I
4',
:JS
William F. Buckley Jr.
John Lennon's
almanac
A letter from a spirited and
incisive correspondent on the
west coast has cost me the
better part of a day...i send
you, untouched by human
hands, Issues 74 & 75 of
Rolling Stone that carry the
complete interview with John
Lennon, running to some
30,000 words,
"These sheep-witted
Beatles, fawned on and
reverently looked up to by
most of the young across the
earth, although their
dispositions are as mean as
their intelligence and their
morals are as base as their
lineage, I make so bold as to
suggest to you, started it all,
and have dealt Western Society
such heavy blows that it will be
a century in recovering, if, in
fact, it ever does.
"These men are not
innocents--they are
sophisticated scoundrels
capable of the most swinish
behavior and their influence
poisoned the head waters of
the Sixties and we now see that
trickling stream of history as it
gathers and deepens and
broadens and rolls its mighty
tides of drugs and anti-nomian
attitudes, now already
engulfing what remains of
civilization in a few walled
towns.. .What I am sending you
is an historic document."
BECAUSE MY FRIEND
BELIEVES, after all is said and
done, in the virtue of
moderation, he adds the P.S.,
"There are northwest winds
today, and the horses are
restless--also my 5 1st
birthday-tomorrow will be
better."
What was Lennon 's point in
granting the interview? He had
a minor and major point to
make, respectively to promote
an upcoming album, and to
talk about himself. Several
times, with his complete
approval, he refers to himself
as an" egomaniac, a frailty a
great many people have: but
not all of those who have it,
have the complementary failing
of supposing that that pait of
the world (always a majority)
that fails to interrupt all other
activity in order to give itself
over to the veneration of you is
a) phillistine, b) ungrateful, c)
is wasting its time.
Lennon manages to convey
these conclusions, which could
have been done much more
economically if he had
- eliminated as redundant say
every other use of his favorite
obscenity, which makes him
sound like a musician who
cannot graduate beyond the
use of the two-four beat.
IT IS REMARKABLE to
achieve in combination what
Mr. Lennon manages to do
here, namely a) to demonstrate
how he laid waste his life
during the 1960's, and b) to
proclaim so apodictically on
how others should govern their
lives: jecipe:adore Lennon,
and favorite verb your
neighbor).
By his own admission
Lennon was never happy with
the Beatles. 1) He greatly
distrusted Paul, whom he
always suspected of attempting
to satellize the other Beatles;
2) to have joined the Beatles
was in any case an artistic
cop-out; 3) he was victimized
by a succession of commercial
predators who have managed
to get everything snarled up; 4)
the music the Beatles ended by
playing was arid and
formalistic and an imposture
on good creative music; 5) he
was stoned for the better part
of two years on acid, which he
took "literally" thousands of
times; 6) the sex orgies in
which he engaged, particularly
when on tour, cloyed, andgave
him no satisfaction; 7) on
flying out to India in search of
spiritual solace, he discovered
that the fakir in whom he
reposed confidence was a
commercial old lecher; 8) oh
yes, he discarded a wife; 9)
everybody is jealous of him;
and 10), it is only by chance
that he met his Yoko, whose
least song is better than
"Sergeant Pepper," widely
hailed as the Beatles' best;
wherein Mr. Lennon achieves
credibility at last. The balance
of the magazine is devoted to
endless copy about other rock
groups, classified advertising
for abortion seekers, and
home-growing advice for
marihuana .users, plus a great
deal that is inscrutable except
to high-honor students in the
sub-culture which strains
through 30.000 words of John
Lennon in search-
Of what? Lennon is greatly
talented as a musician. As a
philosopher he is as interesting
as Jelly-Roll Morton; less so, as
a matter of fact. He is
interesting only to an
anthologist of pieces on How I
Wrecked My Own Life, and
Can Help Wreck Yours.
MICK MORIhKTY, editor
CONNIE WINKLER, managing editor
JOHN DVORAK, news editor
GENE HILLMAN, advertising manager
JAMES HORNER, chairman, publications committee
EDITORIAL STAFF
Staff writers: Gary Seacrest, Bill Smitherman, Jim
Pedersen, Steve Strasser, Dave Brink, Marsha Bangert, Carol
Goetschiut, Charlie Harpster, Mike Wilkint, Jim Carver,
Marsha Kahm, Bart Becker, Dennis Snyder, Vicki Puios,
Roxanne Rogers, Ann Pederten, East campus editor' Mrtene
Timmerman, Sports editor: Jim Johnston. Sports writers
Steve Kadel, Warren Obr. Photographers: Mike Hayman, Gail
Polda. Entertainment editor: Larry Kubert. Literary editor:
Alan Boye, Artists, Linda Lake, Greg Scott. Design editor:
Jim Gray. Copy editors: Tom Lensworth, Laura Willers. Dor
Russell. Night news editor: Leo Schleicher .Night news ass't:
Rodney Wortman..
BUSINESS STAFF
Coordinator: Sandra Carter, Salesmen: Steve Yates, Jane
K (dwell, Greg Scott, Ray Pyle, Bill Cooley. Business
assistant: Pam Baker. Distribution manager: Barry Pilger,
John Waggoner, JohrvJngwerson.
Telephones: editor: 472-2588, news:2589 , advertising:
2590. Second class postage rates paid at Lincoln, Nebr.
Subscription rates are $5 per semester or $8.50 per year.
Published Monday through Friday during the school year
except during vacation and exam periods. Member of the
Intercollegiate Press, National Educational Advertising
Service.
The Daily Nebraskan is a student publication, independent
of the University of Nebraska's administration, faculty and
student government.
Address: The Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 6P508.
yS7P BACK . - . HERE COMES THE INCISION i
Mankiewicz and Braden
New inducements for Israel
PAGE 2
WASHINGTON -There is more to U.S.
pressure on Israel to reach an agreement
with t-eyptthan has yet been made pubucAs
reported, there is on the table a State
Department promise to urge Congress to
pass a resolution-sure of approval-promising
"immediate consultation" whenever Israel
feels insecure. But there is much more.
United States' negotiators-led by
Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco
have talked to the Israelis in expansive
terms, if only they will be more forthcoming
on an agreement, generally based on the
proposal of U.N. mediator Gunnar Jarring.
They have promised Israel (1) the sale of
up to 200 military planes; (2) SI billion in
credits for military and economic
development; (3) hundreds of millions of
dollars to aid in refugee resettlement (Israel
must agree to take no more than 100,000 of
the Palestinian refugess); (4) financial
assistance in large-scale desalinization
programs.
A TREATY OF ALLIANCE such as that
proposed by Sen. J. William Fulbright
(D-Ark.) is considered out of the question at
the moment, but Sisco thinks Congress
would go along with a resolution containing
words just short of military -pact language.
Finally, State is offering a four-power
occupation of Sharm El-Sheik, in which
troops from the United States, France,
England and the Soviet Union would
participate, thus presumably insuring Israel
that Nasser's forced withdrawal of U.N.
troops from the area-guarding access to the
Gulf of Aqaba-the incident which provoked
the Six-Day War, could not occur again.
It is a big packet which Sisco has
wrapped, but so far Israel has declined to
take it. In response to Egypt's surprisingly
firm offer of recognition and a treaty of
truce, Israel has stuck to language which-in
Sisco's view-is hardly a response at all.
ISRAEL HAS PROPOSED "withdrawal
of Israel's armed forces from .the
Israel-United Arab Republic cease-fire line to
the secure, recognized and aerced boundaries
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
to be established in the truce agreement.
Israel will not withdraw to the pre-June 5,
1967 line."
But when the United States asks Israel
what "secure, recognized and agreed
boundaries" Israel wants, we get no response
at all.
What the State Department thinks Israel
may have in mind is a slice of the Sinai
Peninsula running all theway from El Arish
on the Mediterranean to Sharm El-Sheik.
This would leave them in control of nearly
half the territory won in the '67 war. No
Egyptian government could live for a
moment after surrendering so much
territory, barren and unpopulated desert
though it is.
SO IT COMES DOWN to upping the ante,
making the pot sweet enough so that Israel
will accept something less than what it now has
in mind. Secretary of State William Rogers
has been insisting on withdrawal to the
borders of June 5, 1967. Some compromise
to which the Russians can urge the
Egyptians is the next logical move.
But logic does not necessarily hold.
"Fifty-fifty" is what Sisco thinks are the
chances for success, and he is not impatient,
reasoning that the "up the ante" strategy
requires time for Israel's leaders to reflect
upon the prizes that may come their way.
They did not anticipate that the
Egyptians would be forthcoming with an
offer to recognize the state of Israel , and so
they did not think they would have to
negotiate. Before they accustom themselves
to their new position, they will doubtless go
on a diplomatic counteroffensive, charging
the United States with trying to recreate the
1957 situation, when John Foster Dulles
persuaded Israel to withdraw from the Sinai
under an armistice.
SISCO POINTS OUT that the 1957
armistice was informal, guaranteed neither
by treaty nor by the guardianship of major
powers. This time, he argues, Israel will have
as much security as an insecure world can
insure. That-and the new blue chips on the
table-may make the difference.
TUESDAYv MARCH 161971