8The Daily Tar Heel Tuesday, December 2, 1986
(HI??
Uatiu
ular Mni
94th 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, aty 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
Hm LHIocbD FiriuiirTr?
Editorials
Reagan legacy future grief
When Ronald Reagan relinquishes
the Oval Office in 1989, historians may
describe him as the most popular
president of the century. But after
Reagan's shortcomings plague the
next president, history will not be so
kind.
Reagan has survived the embarrass
ment of occasional blunders with
uncanny ease. Dubbed "the Great
Communicator, Reagan can usually
cultivate public support. But historians
will one day note that Reagan's words
merely glossed over the nation's real
problems, leaving them for the next
president.
The spiraling deficit
Perhaps the foremost issue Reagan
has not tackled is the federal deficit.
At budget time, the president is like
a child in a candy store: he wants
everything. Among the treats he most
desires are a strong defense, farm
support, Social Security, Medicare
and a host of other domestic programs.
These budget demands cannot all
be met. Rather than allow Americans
to suffer higher taxes, Reagan has
supported cutbacks in domestic pro
grams, while forging ahead with his
agenda for an invigorated defense.
Balancing the federal budget is a
duty the president and Congress
should share, , but which Reagan has
shirked. He has never submitted a
balanced budget, and has often blamed
Congress for the resulting new round
of deficit spending.
It is impossible to determine
whether the deficit will plunge the
nation into another recession, but
given the debt's size, a recession could
mean disaster. The consequences of
the federal deficit are evident today.
One result is that private and corporate
debt are keeping in step with the
deficit. And for the first time in history,
the United States is a debtor nation.
Reagan has scarcely confronted the
deficit, choosing instead to lambaste
Congress and push for such legislation
as the tax reform bill. In doing so,
Reagan once again delayed the inev
itable attacking the deficit with a
revised fiscal policy.
Unsuccessful arms negotiating
Reagan's failure to negotiate an
arms control agreement is another
disappointment. Even before assum
ing the presidency, Reagan criticized
the traditional formula of negotiating
fixed limits on various weapons.
Reagan wants to do more than just
slow the arms race, he wants to reverse
it. Hence the "zero option" proposal
to eliminate the Euromissiles and the
offer extended at Reykjavik to wipe
out all nuclear missiles over the next
decade.
Reagan walked out of the Reykjavik
meeting because of an impasse over
the future of the Strategic Defense
Initiative. The affair ended without
plans for a future summit and without
an agreement to dismantle a single
missile.
Unfortunately, Reagan's desire to
reduce arms is marred by a deep-seated
distrust of the Soviets, which has
hindered negotiations. Reagan clearly
favors an "all or nothing" approach;
sadly, it is the latter result that has
typified his efforts.
The Reagan legacy
Among the popular motifs of the
Reagan presidency are lower taxes, a
sound defense, sharply curtailed
inflation and a resurgence of national
pride. The president's feats are com
mendable, but the failures threaten the
successes. Reagan's esteem pales
alongside the stumbling blocks that
plague his administration.
The Reagan legacy, then, stands on
shaky ground. The deficit and nuclear
stockpiles are enigmas that could altar
or destroy the United States. These
lingering problems, joined together
and presented to the next president,
will ensure that some of Reagan's goals
will be abandoned. What better
justification for a future president to
raise taxes and cut defense spending
than to battle the federal deficit? What
greater reason to forsake Star Wars
than to secure a wide-reaching arms
control victory?
What clearer cause for Reagan to
make efforts now to smooth the path
of the future?
For all you do, this X-word's for you
Know what an ablution is? How about
a punkah? We won't even ask if you
know the name of HeFs watchdog. (Surely
you remember Hel, the Norse goddess of
the dead and queen of the underworld.)
The point is, if you've been doing your
crosswords like good little girls and boys,
you'd know these essentials. You'd say, "Of
course I know an ablution is a bath. A
punkah is an Indian-style ceiling fan. And
Hel's watchdog, FY I, is the one and only
Garm."
A lot of us poor souls, however, still
scratch our heads over the four-letter word
for Punch and Judy's dog, and some, try
as they must, will never fill those eight blank
squares for "purfle." One group of X-word
diehards, in fact, is rumored to be lobbying
The Bottom Line
Washington for an outright ban on the clue,
"Swiss canton," though to no avail (witness
the tragedy of 51 down in today's Daily
Crossword, page 7).
So, all you frustrated crossword maniacs
out there, This Grid's For You. Just pay
close attention to the clues and, remember,
if it's not in the dictionary, you can't use
it. (By the way, sources tell us that Toby
is the mutt in question, and that either
"ornament" or "decorate" will do purfle just
fine.)
ACROSS
I Word 2 Word
6 Word 3 Word
II Word Word
12 Word Word
13 Word Word
14 Word Word
15 Word Word
16 Word Word
18 Word Word
19 Word 17 Word
24 Word 20 Word
25 Word 21 Word
26 Word 22 Word
29 Word 23 Word
30 Word 24 Word
31 Word 26 Word
32 Word 27 Word
34 Word 28 Word
37 Word 29 Word
33 Word 31 Word
39 Word 33 Word
43 Word 34 Word
45 Word 35 Word
46 Word 36 Word
47 Word 39 Word
48 Word Word
41 Word
DOWN 42 Word
1 Word 44 Word
I 2. 13 4 Iff 6 7 8 9 IO
Ti 71
13 Th
7s 7fe 17
7S Tf lp 2J 1 22- 1 23
2J 117 124 Xfl "
"""" 3H 1 35 3t
- ; ;
3 ti hi. Hi n
Iff :
Death row yooth too yoimeg to die
I here are 33 inmates on America's
death row who are there for crimes
J. committed when they were under the
age of 18. Eighteen of them are black, 15
are white and two are female.
Of the 36 states which permit capital
punishment, 26 allow death for offenders
who were juveniles at the time the crime
was committed. In Mississippi, the min
imum execution age is 13; in Indiana, it's
10. In its history, the United States has
executed 281 juveniles, and within the last
year, three juvenile defenders have been put
to death.
Americans apparently favor capital
punishment. A 1986 Gallup poll concludes
that 70 percent support the death penalty.
But before an official poll determines how
Americans feel about capital punishment for
juveniles, I would like to present arguments
against it.
No one who has committed a crime
Marcie Cloutier
Guest Writer
punishable by death should receive prefer
ential treatment under the law. That is the
argument of those in favor of capital
punishment regardless of age. Each man is
equal under the law, but is each viewed the
same? Evidently not in this country. When
it comes to the draft, voting and alcohol,
those under a specific age varying from
18 to 21 are treated differently.
Distinctions can be drawn between the
adolescent and adult criminal, taken in part
from general distinctions between adoles
cents and adults. Most teenage murderers
are "impulse killers." Death is a distant
concept; youth are enticed by dangerous
drugs and reckless driving, behavior which
defies death. When Clarence Darrow
defended two boys who killed a fellow
schoolmate, his defense was primarily a plea
of "compulsion."
More importantly, prospects for rehabil
itating teenagers are infinitely stronger than
prospects for most adults. During adoles
cence, personality and behavioral tendencies
are still forming and the possibility for
positive change is still strong.
In recent years, some states have estab
lished a minumum age of 18 for a death
sentence. New Jersey made the decision this
past January. This may become a trend
among states which uphold capital punish
ment and a small step toward good sense
and basic, humanitarian principles.
Marcie Cloutier is a history major from
Jupiter, Fla.
Start caring
To the editor:
Ninety-nine percent of all
Americans do not support
apartheid. That makes sense.
No one would want to be
oppressed by a higher author
ity, have most of their basic
rights abridged or be classified
as inferior to other human
beings. Yet of this 99 percent,
what portion supports action
against apartheid?
Let's see. Some support
divestment, some do not and
some don't care. Of the group
that does not support divest
ment, most agree that the
situation could be best reme
died through constructive
engagement. You know, the
Sullivan Principles, political
pressure, right?
Wrong. The Sullivan Princi
ples only guarantee that a non
white worker gets paid a min
iscule wage (as opposed to a
minimum wage). Yet they still
hinder a black or coloured (the
other large non-white group)
employee from being promoted
past a certain rung on the
corporate ladder, thus support
ing the idea of a superior race.
Most defenders of the Sullivan
Principles, such as Gary Gillis.
("Seek Innovation," Nov. 24)
point to the fact that they do
guarantee equal wages, but this
only refers to equal wages
among blacks and the
coloured. Sullivan himself has
admitted that his principles are
ineffective in solving the racial
problems in South Africa.
But wait. If we break ties
with South Africa, well have
no political influence there to
possibly change the system. But
so far, all we've gotten is
stronger military control over
the blacks and a news black
out. That's real progress.
Why are we not getting
answers as to how constructive
engagement works in lieu of the
above analysis. If attacks
against this view are not
defended, how can anyone
continue to uphold this
"rational" conclusion?
Up to this point, not only are
the divestment folks making
the best sense, they're making
the only sense.
Webster defines apathy as
"release or freedom from pas
sion, excitement or emotion."
The failure of the no
divestment school of thought to
respond to these arguments and
the failure of others to even
take a stand displays a clear
absence of critical thinking. It's
disturbing when people say
they are caring, that they came
to college to expand their
minds, but don't act accord
ingly. This type of hypocrisy is
deplorable.
These are strong words
because I am so opposed to the
gross oppression of human
rights in South Africa. I'm not
writing this to shake a finger
in students' faces or to scold
N0.IAM
NOT UET.
T&gEOUTO
The Daily Tar Heel welcomes reader com- major and phone number. Professors and other
ment. For style and clarity, we ask that you University employees should include their title
observe the following guidelines for letters to the and department.
editor and columns: B All letters columns must be typed. (For
fl All letters columns must be signed by the easier editing, we ask that they be double-spaced
author(s). Limit of two signatures per letter or on a 60-space line.)
column. B The Daily Tar Heel reserves the right to
B Students who submit letters columns edit letters and columns for style, grammar and
should also include their name, year in school, accuracy.
them for being insensitive; I'm
writing to ask people to
appraise the situation.
Revolution in this area of the
world seems inevitable. Our
current policy both of the
United States and this Univer
sity only props up the white
regime and can only delay such
change, making it more bloody
and the end result more
unstable.
If you think apartheid is bad,
propose, support or justify a
solution. If you don't or can't,
this only shows your support
of the situation there. The ball
is in your hands; don't drop it,
and don't pretend it's not there.
Apartheid is not just going to
roll off the court. Displaying
such apathy would only show
your freedom from (compas
sion towards those with no
freedom.
GEOFF BURGESS
Freshman
Applied Math
Take action
To the editor:
I am tired of hearing people
like Bill Peaslee and Michael
Komada of College Republi
cans and Students for America
talk about how the Anti
Apartheid Support Group
shanty violated their right to a
beautiful campus. Aren't your
complaints a bit trivial when
compared to the enormity of
the human rights violations in
South Africa?
For a moment, put your
selves in the shoes of the1
average black living under
apartheid. You are denied the
right to vote, the right to free
speech, the right to live or work
where you choose except in the
areas or jobs designated for
blacks by the ruling white
minority. You cannot strike for
better wages without risking
jail. You cannot marry some
one of another racial group.
You are denied access to free,
quality education.
You are denied the right to
decent housing and health care.
You can be arrested and
detained without trial. You can
be tortured through methods
such as electric shock, sleep
deprivation and the breaking of
teeth with pliers.
Time and time again, I have
heard these people say they are
not racist, that they oppose
apartheid, but that they do not
think "our way" is right. If this
is true, why don't they come
to one of our meetings and
suggest "their way"?
To those mentioned above,
if you have complaints about
the way we do things, tell us
at a meeting of the Anti
Apartheid Support Group.
Frankly, I doubt that you will
ever come, because I doubt the
sincerity of your "opposition"
to apartheid.
The shanty may not have
been aesthetically beautiful, but
it was symbolically beautiful,
because it represented the aim
of our group to see a system
that causes people to live in
shanties abolished forever.
. KELLEY S. HUGHES
Sophomore
Criminal Justice
Philosophy
f
iSWf VBLllBRTKEREtfE L ' Jin J "mNTEP-PBDPlETOFUP ft
Real concerns
To the editor:
I am responding to Michael
Komada's letter of Nov. 21
("Own protest"). Michael, your
use of Saturday Night Live
lingo reflects your attitude in
dealing with serious issues.
You said you are concerned
with how your record will look
in the future as well as the
surrounding beauty while
you're here. Those concerns are
understandable and valid. But
some people's concern goes
beyond themselves.
I am more concerned about
the millions of black South
Africans, denied the most basic
human rights. I am a member
of the Anti-Apartheid Support
Group who has lived and slept
in the shanty. I made the
decision to get arrested (and
"taint" my record) for what I
believe that total divestment
is the only ethical move for the
Endowment Board to make.
As far as your proposal to
build igloos and teepees, your
sarcastic tone was offensive. I
am part Cherokee Indian and
would gladly sit in a teepee.
And I'm sure that Marguerite
Arnold or any other of the
compassionate AASG
members would join you in the
igloo.
J. AMY THOMPSON
Junior
English
No glory
To the editor:
I cannot understand what
could be so "glorious" about
the $8,200 restoration and
reinstallment, ironically during
Human Rights Week, of
"Silent Sam." No monument to
war should be regarded as
"majestic," much less one to a
war which held in the balance
freedom and slavery for vast
numbers of people dare I say
human beings? That's not to
mention its more contempor
ary sexist meaning.
As a white woman, I feel
utterly disgusted. 1 wonder
what Silent Sam symbolizes for
black students. Did anyone ask
them?
To rectify this discrimination
at least in part, this University
should give a like sum of money
to a minority scholarship fund
or perhaps erect a bronze statue
commemorating the first black
people who attended this
University.
DOROTHY TEER
Chapel Hill