OCR Text |
Show Monday, January 7. 1980. THE HERALD. Provo. Utah—Page 19 Opinions: a What the Herald thinks, what the columnists say and what our readers think Letters to The Herald Let's Shun Worldly Evils Editor, Herald As the old decade of the 70s has expired, and the promises of the new one, the 80s, comes upon us, I would like to voice an opinion contrary to the usual commentary in the news. . _ It seems easyto focusour attention on the news of wars, discontent, and strife among the people on the earth. The news mediainan effort to keep us informed have of necessity carried a bannerof gloom about the world in these troubled times. Atthis timeI wantto sound a different trumpto the world; the fact is we are living in the greatest day of the history of our world. Opportunityis here just for the asking,for everyone who will but invesi in themselves. Although investmentin self is often painful, the rewards are unbelievably outstanding. Each ofyou whoare readingthis message have the power to become like our Creator...but you neverwill if you don’t actualize yourreligion ... If you don’t take a stand against the evils of the world thatdo exist, and while doing so, maintain a Positive, optimistic attitude, you will end up wallowing in misery the rest of yourlife, if that is how you feel now. Each of us should raise such a voice ofprotest throughoutthis land Broadsides to halt the grevioussin of inurder of un-born children in legalized death houses called abortion clinics. so that the murderers of these innocent children will be brought to pay for these satanic crimes Individually we should oppose legalization of controlled substances, such as marajuana, and encourage legislation to punish far more severely those promoting its use on the streets. Weshould,if we hope to become a strong nation, end the flaunting of God's moral laws in prostitution houses that are found in deceptive settings such as massage parlors. Yet, we should be thankful for these very challenges so that we as individuals can grow by taking 2 Stand, however unpopular it may be, and thereby grow and develop ourselves, eventually even as the Gods have done...I wantto offer my solumn protest of the before mentioned crimes and vices and plea to each of you to do the same, and to stand on God's sideofthe line as we once did in pre-existent world when we choose to comeherein the first place!!!!!!!_ De Shepherd, President Creative Living Inc. (A non-profit Corporation.) Box Provo Watch Claims on Water Editor, Herald: Opponents of the ‘‘sagebrush rebellion” should explain their near-total silence on the DepartmentofInterior announcementlaying claim to all unappropriated water arising on federal lands. Howwill they explain ‘‘benefits”’ of federal ownership in the face of this un-precedented intrusion into states’ rights? Local governmentofficials whose constituents drink that water flowing down from federal lands may wantto have second thoughts about their dependence on a few federal dollars of in-lieu payments. Federalized water rights are a heavy price for a few federal dollars that came from the land within the county in the first place. Federalized water will send unborn generations begging to Washington for drinking water. Utah has a century-old water allocation system. Many states have copied it, and others wish they had. The feds should leave that allocation system alone. Gov. Scott Matheson says the federal claim could take up to 90 percentofall un-aliocated waterin Utah. He says he'll fight it. He deserves ourtotal support.If there is any more brazen federal power play than this one, it'll be the next one. Many who oppose the orderly transfer of unreserved federal lands back to the states are those who think food comes from a grocerystore, that gasoline comes from a service station pump, that copperinanelectric toaster comes from the factory. Economic illiteracy has no better example than the notion that big governmentis tter. Somedayreason will prevail. The decolonization of the West will continue. But I wonder how many of our rights we must give up before we decideto take them back. I hope water rights are not one of them. Sincerely, C. Booth Wallentine Executive Vice Presidnet Utah Farm Bureau Salt Lake Try Students in Absentia Editor, Herald: RecentlyI sentthe enclosed letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch’s office. Feeling that it deserves consideration and possibly some ‘ity, I am sending it to you in you mayfeelit worth while to be printed in Pe paper. feelstrongly that we approached, the Iraniancrisis in the wrong manner to start with and that each day we show our ‘patience’? we are only weakening ourcasein the eyes of the world opinion and losing whatlittle respect they have for us. It is timeto act! Dear Senator Hatch: Please read and considerthe following thoughts on the Iranian crisis. You havea voice that can be heard where it counts. Express these thoughts publicly if you agree. If you disagree I would like, very much,you telling me why privately. For many days — too long — we have allowed so called Iranian students to hold Americancitizens, and thus the country of America hostage. Isn’t it time we became militant? Instead of fighting or even pressuring the country as a whole, let's goafter these so called students. In America to kidnap and hold someone hostage is a punishable crime.Is it any less a crime because someoneof another country doesit to an Americancitizen? Let's hold a well publicized court and try all these ‘‘students’’ in absentia and as ‘John Does.” Let's use every televised picture of those captors to establish identity of the culprits. Let's put a price on the headof each,dead oralive, until we And‘Big Brother’ Says. . . that the laws will be changed and strike fear in their hearts and they me hun! n, OurCIAis accused of every incident and secret murder committed in their country. If they honestly think we are so powerful, let them start worrying about exposing themselves and showing their faces on camera. Ever since World WarII nazi war criminals have been tracked down, hunted and hounded. They have either been caught and tried or have lived in fear and hiding all these years. If nothing else, their ability to terrorize has been taken away. Let's do the samething for these “students” andall others who feel they can trample on the right of American citizens. Let's make being an Americancitizen something to be proud of everywhere in the world again, instead of something to makeus fear and tremble. Being the strongest nation in the world does not mean muchif that strength does not filter down to protect each individual citizen. It is time the world recognized the strength of a united America, by seeing the very real, down-to-earth concern we have for every individual. Wedon’t need to send our military might againsta nation to rescue our people, when it would be far easier to make a handful of radicals and criminals run and hide in fear and make them realize their acts instead of bringing them worldwide publicity, it has given them real cause to fear for their lives and to know they are hunted men. Sincerely, Bond Bonham 625 Turley Avenue Pleasant Grove, 84062 By BEN HANSEN Herald Managing Editor Governmenttends to foul up the worst when it tries to legislate morality or ambition. In the rarified air of power in governmentaloffice, it often is easy for those holding the reins to become so enamored of the bureaucratic horses writhing in answerto their jerks on the string that they try to regulate everything from therising of the sun te the phasesof the moon. Granted certain conditions are most desirable, but bringing them aboutis matter for each inridual to do or fail to do on his own andnot a matter for the government to com- pel. The latest example of this universal government folly is the effort of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to restrict the sales of some candy, frozen ice desserts, chewing gum About Letters: edit any letter to removepotentially libelous material, material in poor taste and to makeletters conform to the length requirements, Length requirements can be waived in unusual cases where excess material provides exceptionally pertinent information or insights on a matter of broad community interest. As nearly aspossible, all letters which meet the above requirements will be published in the order they are received, although handwritten letters may be delayed fur typing, andletters containing questionable statements maybe held back to be verified enforce the junk food restrictions known as Surreptitious Ingestion Prevention Team (SIP). I found Quafftwinkie hard at work in the basementof the Departmentof Agriculture Building in Washington, D. C., where he was conducting a general staff meeting. “Now, Agent Porquout,”’ he said, ‘‘tell us what your intelligence team has been able to gather up as the next possible target.”’ “Glad to, chief,” Agent Porquout said as he got to his feet and began to arrange a large map on an easel at the head of the room. “Actually we have a number of places where we could apply ourselves. As you know the use of junk food is epidemic in this country, but right now they seem to have a terrible snack cake and candy bar ring operating in the Pacific Northwest. Anticipating the forthcoming manufacturing ban in that area, the ring is baking and concocting things in Canada and then running them downoverthe border in auto hubcaps and any other way they canhideit. “Then there are the soft drinks,’’ he continued. “One high schoolin Seattle reports that the students are putting orange dye in clear soft drinks and bringing them to school in orange juice bottles. They also report a real problem with illegal vending machines at all the teen “Truly insidious! Truly!”’ Quafftwinkie said. “Well, we'll have to get into this a little more after lunch. Porquout, it’s your turn ts make the mer run. I’ll have a double super burger with bacon and blue cheese plus a suicide shake. Agent Guttbaum wants a small dinner box of barbecued chicken with a side of candied yams. Agent Dispepp will have a Jawsburgerand...” Kevin P.Phillips Was Nixon Really Dreyfus? WASHINGTON — Three years ago, a British journalist named Anthony Haden-Guest provided this short but intriguing news item for New York Magazine: “The Honorable A.L. Goodhart, professor emeritus, Oxford. has seen it all in his 85 years A graduate of Yale and Cambridge, he held the chair of jurisprudence at Oxford for twenty years. Now, in the fullness of his wisdom, he is working on an opus comparing Richard Nixon to Captain Alfred Dreyfus (the French army officer framed in a late 19th century treason plot). ‘I met Dreyfus in Paris in 1920,’ Goodhart says, ‘and I met Nixon when he cameto Oxford. It's quite amazing how many points of comparison there are. The cases against both were very poor, and they both had very weak judges.’” That was September 1976. Since then, nothing more has been heard from Prof. Goodhart, and the Nixon-Dreyfus analogy has, presumably, never made it to British bookstores,to say nothing of those in this country. But I couldn’t help digging out thatclip again the other day receiving in the mail my copy ot the January Harper's magazine. Its cover story — a piece of pure journalistic dynamite — launches what is to be a series of Harper's articles developing the explosive thesis that Watergate burglar and ex-CIA official James McCord was a double agent, and that the Watergate burglary was in somestill unclear way a counterplot against the Nixon administration, prepared to slowly envelop thelatter in fatal political disgrace. As author Jim Hougan details in mind-boggling, historyshattering detail, the events of the night of June 17, 1972, can only lend themselves to some sort of conspiracy, presumably involving the Central Intelligence Agency, the Democratic Party, the Washington Post, or all three of them. McCord, the man named as agent provocateur, the double agent, had exactly the credentials for such a role. In Hougan’s words, ‘I found that during his CIA career, McCord directed what H.R. Haldemanlater described as the agency’s‘infiltration’ of the White House.” Who better to entrap the White House in a burglary which, deliberately sabotaged, would then unravel to bring down a presidency which major elements of the Washington Establishment found fearful and threatening? The extraordinary thing is, Hougan’s stunning Harper's article comes only weeks after another book by a major, reputable firm — “Katharine the Great,” published by Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich — sets forth author Deborah Davis’s parallel theses and argument that Watergate was a CIA counterintelligence plot against Nixon brought to fruition with the cooperation of key people on the staff of The Washington Post. (Parenthetically, Harper’s author Hougan differs, arguing that it “seems likely’ that “the Post — and therefore ‘Watergate’ — was manipulated for political Teasons.”’) Somecredentials maybe in order. Houganis the Washington editor of Harper’s and the author of “Spooks,”’ a book about the world of private intelligence agencies Harper’s editor Lewis Lapham, whose courage necessarily backstops the publication of Hougan’s charges, happens to have a brother who recently served as general counsel of the CIA. Byany yardstick the allegations madeby authors Hougan and Davis, taken together, merit the immediate re-opening of the Watergate investigation on the highest levels. Hougan, no longer believing in the int ity of the civic process, doubts that will hapPen. But I am not quite so cynical. This country is mobilizing itself over Iran, over energy. Perhaps it can also mobilize itself over the sickening possibility that a president of the United States was framed as Captain Dreyfus was in that famous French scandalof the 1890s. For the moment,suffice it to say that every citizen — Republicans and conservatives especially — should go to his or her newsstand and demand a copy of the January Harper’s. Having done that, an evening should be spent in reading. Andatthatpoint,a furious electorate can take pen or telephone in hand and demand that Congress and the media open a new Watergate investigation. Robert Walters Ethics ‘Going Along Slowly By ROBERT WALTERS WASHINGTON (NEA) - The words of the late Sam Rayburn, the legendary Speaker of the House, are not carvedin stone anywhere on Capitol Hill but they will echo forever through the halls of Congress: “If you want to get along, go along.” Nowhere has that terse homily The Daily Herald welcomesletters to the editor on any subject of broad reader interest. Letters preferably should be type-written, double-spaced and not exceed 400 words (about two typed, doublespaced pages). Without exception, every letter mustbesignedin ink with the writter's full name, home address and phone number (Phone humbers won't be published.) Names can be withheld for good reason .but only after personal consultation with the editor, The editor reserves the right to and soft drinks in the public schools. To be sure, the balanced meals provided by the school lunch program or sacked up by conscientious parents are far better for our students than the sugary drivvel served up by on-campus vending machines, but whether they opt for the nutritious or the tempting should depend not on the dictation from a bureaucracy but rather from the education in proper nutrition provided them by their parents and the school system. Knowing that the government could not resist the temptation to impose yet another attempt to regulate personal morality on the public (and put an untold number of party faithful on the public payroll) this column arranged an interview with Erling J. Quafftwinkie, head of a clandestine agency set up under the Agriculture Department to about securing and retaining friendship, power and influence been taken moreseriously than in the ethics committees of the House and Senate. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, “‘going along’’ in dealing with allegations of colleagues’ ethical, moral and legal transgressions has meantignoring,rejecting or minimizing any suggestion that lawmakers, like other mortals, might have character flaws The Senate Committee on Standards and Conduct, established in mid-1964, was forced to conduct one major investigation in 1967, then virtually disappeared from sight for morethan a decade. The House Committee on Stan- dards of Official Conduct, formed in the spring of 1968, spent most of the first decade of its existence drafting sympathetic legal opinions endorsing various schemesdevised by legislators to circumvent the law. The House committee's first publicized cases were hardly models of zealous reform. They involved allegations that Rep. Michael Harrington, D-Mass.. and journalist Daniel Schorr breached House security guidelines when they disclosed information that the public had a right to know. The committeefinally undertook a legitimate investigation, involving alleged misconduct by Rep. Robert L.F. Sikes, D-Fla.. but it opened that probe only after Common Cause found an obscure legal provision that allowed it to force the investigation. Throughout that period. Rep. Charles E. Bennett, D-Fla.. was a leader in the cunpaleh for tough ethical standards — but when it came time to designate the committee chairman heinevitably was passed over in favor of someone more sympathetic to Sam Rayburn's credo. The authoritative Almanac of American Politics describes Bennett as a man who“‘enjoys a reputation for probity and attention to duty which is second to nonein the House,” then explains why his colleagues were nervous about the prospect of Bennett as chairman: “There was a feeling that he was too muchof a stickler for propriety. He opposes unofficial office accounts, outside income for members and congressional pay raises, which led one colleague to call him bit too pious.” But Bennett continued to accumulate seniority during a period when a seriesof scandals involving House membersled to heightened public cynicism about the congressional tradition of soul-cleansing exercises that were long on ritual but short on substance Whenthe 96th Congress convened early this year, Bennett no longer could be denied the committee chairmanship. Duringhis first year in thatposition, he has provided the integrity, dignity and independence that the committee long has lacked On the otherside of the Capitol, Sen. Adlai E. StevensonIII, D-Ill., has been only slightly less successful in establishing meaningfulpeer review under his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Ethics. Stevenson's greatest success undoubtedly was forcing a full-scale investigation into certain improper financial transactions of Sen. Herman W. Talmadge. D-Ga Talmadgeis a certiiied member of the Senate’s ‘‘club,"’ an unofficial but powerful group of shrewd veterans whoseinfluence seldomis subjectto successful challenge. Not many ycars ago, filing formal charges of misconduct against one of those lawmakers would have been unthinkable. Talmadge eventually received a slap on the wrist so gentle that he wasable to brazenly suggest he actually had beet vindicated. but his inability to ‘cut a deal’ to avoid even being brought before the Senate’s bar of justice was a momentous event. Neither the House nor the Senate committeeis in danger of being mistaken for an unleashed tiger. But fresh leadership and growing public intolerance of congressional hankypanky have produced dramatic improvementsthis year. |