OCR Text |
Show Mow AlboMit It? 4AynwrD(iDnDQil; HtfttaiM Mill" fcj If the Presidential elections were today who do you think would win' Otis E. Winn , L,.J;rt Reagan, because Carter has not done a very gooa joo oi truing the country and Reagan has demonstrated his capability to . v,. t anage large budgets and large governmental aiuc .SUM-"? I I Page 2 , lhursday, June 19, 1980 Editorial 3 f if J- - it Are These People Speaking For You? 'Change' is a disconcerting word. No matter if it's positive or negative, no matter to what degree, change means altering patterns of thinking and living, and step ping into the unfamiliar. Right now. Park City is in need of a change, and for the Master Plan Update Advisory Committee, Com-mittee, that means they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. The 10-member committee has spent hours in the past months looking at the Big Picture-Park City's future. They didn't need a crystal ball to see that the town slowly is succumbing to the assaults of increased traffic, more tourists demanding more services, a growing permanent population, an immature transportation system, and continuing con-tinuing construction that strains both the eye and the volunteer volun-teer firefighting system. They resolved to deal with the emerging crisis by tackling the Land Management Code, suggesting changes in critical areas to better reflect the city's goals, and to more clearly define permitted and con ditional land uses. Those recommendations were aired publically last Thursday, Thurs-day, and again Tuesday night, and both times the citizen reaction was decidedly negative. In their effort to minimize the mushrooming problems, the committee apparently stomped on the toes of special interest groups who. naturally, want to protect themselves. It's a difficult problem without an easy solution. But the Big Picture has to be dealt with rationally, not emotionally. While it is understandable that individuals fear their wallets will be affected by the changes, those individuals must bear the burdens of a speculative land market. Like stockholders, property owners take their chances, raking in the spoils when they've played it right, and accepting il if it's craps. Many oldtime Parkites complained that the city has gone to the dogs, and they want to cash in and leave town... .with as much cash as possible. They seem to forget that if it weren't for the development that makes them want to leave in the first place, their properties would be virtually worthless. worth-less. Few seemed to have sympathy for those who choose to remain in Park City, and who would prefer to see the changes made that would be in the best interests of the whole town. On the other side of the coin are the committee members. While their intentions are sound, they have freely admitted their methods are not infallible. They have welcomed criticism and suggestions, and stated their willingness to work with property owners and concerned citizens to resolve the problems. At least one more marathon meeting like Tuesday night will be held before decisions are made. It's possible the individuals in-dividuals that have attended the public sessions don't represent the majority, that there is an even larger group hiding in the shadows who prefer to see Park City steer clear of mass development and congestion. If they exist, they need to be heard, or be content to flow with the stream. And while the meetings are producing useful information, they are usurping valuable time during the construction season. A deadline has to be set. and a compromise struck. That will not be easy. Endless hours could be spent rehashing old complaints, with no new doors opened to lead the way to resolution. No matter what the final deter initiation, it will be unpopular with someone The City Council will reach the verdict, and despite the protestation that undoubtedly will arise, they should leel conhdent that their decision will secure the best luture lor Park Cit -ISISM COMCeRKep ABOUT UNeMPUVWeNT ux rnviui tSMT BROUGHT MftHBReiDMlAMI YOUR VOT&To mnmi by Stanley Karnow Carter, Not Muskie, Must Direct American Foreign Policy Washington Secretary of State Edmund Ed-mund Muskie is beginning to promote himself as the chief foreign policy figure in the Carter administration. But it seems doubtful to me that he can sustain that assertive role for long. In contrast to his predecessor. Cyrus Vance, a lawyer who shunned the limelight. Muskie is behaving like the politician he has been by making his views public. On his first journey abroad a few weeks ago, for example, he made a point of talking to reporters on the record, and he now is briefing them as well at regular background sessions. During his maiden voyage to Europe, moreover. Muskie also dealt an indirect blow to Zbigniew Brzezinski. the head of the National Security Council, by deliberately excluding Brezezinski's representatives on the trip from high-level meetings w ith foreign diplomats. diplo-mats. In my estimation, however, these and other moves may not suffice to reinforce Muskie's position as the administration's principal authority in the field of international affairs. Thus he is likely to become enmeshed in squabbles similar to those that poisoned poison-ed the relationship between Brzezinski and Vance, and. in the process, muddled the U.S. performance in foreign policy. For one thing. Muskie admittedly is no specialist in the intricacies of international interna-tional affairs despite his years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and acquiring a measure of expertise in the subject will not be easy for him. Besides, he faces the complex task of mastering the State Department, an institution that has been compared accurately to a fudge factory. With the election campaign gathering momentum, he is bound to come under pressure from Carter to contribute his considerable political talent to the race -which would not only divert him from his job but also open him up to criticism from Republicans and conservative conser-vative Democrats, whose support he needs to conduct foreign policy. As Muskie himself confessed when he accepted the assignment, it may not last more than eight months. And that oblique reference to the possibility of Carter losing the election has cast him as a lame duck, a posture that does little to enhance his prestige either at home or overseas. Meanwhile, he must cope with the existence of the National Security Council, which effectively can challenge chal-lenge him as it did Vance from its strategic location inside the White House. In particular, he must contend with Brzezinski, who is too dynamic a character to allow himself to be upstaged by a rival among the president's aides. Above all, though. Muskie is potentially potential-ly confronted by the problem of Carter himself, who has a way of shifting from one adviser to another, so that today's laonte may be tomorrow 's outcast. In this respect, the Carter style dillers sharply from that of past presidents. Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower Eisenhow-er delegated power to strong secretaries secre-taries of slate like Dean Acheson and John Foster Dulles, while reserving the prerogative of taking major initiatives themselves. Though he gave free rein to Dulles, for example. Eisenhower vetoed veto-ed his plan lor U.S military intervention to resuce the beleagured French army in Indochina in 1954. John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, on the other hand, believed themselves competent to manage loreign policy directly. Nixon, indeed, held that th,e. president's primary function was to engage in international affairs and that domestic questions could be handled by subordinates. Consonant with his experience as Senate majority leader. Lyndon Johnson John-son sought a consensus before reaching decisions. Accordingly, his entourage unanimously backed his approach to the Vietnam war even though some of its members privately expressed misgivingswhich mis-givingswhich only served to bolster Johnson's claim that he had listened to all sides of the issue Carter entered office with the intention inten-tion of creating a collegia! structure under w hich his various advisers could submit divergent policy options. But this "pluralistic" arrangement, as it was called, turned out to be a formula lor incoherence. In the first place, it naively ignored the egos and ambitions of the personalities involved in the game. The flamboyant Brzezinski. for instance, became the first national security adviser in history to hire his own press agent, while Vance repeatedly refused to articulate policy overtly. As a consequence, the public never could be sure who reflected Carter's outlook. The system also neglected the fact that men with basically conflicting attitudes toward the world do not easily compromise with each other. Brzezinski. Brzezin-ski. an advocate of toughness, therefore maneuvered to prevent Vance's conciliatory con-ciliatory recommendations from getting get-ting to the president. Bui the main responsibility for the confusion that resulted lay with Carter, Instead of clearly delegating power, imposing his own position or seeking a consensus, as other presidents have done, he appears to have zigzagged Irom one line to another, depending on which adviser caught his mood at the moment. Vance's tortunes soared, for example, when the Camp David negotiations succeeded and when the Soviets signed the strategic arms limitation agreement. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan, however. Carter's attention atten-tion switched to Brzezinski. whose agressivity then sounded plausible. Muskie is not going to escape the same vagaries. For American foreign policy cannot be made consistent by the appointment of a new secretary of state or a new national security adviser as long as the president himself lacks a sense of direction. (Released by The Register and Tribune Syndicate, 1980) Greg .Moll Anderson. He is the better of three evils. Gary (.Yompton Carter because the Democratic party is strong and united which will give him the push to win. Cam Hatton O.D. McGee. He's about the most qualified person I can think of. 11 "ssi I .4 k if Mu i J it Diana Maxell Carter because he's the incumbent. Wilma Martin Carter because people know him the best and he's dependable and they've seen him in action. 4 j' -E----- - Weekl by Jack Anderson & Joo Spear Senate Committee Earmarks $40 Million for Khomeini Washington During a foreign crisis when George Washington was president, presi-dent, the United States defiantly proclaimed to the w orld in the words of Ambassador to France Charles Pick-ney: Pick-ney: "Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute." These days with Jimmy Carter in the White House, the I'nited States is spending billions for defense and a Senate committee has earmarked $40 million as payment into a bank account for Iran's fanatic Ayatollah Khomeini who is holding 53 American hostages. We've obtained secret details of a fight that went on in the closed-door sessions of the Senate Armed Services Committee Com-mittee over the $40 million nest-egg proposal that would benefit the rabidly anti-American Iranian regime to make up for weapon shortcomings in Carter's military budget. In essense, the committee voted to buy back some of our own missiles from Iran and place the purchase price in escrow for the Khomeini government until the hostage crisis is solved. Here's the astonishing history of the curious transaction that set off a backstage furor in the Senate committee. com-mittee. The Navy has found itself dangerously short of Phoenix missiles the weapons which give its F-14 fighter planes their tremendous firepower. Each Navy F-14 is supposed to carry six missiles but there are so few of them that they now must be shuffled from carrier to carrier to arm the fighters. The military budget submitted to Congress by Carter fell short of the amount the Navy requested to purchase the number of Phoenix missiles the admirals wanted. By the end of this year, the Navy would have only 1.729 of the missiles far short of its claimed minimum requirement of 2.932 Phoenixes. Phoe-nixes. When the shah w as driven from power, he had on order lot) of the missiles, paid for but never delivered. They have been sitting in this country for more than a year.Thry-are old-model missiles now being rendered obsolete by newer types. Legally, the revolutionaray anti-American Iranian government holds title to them. -Behind the scenes at the Senate committee. pro-Navy advocates proposed pro-posed that the Pentagon be empowered to buy back the missiles for the $40 million purchase price to provide stopgap replenishment of the Navy's Phoenix arsenal. The $40 million would be placed in a trust fund for Khomeini's revolutionary government whenever relations between Iran and the United States bettered. A number of committee members protested vociferously but vainly against bankrolling the Khomeini government when the United States was striving to impose tough economic sanctions against Iran. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mieh., argued it was ridiculous from a military standpoint to buy 150 outmoded missiles from the Iranian stockpile when by waiting a year, the Pentagon could obtain more modern missiles at a better price. But in the secret showdown, the committee voted to buy back the old missiles and give the ayatollah his credit slip. Computer Warfare: The Pentagon has confirmed that a maverick computer twice within a week erroneously signaled to our lethal retaliatory forces that Soviet nuclear missiles were headed toward the United States. The false alarms were detected in time but the incidents sent shivers up the spines of every nation in the world. Alarmed U.S. military planners have responded to the Dr. Strangelove-type episodes by ordering a full-scale investigation by the nation's most skilled computer experts. I've learned from their preliminary findings that the aberrant computer deep beneath the Cheyenne Mouift a ins near' Colorado Springs set off the terrifying war scare on its own. Nothing detectable triggered the alarm, not a bird, not a plane, not a missile. The computer sent the U.S. defense establishment into a scurry of alert purely from an internal malfunction. Fortunately the computer has its own fail-safe system of sensors scanning the globe for signs of attack, located on the ground, in satellites in space, and aboard airborne tracking planes. Air Force commanders checked the sensors sen-sors wilh seconds ticking away, to determine that the computerized warning warn-ing was false and halted any drastic action. The incidents demonstrated that the armed forces can respond to a Soviet threat in a matter of moments but it also raised a doomsday question: Could an erratic computer on either the U.S. or the Russian side trigger a nuclear war by accident? Authority Defied: President Carter has personally voiced his opinion that Ramsey Clark should be prosecuted for disobeying his executive order and leading an American delegation to Tehran toparticipate in the trumped-up Iranian propaganda circus accusing the United States of crimes against the Iranian people. This should be enough to trigger the Justic Department into action against the former attorney general. But even before Clark's return from abroad. State Department officials were circulating underground rumors that Clark's New York law firm represented Iranian clients and was guilty of a serious conflict of interest. When Sen. Harrison Schmitt, R-N.M., demanded corroboration. State Department Depart-ment bureaucrats backed down. The allegation was deemed totally unfounded. unfound-ed. Nonetheless, a vengeful Carter is determined to press for action against the man who defied his authority The Subscription Rales, $6 a year in Sum m it County, $12 a year outside Summit County Published by Ink, Inc. l'SPs:i7-7:io Publisher Jan Wilking Kditor Bettina Moench Advertising Sales Ian Wilking, ,iill Dickson General Manager. Terry Hogan Business Manager Rick Laiiman Graphics Becky Widcnhouse Reporters Knk Brough, David Hampshire Photo Editor Phyllis Rubenstein Typesetting Kathy Deakin, Dixie Bishop Subscription & Classifieds Ann Kono Entered a second-class matter May 2:, 1977, at the post office in Park City, Utah KtOliO, under the Act of March 3, 1897. Published every Thursday at Park City, Utah. Second-class postage paid at Park City, Utah. , Unsolicited manuscripts and photographs are welcome and will be considered for publication, however The Newspaper will assume no responsibility for the return of such material. All news, advertising and photos must be received prior to the Tuesday noon deadline at our office 419 Main Street in Park City, by mail P.O. Box 738, Park City, Ut. 84060, or by calling our office (801 )(49-90l I. Publication material must be received by Tuesday noon for Thursday publication. |