there.
More important, the American action
has left the PLO and other Arab nations
irritated with Egypt, which denies
widespread accusations that it provided
the United States with intelligence, and
has provoked riots in Cairo. Like most
countries, Egypt does not want to be
the object of the PLO's attention. And
sensibly peaceful relations with its
powerful and aggressive Israeli neigh
bors notwithstanding, Egypt also needs
to stay on the good side of Arab nations
with oil wealth and jobs for Egyptian
emigrant workers.
Most troublesome of all for Mubarek
are the public disturbances that have
greeted news of the U.S. action. Already
the Egyptian government pursues a
more moderate, pro-Western foreign
policy than most Egyptians probably
would prefer. The rising influence
among students of Islamic fundamen
talism, spearheaded by the Moslem
Brotherhood and gruesornely highligh
ted by the assassination of Anwar Sadat,
is underrnining political stability. Fol
lowing the Iranian (as opposed to the
Afghan) example, this fundamentalism
is also anti-American. To the degree that
the U.S. interception identifies the
Mubarek regime with the United States,
the regime may be threatened.
That would be bad for the United
States. Egypt is crucial to U.S. attempts
to foster peace in the Middle East and
has too large a population too near the
Gulf for the West to be comfortable
about any instability, particularly if it
stems from religious radicalism. The
United States should ignore even the
most extreme statements that may come
from the Egyptian government in the
coming weeks and maintain or increase
its $2 billion a year aid to the country. ,
r-To the dth degree
A space for reflection
Maybe this isn't appropriate for the
column, but it's something I feel a need
to say. Nothing else I could write now
would say as much.
In Friday's editorial column, I took a
chance and tried to memorialize John
Lennon in the way I thought best using
his own words, brief yet meaningful. To
me, at least. To others? I only hoped.
It was late, though; his birthday was
Wednesday. I had forgotten a detail, and
I'm sorry. Thank you, Louis, for remind
ing me. But I had not forgotten John
Lennon and still wanted to express both
sadness for his death and joy for his
memory.
I decided on the tribute Thursday
morning. As the day progressed, his
words grew in impact as news came of
two more who had died: Yul Brynner and
Orson Welles. A deep respect for Orson
Welles, especially, shines on in me, and
my tribute to John Lennon became a sort
of memorial to all three and everyone
special we have known who has died.
A few editors and many readers, I'm
told, didnt like it. They called it bush,
inappropriate for an editorial. Some even
believed it had been mere filler or
indicated a lack of ideas.
Oh.
Maybe I should have filled up the space
like the pieces about Yul Brynner and
Orson Welles. I would have, if I could
have said more than "We all shine on."
I couldn't, and didnt want to.
Maybe it wasn't "appropriate" for an
edit, but it was something I felt a need
to say. Nothing I could Ve written then
no matter what the idea wouIdVe
meant so much.
I could go on about the way it looked,
and the way I feel, but wont. Once again,
more words arent going to help.
DAVE SCHMIDT
READER FORUM
A sobbing, apologetic orgy of self-flagellation
To the editors:
It is difficult to imagine a more
philosophically inept or terminally
stupid defense of charity than your
editorial ("The demands of for
tune," Oct. 9), nor a more feeble
attack on individualism and selfish
ness. Thereare more distortions and
deceptions in this editorial than in
any given week's issue of National
Enquirer. In spite of your under
standable reluctance or inability to
explain fully what you mean, we will
endeavor to analyze your premises
objectively and clearly.
Your argument that there is a
trend towards individualism is just
false (unfortunately). Americans
today seem more prone than ever
to emerge themselves in groups
a fact easily seen in the resurgence
of fraternities and sororities on this
campus, as well as the growth of
professional organizations, and,
everybody's favorite punching bag,
fundamentalist religion.
Specifically, you offer two casu
alties for this "trend." Initially, you
cite the growing diversity of religion
and the decline of piety. Is there a
connection? It seems likely that
religious diversity would increase
rather than decrease piety because
persons practicing alternative reli
gions would identify more closely
with specialized value systems than
with more general principles. But
more importantly, if religious diver
sity is a problem, then is establishing
a dominant religion a solution? Or
what solution would you offer?
Even worse than this, though, to
invoke the now infamous Nietzsche
quote concerning the health of God
to support this argument is blatant
misrepresentation of Nietzsche's
' meaning. Nietzsche was expressing,
not with any concern about the
status of religious conformity, his
antipathy for any Christian base of
morals, and certainly would never
lament its demise.
The second casuality cited for the
phenomenon of individualism is
libertarian "social dogma" being
extracted from economic theory.
Are you claiming that libertarian
philosophy is something new? It
dates back to John Locke and
Thomas Jefferson at least, and has
existed in its present form since Ayn
Rand's The Fountainhead in 1943.
More importantly, libertarian ethics
has a sound philosophical base
independent of economic consider
ations,, as well as support from
sociology and psychology.
But the real crux of your argu
ment is the notion that wealth is
arbitrary, or that success and failure
are socially determined. To claim
that the "world's goods and servi
ces" are distributed disproportion
ately assumes that 1) goods and
services are a part of nature (like
apples on a tree) and 2) that there
is an objective proportion that
determines how many apples each
citizen of the world should receive.
This ignores the origin of those
goods and services someone has
to dig the ditch or weld the car door
or start the company that is assumed
to simply exist. This is analogous
to divvying up a pizza among your
suitemates regardless of the fact that
it was bought by the suite next door.
To make the claim that what we
produce as Americans is somehow
in reality an "unintentional gift" (if
such a phenomenon exists lexicon
ically) from the rest of the world
is basically unintelligible, to put it
generously. Is Ethiopia, or any
other poverty-stricken nation, the
source of our industrial might? If
we flip hamburgers eight hours a
day, is it Burger King or Bangladesh
that shells out the paycheck? Are
we to assume that the countries of
the Third World are accidentally
suspending their ownership rights
over American wealth to their own
detriment?
The only logical statement in the
editorial was sarcastic and derisive:
"My time and property are mine and
only mine and nobody else's needs
give them any claim whatever on
them." Exactly! Creation of wealth
is inherently a volitional exercise of
an individual mind, whether that
mind receives data from parents,
peers or society. Charity, therefore,
can never be an obligation, but only
a function of that same individual
mind, free to choose its values and
how to protect and foster them. In
other words, we have the right to
help or not to help the starving
Third World, and we may choose
to do either because our wealth is
ours it was produced by our
efforts. Basically, real charity can
not be coerced, either by gun or by
guilt.
The editorial ended by calling
America the "world's greatest eco
nomic and technological power."
How did this happen? By a mal
nourished witch doctor's magic?
Simply put, our nation was the only
one founded on the underlying
principles of the Enlightenment,
and specifically, the Rights of Man.
To submerge these founding prin
ciples in a sobbing, hand-wringing,
apologetic orgy of sacrifice and self
flagellation is worse than unfortu
nate; it bespeaks a criminal ignor
ance of the basis of Human freedom,
and portends the. ultimate collapse
of the last semi-free country on
Earth.
John Hood
Jeff Taylor
Chapel Hill
He-Man? Ha! He-Wimp!
t
are always welcome, provided they're typed and
triple-spaced. Deadline is 2 p.m. daily.
O&lGATlOhte LEFT
L SET-
v a)
LA I
To the editors:
I totally disagree with "He-Man's
no sissy, 'DTH' "(Oct. 1 1). He-Man
is a wimp, I must say, and 111 say
it again if I must. Let's take a look
at the real facts:
Sure, He-Man's got his hefty
super-duper magic sword, and all
the power of Castle Greyskull at his
disposal, but he's still a wimp. Every
day he gets banged around by a
skeleton in tights for 20 minutes
(minus commerical breaks) until he
finally lucks out and his friend Orko
tells him to clobber the bad guy.
I mean, anybody else who had this
magic sword could do better than
He-Man. Elmer Fudd could polish
off Skeletor in about six minutes,
and he wouldnt be such a loud
mouth about it. He would be
vewwy, vewwy quiet. Then he could
spend the rest of the show chasing
wabbits. The way I see it, Elmer
Fudd and the Masters of the
Universe would be a much better
show.
Even He-Man's sidekicks are
wimps. Everybody waits around for
He-Man to start swinging his sword.
Teela and Orko maybe throw a
punch or toss a spell, but nothing
ever gets done until that sword starts
swinging. Even He-Man's Battle
Cat is nothing but an overgrown
pussy that cringes every time he tries
to give it the power of Greyskull.
Finally, compare He-Man to a
real hero, namely Batman. The
writers of Friday's letter mistakenly
claim that the power of Greyskull
makes He-Man far better than
Batman, but they dont say how this
is possible. Batman has beaten
literally hundreds more villains in
a career that has spanned over four
decades, without any fancy swords
or supernatural powers. He-Man
wouldnt last four days without his
magic sword. Batman's record
speaks for itself, while He-Man's ad
agency has spawned an obscene
media blitz designed only to sell
cheap toys at inflated prices. It's so
funny that the writers of "He-Man's
no sissy . . ." should think that,
because everyone knows that he is.
Bryon Fenton
Ehringhaus
Whip
me no more
To the editors:
After reading J. Thomas Jack
son's well-informed column
("Moral decree good for state," Oct.
10), I feel compelled to come out
of the closet and support him. You
see, I was a secret porn flick addict.
My lust, an inherent human con
dition, was so great that the words
"whip me baby" sent me into
multiple orgasms, and I kept my
larder full of whipped cream. I
would frequently dress in leather
and spikes and molest old ladies.
I was in a deplorable state, headed
straight for hell and eternal dam
nation. I can admit this now, after
years of therapy and psychological
help.
But, the important thing is that
I got help. I went to church, voted
for Reagan and am thinking of
joining Students For America. I am
cured, praise the Lord, but just
thinking of all those poor demented
people out there like me, urges you,'
Jackson, to support this new law.
Please do. It will bring this country
back into the arms of the right,
where it belongs.
Marguerite Arnold
Alexander
U.S. has collective responsibility to God
By STEVE MATHENY
In Rick Robinson's column "Anger and fear
this is the New Right?" (Sept. 26), he seems
annoyed that some "have found the truth in
a book." Perhaps this evokes the danger that
another like Martin Luther King Jr. might come
along, claim the Bible to be "the sole rule of
authority and practice over all life," and, by doing
so, transform the total character of the age in
which he lives. President John Adams called it
"the best book in the world." President Jackson
called it "the rock on which our Republic rests."
President Lincoln said, "But for it we could not
know right from wrong." Likewise, when the
British Empire encircled the globe, Queen
Victoria called the Bible "the secret of England's
greatness." Considering what these and others
have said, does it seem alien or irrational to find
someone relying on the Bible as the source of
truth? Furthermore, the Bible independently
makes the claim that it is "inspired by God . . .
profitable for instruction in righteousness," and
a book of indestructable and eternal "truth"
Matthew 24:35, Psalm 119:89).
Numerous references to God and Scripture are
inscribed on government buildings and monu
ments in our nation's capital. State charters and
constitutions refer to God as well. While one
cant maintain that our nation was a Christian
theocracy in the past, or that all the founders
were Christian men, it nonetheless seem clear
that our forefathers had great respect for both
God and the Bible. When Ben Franklin arose
to address the Constitutional Convention of 1787
his words were these: "The longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of his truth; that God
governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow
cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is
it probable that an empire can rise without His
notice, is it probable that an empire can rise
without His aid?" In his 1789 inaugural address,
Washington warned: "We ought to be no less
persuaded that the propitious smile of Heaven
can never be expected on a nation that disregards
the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven
itself has ordained."
Robinson disparages those who in efforts to
prick the social consciousness of our nation are
drawing attention to crucial moral issues. Among
the issues being addressed by groups such as the
Moral Majority are abortion, child pornography
and drug abuse. Considering there arc 1.6 million
legal abortions annually and the problems of
pornography and drug abuse are heightened by
'Being a Christian is the only thing that can bring
lasting joy, hope and peace into an individual's life
links with organized crime, is it so rash to suggest
something should be done? The prophet Isaiah
wrote, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and
good evil; that put darkness for light, and light
for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet
for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20).
Does anyone suppose our nation has not been
forced to reckon with moral shortcomings and
crises before? What about slavery, was that not
also an egregious, indefensible practice that
brought our nation under horrible judgment? In
1863, Lincoln said this: "We have been the
recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven.
We have been preserved ... in peace and
prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth,
and power, as no other nation has ever grown.
But we have forgotten God ... it is the duty
of nations as well as of men, to own their
dependence upon the overruling power of God,
to confess their sins and transgressions, in
hunmble sorrow, yet with assured hope that
genuine repentance will lead to mercy and
pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth,
announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven
by all history, that those nations only are blessed
whose God is the Lord."
Lincoln's prescription is timely today as well.
The crises we face must be confronted with the
same moal resolution that brought an end to
slavery. You might ask, what will be the cost
if we dont succeed in averting this decline? You
may decide for yourself; I only know that our
' society will not be able to claim immunity from
God's judgment merely because we happen to
be too egalitarian, pluralistic and sophisticated
to come under his jurisdiction.
For those not willing to concede defeat and
who wish to see our nation prosper, keep fighting
for that which is true, honest and right. Be
courageous like Nobel Prize winner Mother
Theresa, who was bold enough to chide the
committee and demand that they do something
to stop the horrendous practice of abortion. Or
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who, rather than giving
a flattering sermonette at Harvard University's
1978 commencement, emphatically stated that
the West was now characterized by "a decline
in courage ... an atmosphere of moral medi
ocrity . . . (and) a state of spiritual exhaustion."
"America is great because America is good.
If she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to
be great." So said a visitor to our country during
the 19th Century. Conservative-minded students,
you too have a voice and a vote. Dont be
intimidated and dont give up. Let's strive to
make America great and to preserve its future.
While the foregoing comments relate to our
collective responsibility to God as a nation, there
is yet another level wherein each individual can
relate to God personally. Christianity is not
confined to or derived from Western culture. The
nation today with the highest percentage of
Christians is probably South Korea and the
greatest growth is on the continent of Africa.
Even if America does not overcome its problems
or even survive as a nation, God will still be
evermore God, and the Bible will still be evermore
that "eternal" and infallible word of God which
"For ever is settled in Heaven."
Being a Christian is the only thing that can
bring lasting joy, hope and peace into an
individual's life. Christianity gives the assurance
of knowing that regardless of how you came to
God whether a homosexual, murderer, thief
or whatever God loves you unconditionally
because his son died on the cross and shed his
blood for those sins. Someone has aptly said,
"The ground is level at the foot of the cross
because we stand equally in need of god's grace
and forgiveness."
Jesus Christ is the son of God who became
incarnate in human flesh. The Bible says "he was
tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin."
And "He (God) made Him (Jesus) to be sin for
us . . . that we might be made the righteousness
of God in Him." The heart of the gospel is that
Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried and
rose again, and that anyone, regardless of the
state they're in, can have "peace through the
blood of His cross." A student at Yale University
several years ago expressed it like this: "The big
line I remember from our school days was:
'There's no one right answer. What's your
opinion? After so many unprofound facts and
so much loose undisciplined freedom, it's
comforting to have a creed to follow and a cross
to bear."
Steve Matheny is a second-year law student
from Raleigh.