10The Daily Tar HeelFriday, September 23, 1988
uTlj Sailg ular Hn
96th year of editorial freedom
KAREN BELL, News Editor
MATT BlVENS, Associate Editor
KlMBERLY EDENS, University Editor
JON K. RUST, AUnaging Editor
Will Lingo, City Editor
Kelly Rhodes, Arts Editor
CATHY McHUGH, Omnibus Editor
Jean Lutes, Editor
KAARIN TlSUE, News Editor
LAURA PEARLMAN, Associate Editor
KRISTEN GARDNER, University Editor
SHARON KEBSCHULL, State and National Editor
MIKE BERARDINO, Sports Editor
LEIGH ANN McDONALD, Features Editor
KIM DONEHOWER, Design Editor
DAVID MINTON, Photography Editor
Time out for sportsmanship
: As Anson Dorrance left the field on
Wednesday night, he had a deceptively
innocent gleam in his eye, like he had
never seen something like that in
himself before. Holding his arm was
a hardened Durham policeman, who
stared at the fiery but bookish-looking
coach in disbelief.
: Spectators had witnessed the darker
side of UNCs phenomenally success
ful coach of both the men's and
women's soccer teams. Off the field,
he is jubilant, especially when dealing
with the media. But during a game,
he's passionately involved in every
nuance of the sport, whether it's the
majestic arc of the ball or the absurdly
sloppy timekeeping and officiating. On
Wednesday, the latter finally caused
our tragic hero to lose his grip at
officially 89:54, six seconds before
the end of the contest.
Briefly, the key facts:
b 53:27 Senior Forward Donald
Cogsville scored the first goal after a
sloppy pass by a Duke defenseman
landed on the toe of UNC sophomore
Derek Missimo. 1-0 North Carolina.
n 83:48 As the game got tighter,
the Duke squad succeeded in keeping
the ball in UNCs third of the field.
This resulted in two goals, the first of
which came on a corner pass to Steve
Knull, who headed the ball into the
lower right corner of the net. 1-1.
b 89:54 Duke defenseman Joey
Valenti then scored, on a miraculous
banana kick that curved right below
the crossbar and stayed just above the
arms of the Carolina goalkeep.
Several times, the North Carolina
bench tried to alert the referee that
the clock was not being immediately
restarted after stoppages of play. The
coaches estimated that at least 20 and
possibly 30 seconds of extra time was
added, a factor which would have
ruled out a Duke victory and sent the
crucial game into overtime.
Said Steve Kirschner, North Carol
ina assistant sports information direc
tor, who was sitting next to the
timekeeper: "Twice, the clock was not
restarted on time. The second time
came with 1:35 left after Missimo was
given a yellow card. The clock was not
started for another 17 seconds."
With six seconds left, Dorrance
couldn't stand it any longer. He dashed
onto the field and bumped the official
with a combination of chest and pelvis
a la Pete Rose. Mixed in also was a
shove of a Duke player.
The official gave Dorrance the red
card. In soccer, the red card is the
symbol for an ejection from the game.
Dorrance was somewhat justified in
seeking justice for his team, but the
his methods caused more damage than
a disputed loss. Though his team
played well and deserved a better fate,
he pushed the matter well beyond the
limits of common decency. Dave
Hall
Consolation trips for the procrastinator
Pledge to debate only issues
Misleading rhetoric and mudsling-
ing are common tools in modern-day
political campaigning. Though frus
trating to concerned voters, these
strategies have become an accepted
part of our political process.
Yet this year's presidential race
holds one particularly disturbing
example of rhetorical deception: Vice
President George Bush's use of the
Pledge of Allegiance to attack his
opponent, Mass. Gov. Michael
Dukakis.
The pledge issue was first raised at
the Republican National Convention
in New Orleans. Bush derided Dukakis
for his 1977 veto of a bill requiring
schoolteachers to lead their classes in
the Pledge of Allegiance. By question
ing Dukakis' commitment to the
pledge, Bush questioned his patriotism
by implication.
This kind of criticism, although
hardly fair, is not unusual at political
rallies. The Democrats did much of
the same in Atlanta just a few weeks
before. Some negative campaigning
can be expected during the excitement
of the conventions.
But the pledge controversy should
have gone no further than New
Orleans; portraying it as an issue of
importance was Bush's true error in
judgment.
Dukakis based his opposition to the
pledge bill on two factors. First, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that
a similar law was unconstitutional and
that "... no official, high or petty,
can prescribe what is orthodox in
politics, nationalism, religion, or other
matters of opinion . . . Secondly,
Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial
Court concurred with this decision in
an advisory opinion to Dukakis.
So, in essence, Dukakis had little
choice in the matter.
But Bush chose to exploit the issue
to the fullest. In speech after speech,
he blasted Dukakis for his stand. He
forced the media to make it a front
page issue. .
Dukakis has defended himself with
a satisfactory explanation of the
reasons behind his veto. He has shifted
the attention back to Bush by bringing
the vice president's judgment into
question and rightfully so.
George Bush does not need to resort
to this frivolous rhetoric. If he can keep
the campaign focused on the major
issues, his chances of winning in
November look good.
Continuing to pursue such a trivial
issue makes little sense. Let's hope, for
the benefit of the voters, we have seen
the last of the pledge issue and all
others like it. Louis Bissette
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Writers: Louis Bissette, Sandy Dimsdale and Dave Hall.
Assistant Editors: Jenny Cloninger and Justin McGuire, university. Staci Cox, state and national.
, Felisa Neuringer and Clay Thorp, managing. Dave Glenn, Andrew Podolsky and Chris Spencer, sports.
. News: Lynn Ainsworth, Kari Barlow, Jeanna Baxter, Crystal Bell, James Benton, Tammy Blackard,
Charles Brittain, Brenda Campbell, Julie Campbell, Lacy Churchill, Daniel Conover, L.D. Curie, Karen
Dunn, Laura Francis, Lynn Goswick, Eric Gribbin, Susan Holdsclaw, Kyle Hudson, Helen Jones,
. Chris Landgraff, Jessica Lanning, Bethany Litton, Brian McCollum, Helle Nielsen, Beth Rhea, Cedric
, Ricks, Thorn Solomon, Michael Spinas, Larry Stone, William Taggart, and Amy Winslow. Elizabeth
Bass, Laura Hough, Dorothy Hutson and Peter Lineberry, wire typists.
Sports: Neil Amato, Mark Anderson, Robert D'Arruda, John Bland, Steve Giles, Doug Hoogervorst,
Bethany Litton, Brendan Mathews, Jay Reed, Jamie Rosenberg, Natalie Sekicky, Dave Surowiecki,
: Lisa Swicegood, Eric Wagnon and Langston Wertz.
' Features: David Abernathy, Cheryl Allen, Craig Allen, Jo Lee Credle, Jackie Douglas, Mary Jo
Dunnington, Hart Miles, Myrna Miller, Cheryl Pond, Leigh Pressley and Ellen Thornton.
Arts: Randy Basinger, Clark Benbow, Cara Bonnett, Beth Buffington, Ashley Campbell, Elizabeth Ellen,
( Andrew Lawlcr, Julie Olson, Joseph Rhea, Nancy Szakacs and Jessica Yates.
, Photography: Brian Foley, David Foster, Tony Mansfield and Belinda Morris.
Copy Editors: Cara Bonnett, Yvette Cook, Julia Coon, Whitney Cork, Bert Hackney, Susan Holdsclaw,
Anne Isenhower and Angelia Poteat.
Cartoonists: Bill Brown, Jeff Christian, Adam Cohen, Pete Corson, Trey Entwistle, Luis Hernandez
' and Greg Humphreys.
Business and Advertising: Kevin Schwartz, director; Patricia Glance, advertising director; Joan Worth,
advertising coordinator; Chrissy Mennitt, advertising manager; Sheila Baker, business manager; Michelle
Harris, Sarah Hoskins, Amy McGuirt, Maureen Mclntyre, Dcnise Neely, Tina Perry, Lesley Renwrick,
Amanda Tillcy and Joye Wiley, display advertising representatives; Leisa Hawley, creative director;
Dan Raasch, marketing director; Diane Quatrecasas, sales assistant; Diane Cheek and Stephanie Chesson
classified advertising representatives; and Jeff Carlson, secretary.
Subscriptions: Cody McKinney, manager.
Distribution: David Econopouly, manager; Cindy Cowan, assistant. ,
Production: Bill Leslie and Stacy Wynn, coordinators. Anita Bentley, Leslie Humphrey, Stephanie
; Locklear and Leslie Sapp, assistants.
Printing: The Village Companies.
live in a gameshow. Every morning at
around 7 or 8 o'clock or whenever I
iJLget up, I hear Johnny Olson's voice
yelling, "Hello America, welcome to Life
in the 80s! The frantic race for accomp
lishment that everybody loves." The studio
audience obediently erupts for the applause
sign. Olson continues by introducing Bob
Barker and today's contestants.
"Bob, meet Cyndi, a senior at the
University of North Carolina.'' She looks
harmless enough as she explains her
favorite hobbies of balancing her check
book and networking. Bob smiles at
nothing in particular. Johnny continues,
"and this is Bill. He's been with us for as
long as I can remember. Just can't stay
away, can you, Bill?" Canned laughter
erupts from somewhere above my head.
I'm always on the show. It's good for the
ratings.
After reminding us to have our pets
spayed or neutered, Bob explains the rules.
We will each be given a huge to-do list
to read for five minutes, then we must each
perform the various tasks. The first one
back to the studio wins a fabulous prize.
Bob seems truly excited about this, as if
he hadn't done it 3,000 times before.
My opponent graciously wishes me good
luck in accordance with gameshow eti
quette. However, behind those soft blue
eyes lurks the unfeeling mind of a computer
ready to prioritize any action and fit it into
Bill Yelverton
Notes from the Abyss
a neat little 15-minute time period. She
is the kind of person who annoys me, and
she knows it.
Before I can respond to my nemesis, Bob
jumps in once again to remind us to have
our pets spayed or neutered. Thanks Bob.
He says something else which I don't quite
catch. Oh, he said go.
The audience has seen my list before I
have. Those watching at home gasp in
horror, "Hell never finish. No one can do
all that. Hell kill himself." The thought
excites them.
Cyndi has already made six entries into
her all-in-one schedule-checkbook-calendar-calculator-party-planner-notebook
thing. It has extra space for
business cards so she won't miss a possible
networking opportunity. For the first time
I feel fear.
Taking my first steps, I scan the list to
see if there is anything fun to do. Let's
see, paper for English, pick up Mom at
the Airport, meet Kevin for lunch, type
column in at DTH, meet Sarah at library,
go to class, pay phone bill, do homework
problems. There are some possibilities. Itll
be great to see Mom, and lunch should
be okay.
Cyndi and her camera crew have already
set off for her 9:30 a.m. appointment. I
know Mom's plane comes in sometime this
morning, so I head to the airport. I get
to class and turn in my paper. Only five
minutes late. I could win this thing. I miss
Kevin for lunch and my column isn't
written yet. Oh well. I return to the studio
feeling good that I got through half of my
list. Cyndi had been there for two hours,
and had asked for more.
Bob congratulates her and Johnny
chimes in to tell her what she's won. "That's
right, Cyndi, you've won a deluxe
Rolodex. "I struggle to contain my jealousy
and wait sheepishly to hear about the
consolation prize.
Johnny continues, "Bill, since you like
to live on the edge, weVe decided to send
you right over it. Pack your bags for an
all expense paid journey into the abyss.
Well fly you back tomorrow for another
chance to win on 'Life in the 80s.' So long
everybody."
The abyss isn such a bad place after
all. There were more people in here than
I expected, and they don't get stressed out
about too many things. I think 111 stay
in here for a while. Don't worry though,
111 send notes out from time to time.
Bill Yelverton is a senior English major
from Darien, Conn.
Readers9 Foram
Just say no
to legalization
To the editor.
Want to do a line? Got a
joint? Want to get high? These
are questions that most of us
have been confronted with
during our lives. Unfortu
nately, these questions are
growing more and more fre
quent in our society. A greater
misfortune is that many people
in this country want these
actions to be legal. I dont!
Trying to solve the drug
problem by legalizing mari
juana, cocaine, crack and other
narcotics is like trying to put
out the fires in Yellowstone
with gasoline. There would be
a sudden explosion of users,
and the intensity of the epi
demic would reach a new
"high." People who favor legal
ization of these drugs argue,
however, that violent crimes
will decrease if these substances
are made legal. Legalization
will drive the prices of these
substances down, and more
people will be able to afford
them. The users will not have
to steal and kill anymore
because they will have enough
money to buy these cheaper
drugs.
Wake up to reality. A drug
can cost $100 or $10. Either
way, when you need a fix and
you're broke, you cant buy it.
Do you think a junkie is going
to rationalize the situation
better because the life he is
taking now is worth $ 10 instead
of $100?
Okay. Let's just legalize
marijuana. Pot doesnt hurt
anyone.
Wrong. Almost all people
who do hard drugs start out by
smoking pot. That doesn't
mean that all people who toke
on a joint become addicted to
narcotics, but why lead anyone
down a dead-end street?
My biggest argument is, why
m ?. -v--f to . m&iwm
t'! J! DUKE GEORGt
give up? That is what legalizing
these substances would amount
to. Curing our country of this
disease is not going to be easy,
but neither was gaining our
independence. It is going to
take time and money. We must
educate our children and show
them strength through exam
ple. Support the awareness and
prevention groups in our com
munities. Back our police and
government. They need our
help. If it takes tax increases,
fine. An unwillingness to sac
rifice for the sake of bettering
our country is a very selfish
attitude. "Ask not what your
country can do for you, but
what you can do for your
country."
SCOTT LOGAN
Senior
Administration of Justice
Psycholgy
Party with
your parents
To the editor:
Although the weekend of
Dead Heai.
Sept. 23-25 is labelled "Parents'
Weekend," it is more properly
a family weekend. Without
students, it wouldn't happen.
While other universities
around the U.S. have attracted
as many as 10,000 parents to
such weekends, our first three
tries at Chapel Hill have pro
duced a small fraction of those
numbers. Now, on our fourth
effort, weVe changed the date
to a fall weekend and weVe
worked harder at making the
program interesting to the
whole family. It's not the kind
of thing which will tie up a
student's entire weekend.
Indeed, it even allows for the
fact that most students sleep in
on Saturday mornings.
As both a University parent
and an alumnus (Class of '51,
and after 37 years I'm still
enjoying the benefits of four
years in Chapel Hill), I support
the idea that parents can benefit
from learning more about what
student life in Chapel Hill is
like. Theyll be better parents
for it.
I hope the DTH and the
variety of student leadership
organizations will see the
benefit as well and lend their
wholehearted support. There is
evidence that we're gaining. As
of Sept. 12, we've got three
times as many parents commit
ted to- coming than we had at
last year's Parents' Weekend.
Did you invite your parents
to come and share the
experience?
H. TAYLOR VADEN
Chairman
Parents' Weekend 88
Letters policy
The Daily Tar Heel
welcomes reader comments
and criticisms. When writing
letters to the editor, please
follow these guidelines:
D All letters must be signed
by the author(s), with a limit
of two signatures per letter.
B Place letters in the box
marked "Letters to the Editor"
outside the DTH office in the
Student Union.
Strong defense requires more than guns
Iheodore White once wrote, "all
civilizations rest on myths but in
AL America myths have exceptional
meaning. The American myth, he con
tinued, rests on a shared belief in life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is
this myth that binds us together: blacks,
whites, Hispanics, Jews, Catholics and
Protestants, into the only peaceful multi
racial civilization in the world.
Just as there are myths that bind us
together as Americans, however, there are
myths that are detrimental to our appre
ciation and understanding of politics
especially partisan politics. Perhaps the
most salient myth in this election year
concerns our national defense and who is
most capable of maintaining it.
Democrats have recently been accused
of being weak on defense or otherwise not
sufficiently concerned with national
security. This myth is a castle built of sand,
and even a brief look at contemporary
American history should be enough to
dispel it. Note that World War I, World
War II, the Korean War, American
involvement in Vietnam (sadly) and the
Cuban Missile Crisis all occurred under
Democratic administrations. Nevertheless,
since the 1960s, Democratic candidates
have been stigmatized by this myth of
weakness in defense matters.
Why? Perhaps the myth has arisen in
part because virtue is all too often confused
with weakness. In contemporary politics,
domestic liberalism is equated with
international vapidness. Even in 1960,
John F. Kennedy was accused of being
"too weak" or "too soft" for the presidency.
History tells us, through JFK, Franklin
D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, etc., that
domestic liberalism and military strength
are not incompatible. The myth remains,
however, and now it is Mike Dukakis' turn
to confront it.
Scott Syfert
Guest Writer
Since the best way to destroy a myth
is to examine it realistically, let us so
examine Dukakis views on defense. Since
1945, all previously held assumptions
concerning the utility of war and the
balance of power have been under recon
sideration. The threat of nuclear annihi
lation is a grim specter which hovers over
all of us from the simple Asian peasant
to the policy makers in Washington, D.C.
It is a world that we as young adults have
inherited and in which we must cope. We
must choose a leader who can grasp the
intricacies of global realpolitik while
recognizing that the survival of the human
race is at stake.
Dukakis is such a leader. He proposes
to work toward a comprehensive strategic
arms agreement with the U.S.S.R. that will
result in deep reductions in the number
of nuclear arms. He also proposes main
taining compliance with SALT II and
ABM treaties, so long as the Soviet Union
does the same. Perhaps most importantly,
he seeks to prevent the proliferation of
nuclear arms to other countries. Speaking
at Georgetown University recently, Duka
kis said, "The INF treaty was a good
beginning, but it was only a beginning.
Unlike Ronald Reagan, George Bush
doesnt understand that." Under a Dukakis
administration, the world would be a much
safer place to live.
Defense policy transcends the stockpil
ing of arms or the firing of weapons,
however. At the core of our defense is
bureaucracy and paper shuffling at the
defense department a bloated institution
rife with corruption. Dukakis supports the
creation of an independent inspector
General to investigate defense fraud a
move Bush opposes. As taxpayers or future
taxpayers, we have a right to know where
and to whom our money is going. I doubt
any of us would have been inclined to
contribute three years ago had we known
we were arming the Ayatollah Khomeni.
Accountability and responsibility would be
paramount under Democratic leadership.
But what of Dukakis other defense
proposals? First, he proposes investing in
strong, modernized, mobile conventional
forces that will provide security and
deterence in Europe and elsewhere in the
world. This is a proposal that conservative
defense experts, including Henry Kissin
ger, have advocated for some time. So
much for the myth. Dukakis also supports
continued funding of the Stealth Bomber,
as well as other aspects of the aerial leg
of our defense. Finally, Dukakis supports
investing in improved anti-submarine
warfare capability and break-through anti
tank weapons technology. Defense under
Dukakis would be an investment in
protection for the U.S. and security for
the globe.
What we must confront are the realities
of our national security, as opposed to the
contemporary American myth. Our judg
ment should be based on a rational
appraisal of the facts and not on popular
misconceptions. America under Dukakis
would be well-defended, with accountabil
ity for taxpayers' money, and with no
weapons for Middle-East fanatics. Would
we be safer under such an administration
as opposed to the Republican alternative?
If you dispel the myth from your percep
tions, youll realize that we would.
Scott Syfert is a sophomore history and
political science major from Charlotte.
I