J.
editorial
mmim
i
i
, '
Carpenter decision hasty
The assumption was that a Legislature
without Terry Carpenter would be quite
different. Removing his familiar form from the
chambers would be, it seemed, tantamount to
removing The Sower from atop the State Capitol.
But, with the session just underway,
Carpenter has demonstrated an ability to wield
influence in the Legislature whether formally a
member or not. As a result, the session has
looked, at times, like a full-scale Punch and Judy
show with Terry Carpenter pulling the strings.
So much so that during last Thursday's debate
on whether to oust Sen. William Nichol in favor
of Carpenter, Sen. Ernest Chambers felt
obligated to remind his colleagues that "he
(Carpenter) can't walk on water. He can't
suspend the earth from a string of sand. He can't
make the sun stop."
As if thereby assured that the sky would not
fall for doing so, the senators voted 30-18 to
throw out Carpenter's challenge.
Their courage is laudable. Their hasty action is
not.
Carpenter originally beat Nichol by three
votes in the election for the 48th District seat. A
recount gave Nichol a 68-vote victory.
Carpenter then went to District Court but was
referred to the Legislature which, under the
Nebraska Constitution, has jurisdiction over such
matters. An investigation by a seven-member
legislative committee halted when it appeared
that Carpenter had not filed the necessary bond.
In their hurry to dispose of Carpenter, the
senators left several important questions
unanswered.
When Sen. John DeCamp rose during debate
and asked if any senator could say for sure that
Carpenter had not filed a bond, no one answered.
It appears Thursday's decision was based on
hearsay rather than fact.
Also not dealt with was DeCamp's disclosure
that Carpenter had filed a bond in District Court
Dec. 4 to cover costs up to $1 million.
The Legislature's decision last week sacrificed
fairness for the more immediate pleasures of life
without Carpenter. That decision should be
reconsidered. A fair hearing is the least they owe
the man.
Wes Albers
India should feed her own
Charles Dickens in Hard Times wrote, "In this
life we want nothing but facts, sir; nothing but
facts."
Unfortunately, our society is not very fond of
facts, especially if they deal with controversial
issues such as the food problem and India.
Between 1950 and 1960, U.S. aid in grants
and loans to India totaled $3.9 billion.
In 1960, the United States signed a trade
agreement with India which provided for the sale
of 16 million tons of wheat and one million tons
of rice over a four-year period.
Almost four-fifths of the rupees used to pay
for this grain were returned to India, one-half in
loans and one-half in grants for agricultural
projects. At that time it was the largest single
U.S. surplus transaction.
In 1964, this agreement was renewed with the
United States, giving India 6.4 million tons of
wheat and 300,000 tons of rice. This time, none
of the rupees used to pay for the aid were
allowed to leave India.
In 1966, as a result of the famine and drought
India was suffering, the United States promised
an additional six million tons of food if the other
countries of the world would join together and
match those supplies with three million tons.
Naturally this plea fell on deaf ears, but the
United States gave India 6.1 million tons of food
anyway.
Please note that all the former statistics do
not include either military or technological
projects such as the 1962 loan of S52 million for
the Pamba Kakki hydroelectric project in Kerala.
Lately, the United States, at the urging of
Ambassador Daniel Moynihan last year, simply
wrote off S2.2 billion from the debt Inda owes
us.
These facts must surely temper demands from
Indians that we owe them more aid. Instead, it is
high time India seriously attempt to deal with
these problems herself.
First, she can drastically cut her population
growth, which increases by 15 million a year.
Indeed, in 1973, in an attempt to balance the
budget, India cut back severely on its family
planning, birth control and sterilization
programs. This is like cutting your neck to save
your arms. India's food production has been
growing 2.3 per cent while her population has
been growing by 2.5 per cent.
Secondly, India is over two-thirds Hindu.
Hinduism, with its dubious beliefs of
reincarnation, is responsible for the feeding and
maintenance of millions of animals; everything
from cows to rats.
While my heart may be affected by pictures of
starving children, my head is still able to see the
temple next door in which thousands of rats are
cared for.
If the majority of Indians wish to be Hindu,
that is fine, as long as they are willing to suffer
the consequences of their own religious beliefs,
even if that means starvation.
Prime Minister Gandhi is intending to spend
between two and three billion dollars this year to
build nuclear reactors. This is somewhat akin to
pounding your plowshares into swords.
There are those who would say our trade
policies with India are only a manifestation of
our imperialistic ambitions. Doubtless we are and
have been guilty of imperialism, but not in India.
Grandhi, and Nehru before her, have been
strong neutralists forever on guard against
imperialistic meandering by either Moscow or
Washington.
For example, in the late sixties the United
bruce nelson
States offered to build a $50,000 radio station in
northern India for free-if we were allowed to
have four hours of broadcast time daily for
beaming propaganda into China and Russia.
India refused the four-hour stipulation. The
LInited States built the station anyway. So now
China and Russia get 24 hours of Indian
propaganda instead of Washington's.
India has played fast and loose with American
public opinion long enough. The facts show we
have done our fair share. Americans need to stop
feeling guilty about starving children with
uiblcnuvd Muniauis and iUil calling on India to
feed her own.
Irresponsible Journalism
Dear editor:
The editorial on the CIA by Wes Albers should not stand
unanswered. Although I realize the editorial page represents
opinion, I still feel the article is not only a piece of irresponsible
journalism but also a cynical, arrogant attempt to grind an ax.
More fundamentally, it makes one wonder about the degree to
which a college education can affect performance.
It also should include the possibility of enhancing one's sense of
ethics and one's concern for responsibility. Mr. Albers' editorial
shows none of these things. "The CIA is bad." That is all that one
needs to report. There is no grey. All is black and white.
Mr. Albers mentions that not only did the CIA aiumpt to
overthrow foreign governments, keep files on Americans and
launch spy satellites, but also, some say, may have attempted to
overthrow the government of the United States. The latter is very
far-reaching insinuation, one that should be backed up by more
than appears in the article. It illustrates the power of the press to
be irresponsible or, I should say, one person-the editor-to be
irresponsible. One wonders if Mr. Albers, someday, will be
exercising such judgment for a major newspaper. .
I am certain the Senate Committee would be interested to know
that the organization which they supervise (and they do receive all
information required for this supervision) may have attempted to
overthrow the U.S. government.
I worked for the U.S. government for 14 years-both as a
member of the CIA and the Foreign Service of the State
Department. What is more, I am proud of it. I realize that these
agencies are not perfect, just as no organization is. The CIA may
have carried out certain activities that were outside their
jurisdiction and perhaps were wrong. Nevertheless these actions
were approved by five persidents representing both major parties.
However, with recent disclosures one welcomes the investigation
and perhaps the re-evaluation of the CIA's responsibilities.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that as long as the world political
situation exists as it does, there will be a need for intelligence
organizations.
The CIA has done good work, but this seldom gets recognition.
Therefore, it is well to keep perspective while recognizing the need
for continually evaluating our government.
Dean S. Rugg
Goals wanted
Dear editor:
In a recent Daily Nebraskan editorial, Residence Hall Association
President Tim Evensen advocated raising room and board rates $96
instead of $95. Under his proposal, the additional dollar would be
evenly split between RHA and residence hall governments. A
referendum Tuesday will ask residents their opinion of the idea.
The plan appears to be ill-conceived and ill-advised.
Evensen's suggestion comes, as he admits, at a poor time. With
students facing rising costs on every front, any proposal for new
student-imposed increases should be subject to question and
debate. Are these increases justifiable?
This year RHA will spend over $2,500 with half allocated to
salaries. If, as Evensen believes, a hike would allow RHA to "reach
its full potential," those plans should be presented. Give residents
an idea of what they may expect to see from the extra funds. To
maintain that one should not limit future presidents' imagination
by suggesting proposals is a cop-out. If RHA needs to double its
budget, the people who would pay for the increase are entitled to
see some well-defined goals.
Since RHA has not formulated any new plans, the residents'
only guide is the organization's record. Unfortunately, its
effectiveness is questionable. Most students would be hard-pressed
to state what RHA is, let alone tell you what it's done. Paying an
additional $2,000 for "increasing the type of things RHA has done
this year" isn't a deal students should buy.
Before students allow apathy and Evensen to extend a room and
board increase, they need to examine the situation. Judging by
RHA's record, the increase is neither justified nor needed. I urge
residence hall residents to reject it.
Dave Irvin
Member, Harper Hall Senate
WO
ON THE RT Gm SHOW MtfJ
hm com joe. suw,wa
tVai sup, jERRy wr
JUST SET A AEW Bf& $
( RECORD TONIGHT.
) vNk
THAT'S RBHT QIC,
JERRY HAS LOST HIS
CONTACTS 8 77MES Iti
THE 14ST S GAMES.
l
page 4
daily nebraskan
monday, february 3, 197b