r-tt
I'
1
Mankiewicz and Braden
'if
The
War
Hearing
Below is a letter to all Nebraskans and a
schedule of events for Wednesday's open
hearing on the war.
Unlike a year ago, these events have been
well planned and well organized. There should
be no confusion as to what's going on. People,
Nebraskans, will be talking about the war
Wednesday afternoon.
For the hearing, the faculty has been
asked to dismiss classes and students have been
asked to listen and participate in the debate.
But the entire slate of events remains optional.
Nobody will be forced to go, no faculty
members will be required to cancel their classes.
But simply because there is no coercion
involved like last year, it does not mean that
there isn't the commitment of a year ago. The
commitment is still there. It's still there because
the war is still there. And despite talk of
winding down the war, soldiers are still dying.
Men are still being drafted. Nebraskans are still
fighting in Vietnam.
We owe it to those who have died and those
who are fighting to find out why. Why the
killing, why the hate, why trie oiooa.'
An open letter
Dear Nebraskans,
Tbi senseless and immoral war in Indochina continues to
take the lives of American boys. The Vietnamese people and
their fanning land continues to be destroyed. The corrupt
military dictatorship of Ky and Thieu continues to be
supported by the U. S. government-who calls such
demagogues our "friends and allies." Inflation and
unemployment in our country continue to rise-while badly
needed tax dollars flow to the Indochina war. American
P.O.W.'s remain captive in North Vietnam. Hanoi says these
prisoners can be released as soon as Nixon announces a
definite date for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops. Yet
Nixon says we shall stay in Vietnam as long as Hanoi has any
of our soldiers captive.
THIS WAR is destroying the economy and spirit of
America. Recent polls show that a "vocal majority" now wish
to get out of Vietnam more rapidly than is being done by
Nixon. Yet Nixon insists the "silent majority" of Americans
support his policy. He has said that he does not intend to be
the firstPresident to see "this country suffer a humiliating
defeat."
For these reasons, the Coalition for Peace and Justice will
sponsor the following activities for Wednesday, May 5. We
urge all Nebraskans to participate in this day of Memorial
and Peace.
( 1 ) A silent vigil in front of the Terminal Building at
10th and "O" Streets Time: 10:30 A.M.
(2) A memorial service for all those killed in
Indochina, at Kent State, and Jackson state -Time:
12 noon, Place: Nebraska Union Mall.
(3) A peaceful march (calling for an immediate
end to the war in Indochina) from the Union to
the Nebraska State Capitol Bldg.-Time: 1 P.M.,
Place: Nebraska Union (4) Public and informal
hearing on Nebraska State Senator DeCamps's
Resolution 32 calling on Congress and Nixon to
withdraw all U. S. troops from Vietnam by April
1, 1972. DeCamp is a Vietnam veteran. Both pro
and con positions will be heard on DeCamp's
resolution. Time: 1:30 P.M., Place: northern steps
of Capitol Building. Coalition for Peace
and Justice
William F. Buckley, Jr
Whittier
id to quit?
LOS ANGELES -Traveling
about, you run into an
extraordinary number of
people who believe that
Richard Nixon will not run for
:re-election.. No doubt they
think this because of the great
precedent set by Lyndon
Johnson (although Harry
Truman did the same thing).
But even if you remind them
how unusual was the
abdication of LBJ, they will
tell you that Nixon will go the
same way.
They reason that Nixon is
above all else a shrewd
politician, that early next
spring he will know more
surely than anyone that the
presidential chapter of his life
is closing ineluctably; and that
therefore he will seek to adjust
himself accordingly. He will
(they are saying) thereupon
announce that he will not run
again, so as to devote himself
(the script of LBJ's exactly) to
presiding over the orderly
liquidation of the Vietnam
war. That way (they argue) he
can present the next President
with a pacified world, a dollar
that has ceased to shrink in
value, an unemployment figure
on the decline. This is good
earnest money on the public
esteem of one's countrymen,
and a bid for high marks from
the historians-better by far
than to have everything you
accomplish washed away in the
bitterness of a campaign, and
the ignominy of defeat.
All very well.
Except that anyone who
talks that way knows nothing
at all about Richard Nixon. Mr.
Nixon, it is commonly
accepted, is a driven man. But
after all - they remind you -he
did not try to take the
nomination in 1964: does he
not permit his sense of mission
to adjust to political reality?
Yes he does. But in fact he
went as far as he thought he
could to get the nomination in
1964, and it was only after the
Governors' Conference in
Cleveland that he realized that
Goldwater could not be
stopped.
But the existing situation is
black and white. Either he runs
for re-election or he does not.
There are those, of whom
Johnson is an excellent
example, who could not stand
the prospect of rejection by the
voters. Nixon is not the same
kind of man. He will be greatly
offended, greatly disappointed,
if the voters reject him. But the
prospect of that hurt, that
disappointment, would never
cause him to take a position
simply because it would spare
him the possibility of that
hurt; much as a fatalistic
bomber pilot would not, if he
thought that duty commanded
otherwise, avoid a particular
target merely because he knew
that anti-aircraft fire was
heaviest in that area.
Mr. Nixon will run even if
his Gallup rating has dropped
to 20 per cent. He will run very
hard, very emotionally
(because he believes that the
issues are in part emotional, as
indeed they are, having much
to do with the place of the
human heart in contemporary
politics).
It is altogether another
question whether he retains his
old potitical knowhow. We are
dealing with someone who has
never lost a Republican
primary. Will it be so in 1972?
Will he run as strong as an
incumbent President as he did
as aspirant? Will he know how
to bring alive the issues the
voters care most about at this
moment? Will he be
significantly challenged?
Congressman Paul
McCloskey of California, as
everybody knows, intends to
challenge Mr. Nixon in New
Hampshire. McCarthy-style.
Mr. McCloskey is running, in
fact, on the single issue of
Vietnam, and gives no indication
what he will do if Vietnam is
simply not much of an issue by
March of 1972. Mv own guess
is that Mr. McCloskey will in
that event find another issue to
run on, the fever having got
him. There is talk in California
(it is uninformed talk) that
Ronald Reagan will challenge
Nixon. It is uninformed
because Mr. Reagan knows that
you cannot challenge an
incumbent Republican
President, as a general rule; and
as a practical matter, never
when the differences between
your own and his programs
would strike most of the voters
as exiguous.
The other conjecture-that
Mr. Nixon will ask Mr. Reagan
to come along as Vice
President-is more interesting.
It may be that Mr. Agnew's
day will be over; that like
Manolete, he will have killed
the bull which, however, also
will have succeeded in killing
him. In that event, Mr. Agncw
would not be able to deliver
the help in marginal states that
Reagan could deliver.
Moreover, unlike the men
around FDR, Mr. Agnew is the
kind of person who would step
aside without a thought if he
believed that by doing so he
would help the national ticket.
But he would not step aside in
deference to someone less
appealing than he to the
southern and border states,
whose vote is critical. So who
else, if not Reagan?
Good evening my fellow
Americans. I think the
time has come...
for me to lay all of the
pertinent facts before you
and let you judge for
yourselves . . .
to
I mean... yourself
1 1
lsfl fStli) Slush l2.MiT
More information
on abortions
Dear editor.
In response to the article
"An Ugly Solution" (abortion)
in last Thursday's paper, I
think it is important for
students to know more of the
background of this theological
issue.
Lincoln, Omaha and some
other towns in Nebraska have
close to 50 counselors in the
Problem Pregnancy Counseling
Association. This group is a
part of the National Clergy
Consultation Service with
counseling groups in 28 states.
Of the 800 to 1 ,000 counselors
throughout the country,
approximately 75 per cent are
clergymen of all religious
persuasions and the other 25
per cent are social workers and
concerned lay-people. All
counselors go through a period
of orientation and on-going
training and work closely with
doctors, psychiatrists and
social agencies in their
communities.
Why would a doctoT in New
York care about a girl in
Nebraska? Why would any
counselor or doctor or
attorney be willing to
jeopardize their reputation in
so controversial an area as
abortion? We believe there are
people who care in all parts of
our country in all walks of life.
Some states have an
anti-abortion group called
"Friends of the Foetus" - the
onlyTcal friend the foetus needs
is a willing, mature and oyous
mother. I would agree with
Father Hain that the just
concern should be on the
child's life - and add - the
environment into which that
child is born.
For the mother and the child,
(Ms.) Twig Daniels
1 xecutive Director YWCA
Moral or Scientific?
Dear editoT,
Contrary to Father Hain's
contention ( Daily Nebraskan,
29 April), it is riot a scientific
question as to whether the
fetus is. human at the time of
conception or only later. The
scientific answer must be,
before conception! The egg
and sperm arc just as human as
the fertilized egg, and nobody
makes any commotion about
murdering millions or billions
of sperm. Even Father Hain is
guilty of that, although only
slightly less so than those of us
who have had children. Can he
say that the sperm that
chanced to be used for
fertilization have any more
civil rights than the ones that
didn't? I can't let the
theologians off the hook that
easily. So you see that we are left
to our own judgement, or to
the judgement of our
ancestors, as to the morality of
the question of abortion.
Conception, contraception and
abortion are only means to an
end, and we have to decide
what that end is. Is life so
sacred that every woman
should have as many
pregnancies that she is physically
capable of? Is it immoral to
want to provide a decent life
for one's children? Can the
world support an unlimited
number of people? The
question of the morality of
abortion is keeping us from
attacking the important
questions of the world of
tomorrow, and the sooner we
purge ourselves of this
hang-up, the better off our
children will be.
John H. McCJendon
Associate Professor of Botany
The Democrats'
Connally problem
W ASHINGTON-In a
moment of friendly banter,
Sen. Fred Harris (D-Okla.)
once summed up President
Nixon's new secretary of the
treasury as follows: "John
Connally is taller than Nixon;
he's better looking than Nixon;
he's smarter than Nixon; he
comes on stronger than Nixon.
That's why he'll never replace
Agnew as Nixon's
vice-presidential nominee."
Sen. Harris' point was that
in an era of image comparison,
it would be to Nixon's
disadvantage to have someone
on his ticket who out-images
him. Still, the rumor persists in
Washington that John
Connally has hinted for Spiro
Agnew's place on the ticket
next year. Last week, Connally
turned in a public performance
which Agnew could never have
matched.
THE OCCASION was the
convention of the chamber of
commerce, and Connally
managed a political speech
containing strong language
about his former associates in
the Democratic Party while
appearing as a nonpartisan
expert in finance.
It was a difficult trick. If
Spiro Agnew had said that
Administration critics were
''acting out of political
considerations," that certain
well-known economists "were
once close to power and long
to return to it," that a number
of Democratic presidential
aspirants "have let their
rhetoric rule their reason," his
speech would have been
headlines, "Agnew Attacked
Democrats." But Connally
managed to say all these things
and still preserve an air of
friendly, jocular understanding.
He excused his
fellow-Democrats: "They
really know better ...the 1972
presidential campaign is
already underway."
Consequently, his headlines
were all about dollars and
taxes.
To be fair to Vice President
Agnew, Connally had a real
subject to discuss. The
President's proposal to reduce
business taxes by $3 billion
annually is a natural for a
chamber of commerce crowd.
Moreover, the subject-as they
say in Washington was
"hard "-meaning it has money
in it. Poor Agnew always draws
"soft subjects." Only last
week, he was required to
compare Averell Harriman, the
senior statesman oi me
Democratic Party with Marxist
philosopher Herbert Marcuse
on the sole basis that they are
both in their 70s. To use one
of President Nixon's favorite
expressions, it was "a cheap
shot." By contrast, Connally
appears the statesman.
THE CONNALLY SPEECH
worried Democrats. They think
the Administration proposal is
clearly inflationary and is class
legislation. It would appreciate
businessmen to depreciate
items of new equipment three
to four times faster than they
can cow. They think it
amounts to a S3 billion
handout in a time of recession
to those who need it least.
Moreover, they argue, the
bonus to business will not
create badly needed jobs, but
will probably take someaway
because most equipment
purchases will be labor-saving.
Democrats would prefer-if
the President has an extra $3
billion to spend that he spend
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
it on public works to create
jobs. Sen. Muskie (D-Me.)
argues that the Connally
proposal is illegal-that the
President does not have power
to change the tax schedule
without going through
Congress. He has, moreover,
revealed that a Treasury
Department memorandum to
the White House made
precisely this point. Nixon
rejected it, and Connally went
along.
MUSKIE IS WORKING on
a variation of John Kennedy's
investment tax credit which
would put a primary emphasis
on the purchase of
expansionary equipment rather
than replacement.
But Democrats are wary of
taking on John Connally. rie is
Lyndon Johnson's protege. He
was the Democratic governor
of Texas; he has political
power in a key state; he has
allies among Southern
Democrats whom the party
must woo to win. Moreover if
they take him on, they build
him up. Sen. Harris may be
right in his psychological
assessment that the President
would not want the
larger-than-life-size Connally
on the same platform. But a
counter-psychology is at work.
It is that Democrats, too,
prefer Agnew.
IPeBplwaiiitpa
fi tflhese slay
goweritimBeinitig Quad!
IfeeMeir get iitf off
ttJkeiF way audi
ilteiM Ihav ill.9
mm President M$siht JX
Eisenhower August 10J2
C
MICK MORI ARTY, editor
CONNIE WINKLER, managing editor
JOHN DVORAK, news editor
GENE HILLM AN, advertising manager
JAMES HORNER, chairman, publications committee
EDITORIAL STAFF
Stiff writers: Gary Severest. Jim Pedersen. Marsha
Bangert. Iave Brink. Carol Goetschius. Steve Strutter. Bui
Becker. Mike Wflfcins. Charlie Harpster. Martha Kahm. Sle- -Kidet.
IVnnts Snyder. Ann Petersen. Konanne Kopcrt. Vtcki
Pules. Sport editor: Jim Johnston. Sport writer: Warren
Obr. Photographers: Ga3 1 olda. Bill GanzeL Entertainment
editor: Larry Kubert. Literary editor: Alan Boye. Last
campus editor: Marlene limmnmi... Artists: Linda Lake.
Greg Scott. Design editor: Jim Gray. Copy editors: lam
Lam worth. Bill Smithcrman. Laura Wfllers. Night editor: Leo
Schleicher. Night editorial assistant: Sara Tratk
BUSINESS STAFF
Coordinator: Sandra Carter. Salesmen: Steve Yates. Barry
Pilger. Jane kidwell. Ken Sevcnker. Tom HafeL Hat di Natale.
Business assistants: Janice Stapleman, Charlotte Owens.
Telephones: editor: 472-2588. news: 2S8. advertising:
25. Second class portage rates paid at Lincoln. Nebr.
Subscription rales are $5 per semester or $8.5t per year.
Published Monday through Iriday during the school year
except during vacation and rum periods. Member of the
Intercolli-gute Press. National I ducat ton i Avertttimc Service
College rYes Service.
Address: The laily Nehraskan. S4 Nebraska
Untveruty rf Nebraska. Lincoln. Nebraska 68S0S.
Linton.
I-
i.'
V
f
f: i
i
f 1
1 ' .
r. 'r
i f
C '
'4
i
...
PAGE 4
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1971
PAGE 5
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1971