OCR Text |
Show Page 16—THE HERALD, Provo, Utah, Tuesday, July 21. 1981 Opinions The Herald, its readers, syndicated columnists and cartoonists discuss vital issues The Herald Comments Feedback Big Flags Underscore Spirit It is more patriotic tofly a giant American Flag than one of conventional 10 days to remove the big emblem or face a misdemeanor penalty. size? Conley Winebarger, Boone building inspector and zoning enforcementofficer, said the council’s intention in the provision on flag sizes apparently was to prevent use of over-sized banners to attract attention to a business. The town council of Boone, N.C. didn’t think so when it prescribed maximum sizes for city, county, state and national flags as part ofits signs ordinance adopted in April, 1980. But in the face of a developing public furor, the council has now authorized Hill Greene, a service station operator, to continue flying his 20-by-30foot U.S. Flag, saying it will amend the ordinance. Earlier, the city zoning officials had given Greene “politically-powerful”’ route of going to the public through the news mediainstead of conventional appeal procedures. ‘‘The people of Boone were 100 percent behind me,’’ he claimed. Discretion being the “better part of valour,”’ as Shakespeare suggested, the Boone Town Council decided to change the signs ordinance to permit flags of any size to be flown anywherein town. As the council discovered, it’s hazardous to fix limits where patriotism and flag-waving are concerned, even thoughtheissue maybe linked to bucks and business. “Certainly there was no intent to discourage flags and patriotism,”’ Winebargersaid. ‘‘And our recent action was just a simple case of a citation for violation of an ordinance.”’ Greene had right to appeal, but he chose the Beyond that, somelegal authorities question the appropriateness of interpreting a flag as a sign. And thoughthe courts permit states to regulate conductof citizens toward the flag, when that conduct is likely to produce breaches of peace, the federal flag code should have precedence. An added point: Big flags are a sign of the times. Manybusinessandcivic institutions are going for the king-size banners — and people love them. There’s no doubt about it, the increased visibility accentuates the patriotic experience. Jack Anderson Mismanag ement Hits N-Plant \Ww C It is an unheralded project, with an awkward name, welloff the beaten path. Butit is a multimillion-dollar fiasco born of fraud and mismanagement. The plant, darling of the nuclear power industry, is supposed to produce more nuclear fuel than it uses, which sounds like a bargain. But it has been no bargain for taxpayers who are unwittingly paying for it. Originally, it was to be in operation by December 1979,at a cost of $669 million. Butit has already cost $1 billion, and thelatest estimateis that it won't be operational until February 1990. Bythattime, the bill will be at least $3.2 billion. How could this happen?It's easy, when the governmentofficials who are supposed to keep track of the project’s contractors shirk their responsibilities. According to a spokeswoman for the Clinch River project, about 80 percent of the cost increase was because of circumstances beyond official control. In other words, the bureaucrats were responsible for “only”’ $500 million of the estimated $2.5 billion overrun. That's bad enough. Butit’s actually worse than that. Investigators for Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., told my associates Tony Capaccio and Howard Rosenberg that at least three-fourths of Clinch River's prime contracts are open ended, that is with no firmly set costs or completion dates. The investigators warned that even the staggering $3.2 billion estimate may be optimistic. It fails to takeinto account thepossibility that the entire Clinch River facility might have to be relocated for safety reasons. A 1978 Nuclear Regulatory Commission report listed nearly 100 safety problems. A Clinch Riverofficial said manyof the problems had been addressed even before the NRC report, but the commission had not yet checked to see if the OC G LEPSAE eet i WASHINGTON — Government boondoggles are always good for evanescent headlines. But if they are really to stick in the public craw,two considerations are usually necessary: The fiasco must occur under high auspices, and the story must have a certain oomph capable of kindling public interest. By all the oomphindicators, the Clinch River breader reactor at Oak Ridge, Tenn., maynot register high needed corrections were actually made. Fraud has also plagued the project. One internal Department of Energy memorandum told how an employee of Atomics International, a subcontractor, received a $1,000 interest-free loan in return for advanceinformation on contracts, and another $5,000 in cold cash for bid price information. The FBI found that two purchasing officials invented bogus companies, from which they claimed to havesolicited bids for items needed at Clinch River. This resulted in overcharges running as high as 800 percent. Typical of the cavalier way contractors behave when Uncle Sugaris paying the bills is an incident reported in another internal DOE documentdated Feb.13. It discloses that the chief of Westinghouse’s data-processing facility at Clinch River had been using a $200,000 comuter for his own personal business. fre not only stored leases and business directories in the computer, but used it for a football pool. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that terminating Clinch River ‘‘could save the government $1.4 billion over the five-year period of 1982-1986." But the Reagan administration, reportedly over the objections of Budget Director David Stockman, has decided to go ahead. TROUBLE AT SEA — Twoof the Navy's most glamorous weapons programs are awash in troubles. One is the Trident missile submarine; the other is the carrierbased F-18 fighter-attack plane. Among the Trident’s problems have been cost overruns, insurance mixups andeven substandard steel. While the most obvious defects are now thought to have beencorrected, both the Navy and the prime contractor, Generaly Dynamics’ Electric Boat Division, are nervous about the seatrials. The Trident is already more than two years late. The first sub was scheduled for delivery in April 1979, and while the Navy and the contractor insist that it may be delivered by October, inside sources say this December is a morerealistic forecast. And they warn that more defects may show. As for the F-18, high Navy sources report that fatigue testing of the jet’s fuselageindicates that serious defects may occur after only 700 hours of flight. The plane has already proved to be a financialdisaster, its cost overruns now estimated in the hundredsof millions. The F-18 was intended to be the Navy's dream plane for the next decade, but to the admirals it is turning into a nightmare. “It was forced on us,’ one Navy decisionmaker complained.‘Wedidn’t wane it then. We don’t wantit now.”” Navy brasshats blame two powerful Massachusetts Democrats, Sen. Edward Kennedy and House Speaker Tip O'Neill, for pushing the F-18 to get contracts for their state’s industry. A secret General Accounting Office probe of the F-18 began a few weeksago.Its findings maybe as explosive as the bombs the plane will deliver. WATCH ON WASTE — Whenthe Health Resources Administration moved into a former Navy facility in Hyattsville, Md., four years ago, the General Services Administration continued to provide an elaborate — and unnecessary — 24-hour security system, The new tenant was charged about$250,000 a yearfor the unwanted service, until auditors found out aboutit. Copyright, 1981, United Feature Syndicate, Inc. M. Stanton Evans Feds Find ‘Pot’ Plot Thickens WASHINGTON — Federal of- ficials and others in authority have been hardat work in recent months attempting to switch signals on the subject of marijuana During the past few years, the National Institute on Drug Abuse: an agency of the U.S. government has sponsored scores of carefully controlled experiments thattest the chemical action and health-care consequences of marijuana use. As the evidence accumulates, the threat presented by the drug in terms of short- and long-term memory, psychological imbalance. respiratory problems and possible genetic effects becomesincreasing ly apparent Asa result, officialdomis urgent ly trying to transmit the messageto millions of youthful users, or those who might becomesuch, that potis dangerous, The campaign is succes- sfully only partially in considerable measure because it goes against the grain of previous official statements on the subject, downplaying the hazards of marijuana, promoting ‘‘decriminalization,”’ and contributing to the widespread belief that pot is harmless The notion that marijuana can't really hurt you andis in all events less hazardous than tobacco or alcohol becamepartof thenational foiklorein the 1970s, repeated often bythose who claim to know about such things and devoutlybelieved by millions of users and others who wanted to be known for their advanced opinions. Since the empirical data point so strongly in the other direction, one wonders how such mistaken convictions managed to become so widely accepted Much ofthe answer tothat ques- tion might be found in a new book \ called ‘High in America,’ by novelist and former JimmyCarter speechwriter Patrick Anderson This is the story of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and of its founder and eas genius, propotlobbyist Keith Stroup. It is an object I in the waythings get done in Washington — usually, the wrong things NORML,ofcourse,did not create the enormous constituency of mari: juana usersin this country, although it no doubt helped to swell their numbersbyits persistent advocacy What it did intead wasto retail a lot of reassuring but erroneous notions on the subject to people who were ready to. hear them, and to provide a generation of actual and potential users with the rationale they needed to justify the practice. While many factors werecritical in allowing Stroup and NORML to merchandise their pro-pot arguments, one in particular stands out in Anderson's recital: The respectful treatment they received from elements in the communications media — vast numbers of whom were ideologically sympathetic and some sizable group of whom were users. Either motive would have encouraged friendly treatment, the two together were well-nigh irresistible Anderson recalls, for instance, episodes from the 1976 presidential campaign when Carter workers and youthful journalists would sit down at the end of the day and smoke marijuana together. And he recounts the NORML party in late 1977 when Carter drug adviser Peter Bourne snorted cocaine — and journalists who were present failed to report that factuntil their hand was forced a long timelater (c) 1981, Los Angeles Times Syndicate Hansen Explains MX Vote Editor, Herald Your June 10, story entitled “Hansen, Marriott Votes Keep MX ‘Shell Game’ Alive,” is not entirely accurateinits reporting of my position concerning the MX-MPS or “shell game” mode. It is not true that my vote against the Simon amendment to my amendmentwas a vote to keep the MX shell gamealive. The story as- serts that the Simon amendment “frankly was aimed at making it easier for congressional opponents to kill the MX if President Reagan decides to deployit as a mobile missile system.” As I sawit, my vote against the Simon amendment was absolutely necessary to ensure that $1 billion wouldnot be spent needlessly on a basing mode which may never be used. In my mind, it was a vote that neither supported nor opposed the MX-MPS basing mode. In order to understand the Simon amendment, one must understand my amendment. The Hansen amendmentto the Defense Department Authorizationbill freezes $1.1 billion earmarked for MX-MPS developmentuntil the president and the secretary of defense submit a final MX decision to Congress. Congress is then given 60 days within which it could act to disapprove the president's proposal. I offered my amendment because I don’t think it is sensible to spend $1.1 billion on the Utah - Nevada MPS basing mode before the Congress even knows what basing mode the president will select. President Reagan may in fact choose a basing modetotally unrelated to the ‘shell game” mode. Under Congressman Simon's amendment, both houses of Congress would have been forced, within 60 days, to approve any MX basing mode the president would have chosen. With passage of the Simon amendment, there would have been a strong possibility that delaying tactics by congressional doves could have blocked approval of any Reaganproposal, even a nonMPS proposal, thus killing the entire MXsystem. This I feel would be a grave mistake for America’s strategic defense. Many of my colleagues feared that stalling tactics along the lines of a Senatefilibuster by super doves could bottle up any MX basing mode legislation for months. These colleagues told me that if the Simon amendment to the Hansen amendment passed, they would be forced to vote against my amendment. A defeat of my amendment would have given the green light to the spending of $1.1 billion on the MX “shell game’ mode. Because of this opposition to the Simon amendment,it became clear to me that if Simon’s amendment passed, my amendmentwouldfail. I therefore did not support Congressman Simon's amendment and urged my colleaguesto do the same. T believe my position on the MX missile controversy is clear. I am not opposed to the MX missileitself. I think the United States desperately needs to find a viable replacement for its aging Titan and Minuteman missiles. However, like many, I have serious doubts about the feasibility of the MPS andother basing modes. I am awaiting the report of the Townes Commission — thebest information yet available on the issue of the MX basing mode — before I decide which basing mode I would favor. I now hope you can understand why I was so ane to read your paper and find that I had voted to keep the MX ‘‘shell game” basing modealive. Myvote against the Simon amendmentretained for President Reagan and the Congress the opportunity to make an open,objective decision on how to base the MX missile. My vote against Simonalso ensured that myfellow Congressmen would not abandon my amendment. Andfinally, my amendmentfroze$1.1 billion that would have been needlessly spent on a basing mode that may never see thelight of day. James V. Hansen Memberof Congress Finance Education Vital Editor, Herald: I sincerely hope thatthe article by Josephine Zimmerman in the July 16 Herald, which is objective reporting, scares awaythe skeptical and uninformed hordes so that I can retain myplace in line for a chance to put $1,000 to work for me and not the local and national high interest, high price ‘‘artists’’ who have created the hundreds of millions of dollars in banks and other institutions which cannot now be loaned because of usurious interest rates and out-of-sight prices on several hundredsof thousandsof unsold cars on dealer’s lots and stored on vast black-topped acreages in America. It is my opinion that there are many peoplein the financial world whoshudderat the thought that the average, trusting American will finally know how they are (and have been)ripped-off on low interest rates paid on invested money. (Witness the present plight of Savings and Loaninstitutions and the phenomenal growth of institutions willing to share the real true earningson invested money). I hope that discerning Americans will find out what $1000 will do if invested in plans similar to the proposed ‘-' murdered”’ car purchase plan. The people referred to above are afraid that the masses will find out that the astronomicalinterest costs and high profits on cars and houses are morecontrived than result of traditional economic functions of the marketplace, and are not based on supply and demand. Witness the gasoline glut in America. Now the businesses of banking, car and housing sales, and oil and gasoline sales are strangled by their own greediness and the first thing they do is go belly-aching to the Fedto ‘bail’’ them out with taxpayer's money, the very people they are denying an opportunity for, for instance, a new car. Americans with a spare “buck” should educate themselves and learn what $1000 will yield when properly invested in programs created by skilled, creative financial fou whoare willing to give the average investor an opportunity in the financial world without the cards being stacked against them. C.B. Lambert 1420 Maple Lane Provo Headline’s Disturbing Editor, Herald: I was very disturbed by your article concerning an aide at the Utah State Hospital who was arrested on a morals charge. The headline read, “Sex Therapist Guilty on Morals Charge,’’ and the bodyofthearticle went on to describe him as a counselor on the Sex Offender Unit. As public information officer at the hospital, I was asked by your reporter to describe the role of a psychiatric aide, and I told him explicitly that our psychiatric aides are not licensed therapists or counselors. A more appropriate headline would have identified the person involved as a psychiatric aide, not a “‘sex therapist.” The Teporter apparently chose to ignore this information in order to make a moresensational headline andin doing so madea badsituation much worse. Janina Chilton Public Information Officer Utah State Hospital 1300 E. Center Provo About Letters “Feedback” is intended to provide Daily Herald readers with an open forum in which they can discuss issues of broad com munityinterest and importance pearance of being a mass mailing: letters which argue a specitic religious doctrine In that spirit. Phe Daily Herald which attempta personal debate with a previous contributor father than addressing issues on any subject of broad com: which repeat positions previously expressed by other contributors welcomesletters to "Feedback munity interest Letters should be typewritten double-spaced and not exceed 400 words — about a page and a half of typewritten. ponble spaced copy. The length limit will en- forced strictly Without exception, everyletter must 2e signed in ink with the writer's full name, homeaddress and phone number Phone numbers won't be published Names can be withheld for good reason, but only after pares consultation with the editor The Herald will not accept or publish letters which are duplicated, photocopied, or which otherwise give the ap- or letters which are addressed to individuals or institutions other than the Herald The editor reserves the right to edit any letter to remove poten tially libelous material. material in poor taste and to makeletters conform to the length limit As nearly as possible, all let ters which meet the above re quirements will be published in the order they are received although handwritten letters maybe delayed for typing and letters which exceed the length limit or otherwise violate the stated policy may be returned to the writers for correction or revision ww |