Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Dec. 1, 1986, edition 1 / Page 10
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
10 The Daily Tar Heel Monday, December 1, 1986 laxly (Har nl 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 1m UB(Bi Reagan at the nadir Last week, Walter Mondale, the presidential candidate who was swamped by a style-over-substance incumbent in 1984, aptly stated the importance of President Reagan's fumbling in the Iranian debacle: "We are faced here with the profoundest issue that ever occurs in America: the accountability of elected leaders before the law. Without that, we have nothing." Indeed; it's too bad Americans have to be reminded of the truism nearly every day, with seemingly endless revelations of ignorance even corruption among top-level administrators. Saturday brought particularly embar rassing news. The New York Times reported that "the U.S. government set up a major 'sting' operation late last year, complete with a fraudulent bank account, to catch arms merchants dealing with Iran . . . The operation, expertly conducted by the U.S. Customs Service, netted 17 indictments. One is tempted to say: "Good work! If there's one thing the United States doesn't need, it's weasels who profit from arms sales to countries like Iran." But guess who was also arms dealing with Iran at the time of the sting? That's right, the Reagan adminstration the very government that (however unwittingly) financed the sting. If, by some miracle, the "stung" defendants are found guilty in light of Reagan's blundering, they would have good reason to shake their heads. How can they be castigated for supplying arms to Iran, while the president et al. had been doing the same? News of the sting operation is only the latest revelation in an incredible series of governmental bungling. The saddest part is that it's not at all the comedic kind of misstep. No, The Iran Deal Mess Fiasco represents some thing far more serious: It smacks of, among many things, deceptive PR, scapegoating, blatant disregard for the law and just plain ignorance. And Ronald Reagan, who thus far has demonstrated an overindulgence in the latter vice, rightfully finds himself in the midst of, as one reporter put it, the nadir of his presidency. To rise from it, he's going to have to come clean and start concentrating more on substance. A toast to tougher laws Getting soft on drunk driving. Contrary to popular belief after the publicized push by citizens' groups to stem drinking and driving, that's exactly what the nation has been doing, according to the alarming results of a study released Sunday. Vast numbers of drunk driving offenders are evading the law simply because blood-alcohol tests are not being administered, according to the Crime Control Institute, a non-profit research organization led by law enforcement officials. Don't believe it? Take a look at these numbers: Of the 32,000 drivers surviving crashes involving fatalities in 1984, more than 75 percent were not tested for alcohol use. ? More than 25 percent of drivers killed in car accidents were not tested. Overall, only 45 percent of all drivers in fatal accidents were tested. For a nation supposedly cracking down on one of its biggest killers, these numbers are inexcusable. Last week, Gov. Jim Martin launched a $75,000 media blitz aimed at reminding North Carolinians about the dangers of drunk driving and the penalties waiting for offenders. The 1983 Safe Roads Act stiffened those penalties. But did t stiffen them enough? Apparently not. Arrests for driving while drunk or impaired are up 17 percent over 1985 figures. President Reagan erroneously tackled the problem by blackmailing states into raising their legal drinking age to 21. Federal statistics from 1984 show that drivers aged 25-44, a group that comprises about one-third of the nation's driving-age population, received more than 53 percent of all' drunk driving charges. Unfortunately, the president does not understand that drunk driving is not an issue of age, but of responsibility. Can drivers really feel threatened when reports prove the chances are better than three to one they won't be caught driving drunk when they kill someone? Of course not. Gov. Mar tin's ad campaign is admirable but insufficient. Even stiffer penalties than the ones currently on the books will be needed before drunk driving is significantly curbed. After all, if the public is expected to hold up its end of the bargain, the authorities must do the same. The Daily Tar Heel Editorial Writer. Kathy Nanney Stall Columnist: Pierre Tristam Omnibus Editor: Sallie Krawcheck Assistant Managing Editors: Jennifer Cox, Amy Hamilton and Regan Murray. News: Jeanna Baxter, Stephanie Burrow, Charlotte Cannon, Chris Chapman, Paul Cory, Sabrina Darley, Kimberly Edens, Michelle Efird, Jennifer Essen, Jeannie Fans, Scott Grcig, Maria Haren, Nancy Harrington, Suzanne Jeffries, Susan Jensen, Sharon Kebschull, Michael Kolb, Teresa Kriegsman, Laura Lance, Alicia Lassiter, Mitra Lotfi, Brian Long, Justin McGuire, Laurie Martin, Toby Moore, Dan Morrison, Felisa Neuringer, Rachel Orr, Fred Patterson, Liz Saylor, Sheila Simmons, Rachel Stiffler, Elisa Turner, Nicki Weisensee, Beth Williams, Robert Wilderman and Bruce Wood. Jo Fleischer and Jean Lutes, assistant university editors. Donna Leinwand, assistant state and national editor. Cindy Clark, Ruth Davis and Michael Jordan, wire editors. Sports: Mike Berardino, James Surowiecki and Bob Young, assistant sports editors. Bonnie Bishop, Greg Cook, Phyllis Fair, Laura Grimmer, Clay Hodges, Greg Humphreys, Lorna Khalil, Eddy Landreth, Mike Mackay, Jill Shaw and Wendy Stringfellow. Features: Jessica Brooks, Julie Braswell, Eleni Chamis, Robbie Dellinger, Carole Ferguson, Jennifer Frost, Jennifer Harley, Jeanie Mamo, Corin Ortlam, Lynn Phillips, Katie White, Mollie Womble and Susan Wood. Arts: James Burrus, David Hester, Alexandra Mann, Rene Meyer, Beth Rhea, Kelly Rhodes and Rob Sherman. Photography: Charlotte Cannon, Larry Childress, Jamie Cobb, Tony Deifell, Janet Jarman and Julie Stovall. Copy Editors: Sally Pearsall, assistant news editor. Dorothy Batts, Beverly Imes, Lisa Lorentz, Sherri Murray, Marielle Stachura and Joy Thompson. Editorial Cartoonists: Adam Cohen, 'Bill Cokas and Trip Park. Campus Calendar: Mindelle Rosenberg and David Starnes. Business and Advertising: Anne Fulcher, general manager; Patricia Benson, advertising director; Mary Pearse, advertising coordinator. Angela Osfw<, business manager; Cammie Henry, accounts receivable clerk; Michael Benfield, advertising manager; Ruth Anderson, Michael Benfield, Jennifer Garden, Kelli McElhaney, Chrissy Mennitt, Beth Merrill, Anne Raymer, Julie Settle, Peggy Smith, Kent Sutton, Ashley Waters, and Layne Poole advertising representatives; Tammy Norris, Angie Peele, Stephanie Chesson, classified advertising representatives; and Mary Brown, secretary. Distributioncirculation: William Austin, manager. Production: Elizabeth Rich and Stacy Wynn. Rita Galloway, production assistant. Printing The Chapel Hill Newspaper Bright ffiitunre lies in holiday wrappin: t's always the same at my house during the holidays. With stomachs as stuffed JLLas the laundry bags we toted home and plopped down in front of the do-it-itself washer and dryer, we college kids individ ually lay our most convincing, sympathy drawing "doing well in school, but . . ." speeches on our folks. Being last in the line of five kids, my orations have become quite successful, even illustrious, I might argue, as 1 have listened and learned from the trials and errors of my predecessors. For those of you who have only delivered your Thanksgiving warning spiel or for those who have simply put the whole matter off until Christmas break, I've decided to unleash some valuable strategems that will keep you in Blue Heaven for as long as your parents are financially afloat. Entrance is key. Knock on the door ever so faintly, and when it opens, stumble past your mother and drop your musty, bulbous laundry bag at her feet. Continue your painful trek to the den, where you collapse on the floor, mere inches from the sanctuary of the sofa. Stay passed out until you are awakened for dinner. Did I say make sure to go out bar-hopping the night before you come home? I meant to advocate that I'm always advocating things. Anyway, a hard night on the town will yield red, squinty eyes, a bedraggled outfit and a raisined brain all excellent visual aids for your report. Don't look at your parents dunng the meal. In fact, don't look at anything except your food, which you have swirled and mushed into a soupy potpourri. Hold on as long as possible, but when you finally Tom Camp Staff Writer must break from all the probing, tell Dad and Mom in a somber voice that you have something important to say. Tell them that you have decided to eliminate er, change your major. I'm not talking about sliding into physics from calculus. These changes must be grandiose plunges - like from microbiology to macrame or from history to scuba diving. Trust me, it works. One of my sisters did it five times. And she's still in school. While their state of resistance is so low, hit your parents with the reasons the grades are not up to par. Just be honest. Simply explain how you are a product of Chapel Hill's terrible miscarriage of education. One of the most succesful lines in our house went something like this: "Look, Dad, I'm living in a place where it is possible, at best, to study only two times a week." The logic followed: "Mondays, of course, mean football, Tuesdays and Thursdays are late night nights, any doof knows that, and well, Fridays and Saturdays, that's the weekend and usually there's a football game or mixer then. So, when you look at my grades, they may look kind of low. But then youVe got to consider the kind of time constraints I'm operating under." Then tell them about your teachers, and how they have erred in evaluating your progress. Namencalling can really increase the sympathy level. Some good ones that have worked for us have been "Tudor monarchist," "computerchip head," "frog like" and "polyestered self" (as in "his haughty, old polyestered self")- Describe how your teachers try to cover too much material in too little time, and despite all the hours you spent in the stupid foreign language lab, you still couldnt parley with a six-year old French juenne fillet. After explaining the environmental constraints and the kind of people who teach, tell them about your optimism for the future. Rely on your personality and good looks. Tell your parents the world is full of real people like you. Also relate to your folks that in this computer age, being diverse is the key to success. (Draw in specifics from the last issue of Newsweek On Campus.) Try to make them understand how all your extra curricular activities have separated you from the average "dorm-rat" or "frat-bagger," and that with all the friends you have made, your business success is limitless. If they don't believe you, list all the friends who would make prosperous business contacts. When your parents ask if you realize that you will be out on your own in a couple of years, tell them your plans are already settled. You're going to travel to find yourself. Everyone needs to find themselves, any doof knows that. But most of all, tell them that after finally realizing the things that were holding you back in school, you can at last make some changes for next semester. Tell them you will do better next semester. Yes, tell them we will all do better. Tom Camp is a junior journalism major from Raleigh. Break prejudice The author is chairwoman of the UN ITAS committee. To the editor: If youVe ever felt frustrated by your own prejudices or by the prejudices of other people at UNC, you're not alone. That much is clear from the banter on the back page of the Daily Tar Heel. But sometimes it seems as though only people who are loud-mouthed "born leaders" or those willing to sacrifice all social and academic success are able to make any headway in combating prejudices. And sometimes it seems that individuals do not count for much on this campus, that you will always be labeled and categorized with a stereotype no matter how much things seem to have changed. If you've wondered how you can make a difference at UNC, student government may have the answer. UNITAS is a cooperative effort by a con cerned group of students and supportive faculty and admin istrators to combat prejudice and promote activism on racial and cultural issues. Beginning next fall, the pro gram will have 47 student participants who will live together in Carmichael resi dence hall for two semesters, take a course together on racial and cultural relations, interact socially and learn to use their new perceptions actively on the campus and in the community. All the final details concern ing course credit will be worked out before the Christmas holi days, but anyone who wants to apply should plan on 3 hours of pass fail credit for each semester. Any student who wants to apply should pick up an appli cation and brochure in the student government office (Suite C in the Carolina Union) and turn it in by Jan. 9, 1987. Do not hesitate to turn your application in before exams are over, as that will help the admissions committee immensely. The most important element of UNITAS will be the students who participate. UNITAS needs you to make your mark on UNC by attacking the racial and cultural prejudices and misconceptions that character ize much of University life. EMILY AYSCUE Junior Psychology Edifying info To the editor: In his Nov. 21 letter ("Earn morality"), Dr. Michael Salemi of the Economics Department levels an able criticism at the current student supporters of UNC divestment. Salemi said they should first divest them selves of products made by corporations doing business in South Africa. Three days later, Bethany Chaney said she was ready to take up Salemi's challenge and requested only a list of com panies in order to begin. Might I suggest to Chaney that the information she seeks is par- tially available at the Business Administration and Social Sciences reference desk on the first floor of Davis Library. Further, a complete, updated list of the more than 70 offen sive companies can be obtained by calling the American Com mittee on Africa at 212-962-1210, or by sending $6 and a request to The Africa Fund, 198 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10038. Regarding Salemi's insights, couldn't faculty as well as students benefit from a little self-denial, and also be directed to start with themselves as they contemplate pointing their fingers at unedified brethren? CHRISTOPHER GUNNELL Evening College No injustices To the editor: This is an open letter to Rick Spargo and Lori Taylor con cerning their newly proposed "Carolina Straights Who Wait" Association. 1 read with interest of your proposed group and your plans . to seek funding from the Stu dent Congress ("Funding waits," Nov. 20). You claim that since the Carolina Gay and Lesbian Association is funded, and since your organization and the CGLA have so much in common, your organization should get funding also. After all, you say, your members are also in a minority group and you feel your organization is needed to "educate" the public about your "abnormal" sexuality. The problem 1 have with your proposal is that your "organization" and CGLA are worlds apart in purpose and ideology. The two have virtu ally nothing in common. As you should be aware, there is a long, tragic history of violence and injustices being committed against gay and lesbian people. Homophobia and hatred continue to run rampant, causing unbelievable amounts of pain in peoples lives. There is no history nor any evidence of violence and injustice being committed against "abstainers." Tell me, Spargo and Taylor, have members of your group felt so rejected by society that they have considered suicide to end their misery? What about job discrimination? How many of your group have been fired because they are "abstainers?" How many of your members were kicked out of their fam ilies and rejected by their loved ones because they told them of their feelings about abstaining? The answer, simply put, is zero. Members of your group are not threatened by physical attacks in public. They are not harassed by prejudiced law enforcement officials. The fed eral government won't ask them if they are abstainers in a job interview (or better yet, a lie detector test) and then deny them the job for that reason alone, regardless of their qualifications. The U.S. Supreme Court has not upheld a law which regu lates the abstainers' right to love whom they want, when they want and where they want. And on a historical note, abstainers were not burned in the Middle Ages nor were they gassed in Hitler's ovens. Gay people were. I could continue with more horrible examples, but I think IVe made my point. The pain and persecution suffered by gay and lesbian people throughout history has been so great as to be unimaginable. The pain and persecution suffered by "abstainers" has been non existent. Education and support are desperately needed to stop what is happening to gays and lesbians. As for the "Straights Who Wait," the mere idea of such an organization is an indication of the extreme think ing of its proposers. In closing, let me state that if you can give me any examples of violence and injustice of this magnitude being perpetrated against your members, I will gladly and whole-heartedly support your group's quest for funding. Ill look forward to seeing YOU at the budget hearings next spring. PHILLIP PARKERSON- RIPLEY Senior Psychology Seasonal losses To the editor: It is, unfortunately, a com mon belief among football coaches and enthusiasts that when given the opportunity late in the game to choose between a tie and a win, one should go for the win. If one goes for the tie, God forbid, there is a tremendous uproar from the fans and the media. What is so bad about a tie? It's certainly better than a loss. Take the Carolina-State game, in which we lost 35-34. We went for the win by opting for the two-point conversion. Had we gone for the extra point instead, the game probably would have ended in a tie. Granted, the extra point is not a given, but the probability of getting it is greater that that for the two-point conversion. Let's just say we went for the extra point and made it. Again, what's wrong with a tie? What I have to say might change your attitude toward ties. Are you ready? Our Tar Heels would be ACC Football Champions! Our record would have been 5-1-1, the same as Clemson. True, we would have had to share the title with Clemson, but, nonetheless, our Tar Heels would be champions. Also, our overall record would have been 7-2-2. Two losses in an 1 1-game season is pretty damn good. But we went for the win and lost. Now, we have to be content with a second-place tie with State. Dontget me wrong, second place isn't bad, espe cially after last year's disap pointing season, but we could have been ACC champs! What's so bad about a tie? STEVEN LEHMANN Sophomore Business Administration
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Dec. 1, 1986, edition 1
10
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75