PAGE 2
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1969
VENDETTA
by Fred Schmidt
. . . Looking into the coming decade
from the tail of the Sinking Sixties
. . Love asks something of the future, and
nothing was left ns but a series of present
moments."
Albert Camus, The Plague
This miserable decade was only four days
old when Camus was killed. It's doubtful that he
could have thought of anything more absurd than
the ensuing ten years.
Now, as the Sixties close with a whimper, few
people look to the future with anything that resembles
hope or love. The future, especially for those of
us with low Selective Service numbers, doesn't offer
anything particularly appetizing; our lives are reduced
only to a series of present moments.
Ten years ago we were told that the "Soaring
Sixties" would be the greatest decade In the history
of the human rare. But the credits of the decade
mass media, the moon, and Bob Devaney cannot
make the Sixties anything other than the Decade
of the Bullet.
While football and rock music made the time
go more quickly, a steady barrage of gunfire kept
spoiling the fun. First it was Hemingway; then Medgar
Evers, Jack Kennedy, Malcolm X, Dr. King, and
Bobby. Not to mention 40,000 of our brothers, whose
honor we shall protect by adding to their number.
A full measure of devotion is not the question. The
question is, devotion to what? ("Push that stone up
that hill, boy! Put your back into it!" And back
it rolls, back it rolls.)
Where do we go from here? How shall we approach
the Seventies? We could spend the next ten years
at the movies. (How about Hair, starring Pat Boone
and Julie Andrews?) Or we could all Join the
Weathermen and not know which way the wind blows.
Perhaps we could prescribe an enema for Spiro and
then put him in a shoe box.
But most likely we'll Just settle down in Darlen,
get Jobs, get married, and get little crnmbcrushers.
And who can water the earth when he has to keep
his swimming pool full?
So let's play the waiting game of fear. Let's
watch Frank Reynolds on the Five O'clock News
(at least until the feds get him) and observe from
a safe seat how things are going. It's not as much
fun as it used to be, we have no more heroes.
(We shot 'em all off, remember.)
But with the exception of a very few of us (some
people are just too dogmatic to see that we shall
not overcome), the best thing we can do is just
get out of the way. A recent poll showed that we
WASPs are a lot shorter on optimism than minority
peoples. So let George do it. And Jesse, and Julian.
Why get your head smashed for nothing?
Sometime during the Seventies we ourselves will
become the Establishment. Things will sure be dif
ferent then, won't they? Everything will be Just ducky.
We can go back to reading Herman Wouk Instead
of Camus. Unhapplness will be illegal. Everything
will be the way we want it. Dissent? Nonsense!
Why should anyone dissent?
t
And somewhere in the Third World (or even in
the USA) some malcontent who's just watched his
baby starve will see a Coca Cola sign and long
to kill the dudes who make it.
Open Forum
Dear Nebraskan:
Racism is a cancer, a
sickness ... the antidote is
human love. But as we all know
it is sometimes like rabies and
the antidote cannot be ad
ministered in time to save the
victims of the racist. George
Wallace is a racist, and does
not have much support among
the American people, but he
might infect many with his
racist sickness and many lives
might be destroyed. Richard
Nixon is not a racist but I have
never heard him disown or
repudiate Wallace, Thieu or the
Pentagon . . . who all are daily
sending young men to slaughter
and be slaughtered in Vietnam.
Senators M c Govern,
McCarthy and other senators,
governors, ambassadors . . .
antiwar leaders, Black Panther
leaders . . . men of conviction
and love for humanity , . . light
a puth into the light of morning
fur us. The thunder of their
voices In hope of peace among
men is no louder than the
crying of children anywhere in
the world . . . and yet millions
are following them on the road
to mankind's Ideal of
brotherhood.
The Moratorium committee
of our state deserves the
highest praise, for their work
has been outstanding. We will
follow their direction to end the
war, but the revolution for
peuce will not end until all the
world's children are fed and
out of danger.
"No man is an island, each
man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main, and if a clod
be washed away by the sea . . .
Europe is the less. . ."
(John Donne)
C. M. Dulrymple
Dear Editor:
1 hate to see the drug issue
beaten to death by excessive
coverage, but I would be more
disturbed to see Doug Hord
("Open Forum," Dec. 5) have
the last word on the subject.
In stating that drug ad
vocates fail to recognize "the
more subtle, long range and
negative effects" and that they
encourage experiences "that
nobody In the world is qualified
to handle," Mr. Hord Is
reaching both unfounded and
n a rrowminded conclusions.
Among these negative effects,
he says, are mental in
coherence. Inability to express
oneself, and loss of purpose.
The fact Is, however, that the
considerable laboratory
research done so far, though
far from complete, has reveal
ed no definite short or long
range negative effects from
moderate use of the non
narcotic drugs according to Dr.
Helen B. Knowies. author of
"Drugs on the College Cam
pus." Rather what has been con
cluded (s that drug experiences
arc mostly dependent on the
Individual his present state
of mind and environment,
physiological and psychological
makup, etc. which includes
so many variables as to make
predictions concerning the ex
perience difficult if not Im
possible. This holds for all
drugs including alcohol a
good example as we are all
aware of the extreme variety of
behavioral responses it pro
duces, ranging from passive
contentment to obnoxious ex
hibitionism. To say that nobody in the
world is qualified to experience
drugs is at best a slightly
dogmatic statement, for the
researchers seem to be telling
us this: with alcohol as with
LSD, some can handle it, some
can't.
At the House of Represen
tatives Select Committee on
Crime meeting (Oct. 23, 196s In
San Francisco) the majority of
researchers testified that
alcohol w a s by far the m o s t
dangerous drug so far In
vestigated and contributed
more to crime than all the
others combined.
Unfortunately, the hundreds
of murders, suicides, and
serious accidents resulting
from alcohol abuse draw little
more than a passing sigh from
most people while a very rare
accident or suicide committed
on acid (e.g.,Art Linkletter't
daughter) draws front page
headlines as well as the wrath
of the older folks. Face It, one
LSD suicide is more
sensational than a hundred
alcohol murders, right?
My point is this: it is hardly
democratic to deny drug users
the right to the experience,
especially since so many
believe drugs to be not only
safe (at least safer than
alcohol) but enlightening also.
What about possible long range
effects of which we might be
ignorant? Well, we could wait
another hundred years or so for
the researchers to give us more
accurate information, but it is
absurd to ask so many curious,
critical-thinking people to wait
indefinitely when they want,
and need, answers now, or at
least before they die.
Centuries of philosophy have
failed to yield a thorough, con
vincing metaphysical system.
The social and behavioral
sciences have yet to teach the
individual to view himself ob
jectively and resolve his Inner
conflicts. We must admit the
unaided intellect has limita
tions, and if there Is any
possibility of drugs dissolving
some c! these limitations, then
they should be explored. Should
we wait for more information
from the laboratory? Well,
perhaps Columbus should have
waited for the ocean liner and
map of the world.
As Dr. Knowies and most
other authorities conclude, the
drug problem lies not in the
drug but in the people. And the
problem there is misinforma
tion; people fear drugs from
the conflicting Information they
receive; they have guilt feel
ings about taking them; but
their curiosity often prevails
over this uncertainty. Serious
problems are inevitable under
these circumstances. An acid
trip can be beautiful if one
knows what to expect and does
not fear the drug; otherwise it
can be terrifying and will result
In serious hang ups.
Drug use is increasing; they
are here to stay. We must
acknowledge this fact and
structure it into our society. We
must learn to respect the drug,
not fear it; we must see it as a
potential source of knowledge
while realizing that the self, not
the drug, must ultimately sup
ply the answers. The drug is
not an escape from reality but
rather a means of viewing our
environment from a different
perspective.
Keep in mind that I have
advocated use, not abuse; ex
ploration, n o t indulgence.
There is potential good and evil
in everything Including drugs.
But it will be impossible to
realize the good and minimize
the evil so long as Victorian
attitudes, like Mr. Hord's, re
main. BUI Brunell
Nebraskan editorial
ONE SHOULt) NOT SMAA ALONE."
U.S. needs informed public
by Frank Manklcwlci and Tom Braden
Washington When the Columbia Broadcasting
System put a former soldier named Paul Meadlo
before the cameras one recent evening to say that
he had shot civilians at My Lai, a number of senators
were shocked into public outcry, not so much at
what Meadlo said as at the fact that CBS kt
him say it.
Sen. Peter Dominick (R-Colo.), although also con
demning the massacre, was the most outspoken. In
general, the Hawks' annoyance may have betrayed
embarrassment. They cannot have enjoyed the public
presentation of still another horror about the way
they have advocated. And yet, Dominick has a point
that Meadlo's public confession and implication
of the superior whose orders he said he was obeying
may jeopardize the ancient American privilege of
fair trial.
What Dominick was asking is simply this: Can
Lt. William Calley and others who may follow him
Into the dock be fairly tried after the country has
been shocked into anguish by details of the deed?
It Is an important question but to raise lt
Is to raise another. For if CBS and other news media
had not described what happened at My Lai, the
American people might never have known about It.
Which right is more important? The right of the
public to know? Or the right of an accused to a
fair trail? Are the two antagonistic or Irreconcilable?
Sen. Sam Ervin (D-N.C), who Is Washington's
leading constitutional authority within the legislature,
believes that where there is any doubt, it must be
settled In favor of the right of the public to know.
"Pre-censorship," says Ervln, who has frequently
criticized the press for commenting on trials, "is
a hazard which a free country cannot endure."
In fact, however, there is not so much conflict
between the two rights as Sen. Dominick appears
to believe. Both were Imbedded Into the first 10
amendments to the Constitution and both were viewed
not as a matter of form. It Is relatively recently,
as Vermont Royster, editor of the Wall Street Journul,
has pointed out, that we began to think of a trial
as a presentation of evidence to a jury totally un
familiar with the case.
Originally, jurors were chosen from the locul
citizenry because they hud some knowledge, some
background gossip about the people Involved which
might be helpful In securing justice. "There Is,"
Royster has said, "no antiquity in the modern idea
that a jury should be composed of people who come
to court with minds blank . . . left to struggle
as best they may without guidance and dependent
solely on the skill of advocates for the Justice of
their verdict."
Little antiquity and, he might have added,
little sense. In this world of rapid and total com
munication, it is nonsense to believe that a Lee Oswald
or a Sirhan B. Sirhan could be tried by Jurors who
had never read anything about them. If such were
found, they would not be 12 "good men and true"
but 12 Ignoramuses.
So Lt. William Calley will be tried and ought
to be tried by men who have read a good deal
about the crime at My Lai. Moreover, he will be
fairly tried unless we have come to worship form
to such a degree that we hold pre-knowledge to be
the same thing as prejudice.
In Britain, press reporting of crime ends with
the arrest, and does not resume until the trial.
Newspaper and TV reporting about My Lai, of police
comments on the accused murderers of Sharon Tate,
would result in prison sentences for editors, publishers
and printers.
This system has advantages, not so much In Justice
as in taste. But those who advocate lt must decide
whether the price for keeping the nauseating details
of the Tate killing out of public view Is not too
high if it also keeps us from a national consciousness
of for example My Lai. Americans have always
agreed with Sam L'rvin that lt is.
lot Anjtlti Timet
DAILY NEBRASKAN
Second clan poilaqa paid at Lincoln, Nak.
Teltphontii tailor 7Juu, Newt 71 isif , Ivtlnott VMM.
Subuription ratal art M par lamoitar or M par w
Pvbllihod Monday, Wadnatday, Thunday and Friday oferlaa
clwol yor anna durlni yacatloni and mem parladd"
UrytcV ",,,r"l,al "' ""' OKaHaiul Adrorflilna:
f,!!LN'!r" .V, .". 'Madam aj M,
Addrowi Dally Nasraikm
34 Nabraika Union
Unlvamty ol Nebraska
Lincoln, Nabraika UNI
Subsidized society denies most needy
by Whitney M. Young Jr.
Side by side on the front page of a major dally
were two stories. One told of the bankruptcy of public
housing authorities In a dozen cities; the other an
nounced a new Administration plan to give several
hundred million dollars to private companies to build
ships.
These stories symbolize wierd priorities on spen-
Li 7
"Ali-ha! Now I see the enemy P
ding tax dollars. Public needs keep taking a back
seat to private profit.
For all the speechmuklng and talk about how
costly welfare and public subsidies to the poor are,
the blunt truth of the matter Is that Industries and
the well-off get four times as much federal aid as
do the poor.
Some of this aid Is In outright dollar gifts,
tome of it In the form of tax concessions.
But whatever name It goes by. it amounts to a
federal welfare program for the well-off.
Farmers, for example, get subsidies not to grow
some crops. The prime beneficiaries are large farm
corporations who own vast tracts of land. Many of
these get more than $1 million each to keep their
land cropless each year. The total bill comes to
about $4 billion a year.
Stock market speculators also are subsidized in
that they don't have to pay tax on the Interest they
pay for borrowing money with which to play the
market.
Private companies have a range of subsidized
activity, from tax relief on investments In new
machinery to rent free use of government-owned fac
tories. The average American homeowner is also
subsidized. Secretary of Housing and I'rban Develop
ment George Romney, recently talked about the
"housing subsidy" that lets people take tax writeoffs
for Interest paid on home mortgages and housing
loans guaranteed by the government.
"The people who benefit usually ore not aware
that they are being helped," he" said. They are also
usually among the people who scream so loudly about
federal "handouts" to the poor while getting handouts
themselves.
Public tax policy and roadbuilding led to the
creation of the very subsidized suburbs that, through
overt discrimination and zoning laws, exclude blacks
and other minorities. And this policy of subsidizing
the well-off and the middle classes is partially behind
the shortage of public housing today.
In 1968, for example, the government spent a
mere $000 million on public housing, but the revenue
loss from letting private homeowners write off property
taxes and mortgage Interest from their federal tax
bill came to close to $4 billion.
Even welfare Itself can be seen as a subsidy
to business and not to the poor. By providing a
minimum subsistence level to relief recipients, local
governments provide a pool of cheap labor for seasonal
industries.
Hundreds of thousands of low-wage and seasonal
workers move from jobs to welfare and back again
to other low-wage jobs. Businessmen, agitating for
a law to allow welfare only to residents who had
lived In their city for more than a year, changed
their minds when it was pointed out to them that
he city's hotel, restaurant, and laundry industries
would be crippled by lack of manpower.
This Is a subsidized society. By and large, in
spite of obvious Inequities, federal subsidies of ene
sort or another spur greater economic activity. And
some, like the GI Bill veterans benefits, help many
people to economic security.
It is now time to help millions more out of
poverty by a more rational use of subsidies. And
it Is Mine for the great majority of Americans who
have hvwh ed from subsidies to count their blessings
and extend the same privilege to those who have
been loss favored.
