8 The Daily Tar Heel Monday, September 8, 1986
0
latlit
94 th year of editorial freedom
JIM ZOOK, Editor
Randy Farmer, Managing Editor
ED BRACKETT, Associate Editor
DEWEY MESSER, Associate Editor
TRACY HILL, News Editor
GRANT PARSONS, University Editor
LINDA MONTANARI, City Editor
JILL GERBER, State and National Editor
Scott Fowler, sports Editor
KATHY PETERS, Features Editor
ROBERT KEEFE, Business Editor
Elizabeth Ellen, Arts Editor
DAN CHARLSON, Photography Editor
rui
in
ram
This is non-aligned?
It's ironic that the recent summit of
non-aligned countries in Zimbabwe
was dominated by talk of perceived
aggression by the United States instead
of more pressing matters facing third
world nations, such as rapid popula
tion growth and hunger problems.
Speakers at the weeklong meeting
showed the kind of ignorance that wars ,
are built upon the inability to see
shades of gray in between the more
definitive tones of black and white.
They cursed imperialism, of course
(whatever the word means after several
years of such inflammatory use), and
chose sides as if their nations were
embroiled in a football game.
Among the "lowlights" of the
summit was a speech from Nicaraguan
President Daniel Ortega the leader
of a Soviet-allied country that is, in
effect, at war with the United States.
"Latin America," Ortega declared,
"has been a target of aggression,
intervention and interference on the
part of a superpower that is enthroned
on our continent."
An "enthroned" superpower? Per
haps Ortega has forgotten that Amer
ican presidents serve four-year terms,
not life terms as do most aspirant or
actual dictators, be they in Moscow
or Managua.
Another leader wearing blinders
from a Soviet-allied country Libya's
Moammar Khadafy took the
summit floor in midweek, conceitedly
asking for help in his personal grudge
match with the United States. He
received some: a committee of the
gathered nations adopted a resolution
condemning the U.S. bombing of
Libya and calling for the United States
to pay restitution for the act.
Yet on Thursday, an ungrateful
Khadafy ranted about imperialistic
and Zionistic spies and "puppets" in
the 25-year-old organization, which he
said had outlived its usefulness. An
Egyptian official later issued a state
ment calling the remarks "vicious,
obnoxious and abusive." So much for
rational discourse from the Libyan
representative.
Some of the summit's 101 members
complained that this and previous
summits of so-called non-aligned
nations were nothing more than
formalities. Perhaps if they'd invite
leaders of nations that truly are non-
aligned, something more substantial
would be accomplished.
The Pentagon and oligopoly
Scandalous tactics employed by
sc?me defense department contracts
reign as one of the favorite stumping
topics amo g Congressional candi
dates. As t nefarious ploys of an.
increasing umber of contractors
surface, ass varices of leaving the days
of $500 hammers are offered by even
the least glib of pols.
In light of rising public dissent over
these happenings, the Pentagon is
preparing to impose new regulations
designed to "encourage them (the
contractors) to modernize," according
to one Pentagon official. But hold the
applause just yet. Some of the mea
sures expected to be instituted may
create the same problems the Pentagon
finds itself trying to eradicate.
The Washington Post reported
Sunday that new Pentagon regulations
scheduled to be released later this
month will reduce "average industry
profit rates on negotiated contracts"
by one percent, a mere $600 million.
With more than 40 contractors under
investigation for charges of cheating
the government, stemming the flood
of taxpayers' dollars seems only fair
and sounds a welcome change.
But the effects of the expected
measures may yield a bigger backfire
than a plugged M-16. While the
industry's profits will drop, so, it is
expected, will the number of contrac
tors. Industry analysts foresee
increased restrictions and bureaucratic
roadblocks forcing many small con
tractors out of the defense business.
Meanwhile, to protect their tre
mendous market shares, the General
Electrics and Lockheeds of the indus
try have bought out smaller contrac
tors. Other large contractors have
announced intentions of investing in
markets with a more predictable, less
hostile future.
The aggregate effect of these trends
will be less competition., Even fresh
men Economics 10 students know that
fewer competitors means higher prices.
Pentagon officials maintain that the
policymakers seek not to alter the
contractors' ledgers but their attitudes.
Decreased earnings should bring
better competition, which can ulti
mately result in lower defense budgets.
But if the Pentagon's new measures
squelch the small contractors, the new
regulations will be counterproductive.
Based on the track record of defense
contractors as a group, any measure
that will decrease competition must be
seen as a deterrent to a cost-efficient
defense. The Pentagon needs to find
a better way to prevent the scams of
the past.
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Writer: Kathy Nanney
Editorial Assistant: Nicki Weisensee
Omnibus Editor: Sallie Krawcheck
Assistant Managing Editors: Jennifer Cox, Amy Hamilton, Donna Leinwand and Jean Lutes.
News: Lisa Allen, Andrea Beam, Rick Beasley, Helene Cooper, Michelle Efird, Jennifer Essen, Jeannie
Faris Scott Greig, Mike Gunzenhauser, Maria Haren, Nancy Harrington, Suzanne Jeffries, Teresa
Kriegsman, Laura Lance, Scott Larsen, Alicia Lassiter, Mitra Lotfi, Jackie Leach, Brian Long, Guy
Lucas, Karen McManis, Laurie Martin, Toby Moore, Kathy Nanney, Felisa Neuringer, Rachel Orr,
Gordon Rankin, Liz Saylor, Valerie Stegall, Rachel Stiffler, Elisa Turner, Laurie Willis and Bruce
Wood. Jo Fleischer and Jean Lutes, assistant university editors. Donna Leinwand, assistant slate and
national editor.
Sports: Mike Berardino, James Surowiecki and Bob Young, assistant sports editors. Bonnie Bishop,
Greg Cook, Phyllis Fair, Laura Grimmer, Louise Hines, Greg Humphreys, Lorna Khalil, Eddy Land ret h,
Mike Mackay, Kathy Mulvey, Jill Shaw and Wendy Stringfellow.
Features: Eleni Chamis, Jeanie Mamo, Katie White and Susan Wood.
Arts: James Burrus, Alexandra Mann and Rob Sherman!
Photography: Charlotte Cannon, Larry Childress, Jamie Cobb, Tony Deifell and Janet Jarman.
Copy Editors: Karen Anderson, assistant news editor. Dorothy Batts, Beverly Imes, Lisa Lorentz, Sherri
Murray and Sally Pearsall.
Editorial Cartoonists: Adam Cohen, Bill Cokas and Trip Park.
Business and Advertising: Anne Fulcher, general manager; Patricia Benson, advertising director; Mary
Pearse, advertising coordinator, Angela Ostwalt, business manager; Cammie Henry, accounts receivable
clerk; Eve Davis, advertising manager, Ruth Anderson, Jennifer Garden, Kelli McElhaney, Chrissy
Mennitt, Bth Merrill, Anne Raymer, Julie Settle, Peggy Smith, Kent Sutton, Ashley Waters, and
Layne Poole dvertising representatives; Tammy Norris, Angie Peele, Stephanie Chesson, classified
advertising representatives; Mindelle Rosenberg, office manager and Mary Brown, secretary.
Distributioncirculation: William Austin, manager.
Production: Brenda Moore and Stacy Wynn. C. Ron Allen and Rita Galloway, production assistants.
Printing: The Chapel Hill Newspaper
Homophobia threatens rights off all
"seem to remember that toward the end
of the shanty affair last vear. certain
L members of Students for America had
their tender feelings stepped on when certain
labels were applied collectively, mind you,
to the group, including the clarification of
its anacronym as Student Fascists of
America.
Some SFA members seemed shocked that
anyone could apply the term "racist" to the
organization, and did everything they could
to escape the label, however appropriate.
There is another label that was also attached "
to SFA and the College Republicans, one
that 1 have heard no member even try to
refute, and that is homophobic.
Unfortunately, such discriminatory ten
dencies also pervade the attitudes of some
campus leaders.
Judging from Student Congress represen
tative Jim Wooten's comments in The Dailv
Tar Heel ("CGLA funding under fire," Aug.
he seems to agree with SFA and the
College Republicans' extreme beliefs and is
continuing to do everything in his power
to make sure he measures up to such ways
of thinking.
His arguments for withdrawing funding
for the Carolina Gay and Lesbian Associ
ation appear relatively harmless at first
glance, and perhaps on the the surface can
be laughed away as so much hot air.
However, last year's cut in funding for the
CGLA and the fact that another cut is
on the agenda for next spring indicates
that too many Student Congress members
ascribe to a similar, detestable philosophy.
As stated in the article, Wooten's argu
ment is that because the persecution is legal,
we should engage in it. To merit this
persecution, he says in his diatribe that
engaging in oral or anal sex is a crime against
the state.
I would like to point out that under
General Statute 14-27.2, a man cannot
legally rape his wife. No matter what he does,
he cannot sexually violate his wife in the
eye of the law. So much for the justice of
the legal system.
Also, according to G.S. 14-27.44: "Sexual
Marguerite Arnold
Guest Writer
Act means cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus
or anal intercourse, but does not include
vaginal intercourse. Apparently, boys and
girls, weVe been fooling ourselves all along.
Sexual Act also means the penetration,
however slight, by any object in the genital
or anal opening of another person's body
.... The legislature intended the words 'any
object' to embrace parts of the human body
as well as inanimate or foreign objects. This
statute is violated when the defendant
penetrated the victim's genital opening with
his my emphasis; notice how this law is
also sexist in intent finger."
So, according to the law, a father cannot
change his child's diaper or wipe his or her
bottom because he would run the risk of
violating not only this law, but also G.S.
14.177, the famous Crime Against Nature
law. Actually, the reason that the law only
mentions "his finger" could be yet another
attempt to keep a woman in her place.
Imagine the scene: "Honey, will you change
Junior's diaper?" "No, I'm sorry, it's against
the law."
By the illustration of this rather far
fetched scene, I seek to again prove the oldest
law of geometry. If a b, and b c, then
a c. Therefore, it is just as pertinent,
according to this law, for the government
to legislate whether a father may or may
not legally wipe his child's behind as it is
to make illegal the practice of homosexu
ality, and just as ludicrous.
On a far more serious note, this law seeks
to legislate morality by calling homosexu
ality an act against nature. It is entirely
irrelevant and based on false grounds, for
who has the right to determine what is indeed
nature? In my opinion, sex is natural in any
of the manifestations it may take. For those
of us who ultimately believe that God shows
the way, did not Jesus Christ himself say
that those who judge others should be
blameless themselves? I don't see too many
innocents wandering around. Neither do I
like to be told what 1 may or may not do
in an act of love with whomever I choose.
Another point is that no relationship
gay or heterosexual is based solely on
sexual intercourse. Of course, there are
varying degrees, but again, that is (and
rightly should be) up to the discretion of
the individuals. By saying that he is against
funding for the CGLA, Wooten totally
discounts the relationships formed by
anyone on the basis of the sexual act itself.
1 would sincerely hope that the students
and faculty on this campus take this
threat to our constitutional freedoms as
real. If Wooten and others like him can claim
that gays and lesbians have no rights on
this campus, then the next phrases will be,
"If you are black, female, non-Christian, un
American or un-conservative, then you have
no rights."
As for Jim Wooten's feelings, I don't really
care about them especially, as he has not
only insulted, but tried to degrade about 10
percent of the student body. Besides, he
personally is not really the issue; his
involvement and subsequent mouthings off
in the interests of his particular ideology are
the real issues, both to take notice of and
to react against.
As to the question, no matter how
irrelevant, that seems to come up when
dealing with gay rights: Why am I support
ing them if I am not gay? Because if one
does, one runs the risk of being suspected
of being gay. Figure it out for yourself, or
if you can't, ask me. If I am or am not
a lesbian, does that make my opinions any
less valid, or my fight for justice less real?
I am very proud of who I am and the
dream to which I ascribe that of an
America in which this type of idiocy is
universally decried for the evil that it is and
not accepted out of ignorant, hypocritical
fear.
Marguerite Arnold is a sophomore
anthropology major from Blowing Rock.
Victorian values
To the editor:
1 read the Sept. 3 edition of
The Daily Tar Heel with a grin
that widened with each article
I encountered. The police
blame the media for the Frank
lin Street riot, and University
officials are telling students to
be ashamed of themselves.
I want to ask a question.
With the exception of national
championships and other
approved excuses, how often
do drunken parties trash
Franklin Street? I wasn't there,
but it does sound as if the party
became too violent; however,
from what I understand, it
eventually developed into a
protest. The "primary concern
for drinking" did not indicate
necessarily the "drug and alco
hol problems in our society
today." It was the last chance
for getting drunk before Big
Brother grounded the bad little
girls and boys from Demon
Drink, and it was an expression
of everone's attitude about it.
Will everyone have to
patiently tolerate the Victorian
values which periodically fix
themselves on society through
hypocritical officials? I doubt
it. Prohibition didn't stop
anyone, but it just may have
encouraged drinking by people
with a sense of adventure, and
it lasted only 14 years. Eve
ryone will keep going, probably
stronger than before, and even
tually the government will
recover from its power-induced
mania for a little while.
1 turned 19 on Sept. 1, not
legally able to drink for three
years. However, the drinking
age never stopped me from
having a cooler before and
wont now. The idea of defiance
just appeals to me enough to
do it more frequently, if any
thing. If I am responsible
enough to work my way
through college, and because of
that job, pay taxes which pay
the officials' salaries, then I am
certainly responsible enough to
relax with a glass of wine now
and then, just as they probably
do. Now, I will just sit back,
wine in hand, prepared to be
amused by the proceedings.
ROBIN M.MIZE
Sophomore
Journalism
Letters policy
Please observe these guide
lines for letters and columns:
a Include name, year in
school, major and phone
number. University employees,
include title and department.
B All letters and columns
must be typed.
Law and disorder: Who's to blame?
W!
'hen the human blockade stretch
ing from "The Happy Store"
finally connected with the Span-
ky's crowd, 1 joked to Bryan Hassel about
the marvels of student empowerment and
my surprise at such a turn-out for an anti
apartheid rally. As piles of beer cartons
became Franklin Street bonfires and
ambulances carried away victims of flying
bottles, joking gave way to utter amazement.
A law completely unenforceable from
moment one stands on shaky ground and
shakes the foundations of other laws. What
of public consumption? drunk and disor
derly conduct? illegal substance use? public
indecency? Sunday night, such laws did not
exist.
It's curious how the Chapel Hill police
chose to deal with the rise in the drinking
age. Chapel Hill became essentially an open
party and from Spanky's to Hector's, more
or less a blocked-off riot zone. Early on,
students flowed slowly down Franklin,
haphazardly rocking cars that blocked the
path. A police car looked to be next just
40 yards ahead, and visions of South Africa
came to mind. The policeman, however,
quickly turned around and sped away.
The police directed traffic around this
zone; they occasionally broke up fights (of
which there were several); but mostly they
actively avoided confrontation and allowed
to happen all that might, short of murder.
Not to say it wasn't fun. It was a party
like few others. Howling and screaming in
a drunken haze is a natural pleasure.
Turning that alley-way where the flower lady
sits into a stadium-style urinal was a
Louis Corrigan
Guest Writer
liberation of utility. Lighting a cigarette from
a burning Stroh's carton in the middle of
Franklin is a peculiar joy.
But it was as much an unleashing of anger
as a celebration. Over a dozen windows were
broken. Subway salvaged its remaining
windows by boarding up as if in preparation
for a hurricane. Fireworks exploded from
the crowd and burst just overhead. Bottles
shattered all about. If no one was raped or
killed, 1 will honestly be surprised.
And the state and national government
are substantially responsible if not legally
liable for it all. Irresponsible actions don't
just happen. They are nurtured by a society.
It's not so much a question of army draft
but no draft beer, or less drinking and
driving, or millions of dollars in state
highway funds. The problematic proper
question is how far a society's lawmakers
can and should go to insure the basically
utilitarian notion of the public good, and
to respond to or reflect the basically
Christian moral environment without
infringing on citizens' personal liberties and
altering America's relatively enlightened
liberalist tradition.
How should we treat the cigarette
industry? soft and hard pornography?
abortion? homosexuality? cocaine and
marijuana use? Are some restrictions on
these things "better" than no restrictions at
all? Are unenforcable laws truly laws, and
even if they aren't, can they be seen as
"good?" Who decides and can we who
disagree live with, much less abide by, those
decisions?
Currently we're experiencing a conserva
tive backlash. Sometimes we must feel
liberals are the only folks with any faith in
man's ability to maturely decide for himself
what vices are natural and good and
contribute to his happiness, and which are
best avoided.
In the end, we all decide these questions,
even with our silence and absence of
decision. True decision, though, is respon
sibility and choice. When we restrict the
necessity to decide, we also limit the necessity
for responsible action. Thus, if for no other
reason, a more open society is a good thing
in forcing us to accept responsibility and
not allowing us to remain moral children
overlong.
Late Sunday night, on into Monday, with
all the churning bodies about, one fellow
danced about a bonfire chanting to the air,
"F 21." There was something singularly
sad and primitive, even barbaric about this
lonely warrior so drunk, so angry and so
crazed from the combination: It was as if
amidst this chaos, this semi-jubilant mass
return to a kind of childhood status, he
expressed the depth of concern and response
possible, the depth of responsibility. And
it was horrible and feeble.
Louis Corrigan is a senior English major
from Atlanta.