Polk County Enterprise (Livingston, Tex.), Vol. 98, No. 57, Ed. 1 Thursday, July 16, 1981 Page: 4 of 32
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Polk County Newspapers and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Livingston Municipal Library.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
PAGE 4A-1U POLK COUNTY EKTEIOTUK, TH1IKAOAY JUI* HL mi
Editorials
Lessons
Jack Anderson
Amnesty International's new report on viola-
tions of human rights by the Ayatollah Khomeini’s
Regime in Iran ought to make interesting reading
for all those in the West who though thelate shah
Was Mich a pariah.
; AI’s box score on human rights abuses in post-
nevolutionary Iran includes at least 1,600 execu-
tions, reports of torture, arbitrary arrest and im-
prisonment, and kangaroo courts that mock any
recognizable standards of Justice and due pro-
And now, the revolutionary firing squads are
busy once again, this time dispatching Iranians
bold enough to demonstrate in support of ousted
President Abolhassan Bandi-Sadr
Among the recent victims: poet and playwright
Said Soltanpour, put to death for accusing the
Khomeini regime of torture and suppressing
freedom. Ironically, Mr. Soltanpour had been ar-
rested during the shah’s reign as well. The dif-
ference was that the shah released him.
1 We would not pretend, of course, that the shah
was a democrat. He was not. His secret police, the
{eared Savak, rode roughshod over those who in-
sisted on challenging the Pahlavi dynasty.
But, as we have argued before, governments
must be Judged against their alternatives. The fall
of the shah was a disaster for the West, and more
specifically for American interests in the vital
Persian Gulf region.
And, as is clearer with each passing day, conse-
quences of the revolution that toppled the shah are
proving to be disastrous for the Iranian people as
well.
There is a lesson in all this for those in the West
who oppose authoritarian but pro-Western
regimes without considering what may be waiting
in the wings. How many more Irans must there be
before that lesson is learned?
Drug war
When a let fighter crashed and killed 14 ser-
vicemen aboard the aircraft carrier Nimitz last
month, questions immediately arose whether
drug use was a contributing factor. Six of the vic-
tims, medical tests revealed, had smoked mari-
juana within 10 days - three of them possibly
within hours - of the accident.
Drug use did not play a part in the disaster, a
preliminary investigation concluded. Bift the
tragedy did focus new attention on a serioVis and
growing problem: drug use throughout the U.S.
armed forces. Not only is its use widespread, the
Pentagon itself acknowledges that drug use is of a
serious enough nature to reduce combat
readiness.
A 1980 study, conducted for the Department of
Defense, of worldwide drug use in the service
showed Just how serious that problem is. More
than 58 percent of Navy personnel, the study
found, used marijuana or hashish within the past
year. Faced with those figures, defense officials
testifying before a House subcommittee on the
crash could do little more than offer reassurances
that they are doing their best to combat drug use.
Those efforts include a drug prevention and
education program that probably offers the best
hope of at least mitigating the problem. The
department this year spent $95 million and
ersonnel in
irtment
year.
But whether that’s money effectively spent, no
one seems to know.
Admittedly, the problem is tough if for no other
reason than that asking the military to control
oth the best and the worse of the national condi-
tion. In fact, drug use among servicemen and ser-
vicewomen, the defense study showed, was about
the same as that among their civilian counter-
parts.
All of that, however, does not alter the fact that
if drug consumption adversely affects combat
readiness, the nation’s security is at stake. The
fight against drug abuse among the ranks of
American GIs thus becomes a war the Pentagon •
and the nation • cannot afford to lose.
No thanks for taxpayers
W ASHING TON-True chanty, we are
told, enriches the giver. And the Indy
charitable don't need gratitude to feel
good about doing the right thing.
In this context, the American tax-
payers may be the most truly
charitable people in the world. The
millions our government gives to help
disaster victims abroad often bring not
the slightest thanks or even
acknowledgment.
This Isn't peanuts we're talking
about The Agency for International
Development has been giving out more
than 1700 million a year tor disaster
relief. The money has gone to earth-
quake victims in Italy and Romania,
refugees in Cyprus and the people of
wartorn Nicaragua.
Auditors at AID have followed up
some of these assistance programs.
Their findings show that gratitude is in
short supply on the international scene,
rvpr... for example. The
United States has been the biggest con-
tributor by far to the United Nations aid
fund there. A UJ3. contribution of $875
million made pnasible a handicrafts
center on the bland. UJ. inspectors
visited the center recently and found a
plaque acknowledging the help of the
Greek government and the United Na-
tions. But there was no mention of the
United States.
In Nicaragua, AID provided a $15
million loan to stimulate production
and employment Once again, little
credit was given by the Nicaraguan
government. In fact, in some places
where AID posters were put up, they
were promptly torn down by -anti-
Yankee Nicaraguans.
In Romonia, the United States offered
$30 million in reconstruction aid follow-
ing a devastating earthquake a few
years ago. AID auditors weren’t even
allowed to go near some of the equip-
ment we sent the Romanians to per-
form audita. At least, in this case, the
Romanian government did express its
thanks for our assistance.
HILL EXPLOSION: Since 1960, the
number of U.S. senators has stayed the
same. Four non-voting delegates have
been added to the House.
But in that same time period, the size
of the congressional staff has more than
doubled-from 7,000 to almost 16,000.
Members of Congress used to be given a
maximum of two rooms. Now they have
a minimum of three.
To take care of the exploding popula-
tion, congressional office buildings
have been spreading over Capitol Hill
like a granite glacier.
But apparently this growth has only
increased Congress’s appetite for
more. The Capitol Architect has just
spent more than four years and $490,000
on a master plan for the future.
life
pMOBCQ! "Cosity N«n Stnrte*
A m WHOSE HUH6WM0UTH IS PREST
A6MNST THE EARIKSSNST ROWING BREAST;
ATISTHtf LOOKS ATG00 ALL QW.
AND UFTS HER LEAFY ARMS TO
A TVS THAT Mtf IN SUMMER WEAR
A NEtf OF ROBINS IN HER HAIR*
UPON WHOSE BOSOM SNOW HAS LAIN I
WHO INTIMATELY LIVES WITH RAIN.
POEMS ARE MADE BV FOOLS LIKE ME*
\ BUT0NIY 000 CAN MAKE ATRB.
AND THE MINERAL
RI6H1STHEREUNDER?
What the Capitol architect envisions
is a so-called "congressional enclave”
that will seal Congress off from the real
world around it landscaping techni-
ques will be used to construct a border
around this concrete Casbah.
We have been assured that the con-
gressional enclave won’t be exactly a
Forbiden City like the one in old Pek-
ing. Tourists and other members of the
public will actually be allowed to visit
But the master planners have made it
clear that the only people they’re really
concerned about are the 935 members
of Congress. To a lesser degree, they
worry about the comfort of the congres-
sional staff. After that, they may spare
a few thoughts for the neighbors on
-^Capifbl Hill. Last and quite least are
those nuisances from the rest of
America - the taxpayers who are pay-
ing for it all.
One of the first targets on the plan-
ners’ hit list is the modest parking lot
outside the East Front of the Capitol
building. It will be put underground so
the lawmakers won’t be offended by the
sight and sound of delivery trucks and
trash collectors.
They also want to screen out the
railroad line that runs just South of the
House office buildings. The architects
wants to build a few more office
buildings that would shield the congres-
sional compound from the trains.
To the north, the planners would like
to add some more Senate office
buildings, and to the East, they would
like to have the Supreme Court moved
out.
To the west lies the Washington mall
and its magnificent monuments. That
inspiring view apparently will remain
unobscured.
HEADLINES & FOOTNOTES: Oil
companies are delighted by the choice
of Charles Butler as the new chief of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-
sion. Butler is a former aide to Sen.
John Tower, R-Texas, the darling of
Big Oil... Penny-pinching budget boss
David Stockman rewarded his hard-
working staff with four days off over
the Independence Day weekend. His
generosity to his 500 employees cost the
taxpayers $76,480...Federal in-
vestigators have learned that some
wealthy fanners have used disaster
loan money to invest in the stock
market.
Affirmative Action:Rough road
JOHN ADAMS WETTERGREEN
Mr. Wettergreen ia Professor of
Political Science at San Jose State
University In California
(c) Public Research, Syndicated,
1$61
In the presidential campaign of 1880,
Ronald Reagan waa the only candidate
plainly opposed to the principle of Affir-
mative Action, the governmental pro-
gram that requires that some races be
preferred to others in hiring, promo-
tion, and school admissions. Yet the
Reagan administration has found it dif-
ficult to eliminate Affirmative Action,
even though such a course of action
would be popular and Just, as well aa
altogether legal and effective of racial
harmony.
For some years, the popularity of Af-
firmative Action was difficult to judge.
Pollsters did not ask Americans about
it, and Americans did not know what it
was exactly. But now Affirmative Ac-
tion is pervasive. Every large
employer, almost every school district
and college, and all levels of govern-
ment have Affirmative Action pro-
grams. Moreover, the constitutionality,
justice, and legality of AA have been
widely discussed. Accordingly, public
opinion is now measurable and unam-
biguously opposed to the principle of
AA. That ia, according to recent Gallup
polls, a substantial majority of all
Americans (86 percent) agrees that no
person ought to be preferred because of
race. Indeed, a targe majority of non-
whites (64 percent), who are supposed
to be the beneficiaries of AA, are oppos-
ed.
The same poll, and others, show that
targe majorities of Americans of every
• Cepley News Servtaa
shide agree that anyone who has been
harmed by racial prejudice should be
compensated to the extent of that harm
by those who did the harm. Thus most
Americans understand what the ad-
vocates of Affirmative Action are will-
ing to Ignore: not all bigots are fair-
skinned, and not all those with darker
skins are victims of bigotry. But AA ad-
vantages some, and disadvantages
others simply on the basis of skin-tone,
because those who administer this pro-
gram require no proof that those they
benefit have been victims of bigotry, or
that those disadvantaged are bigots.
What popular support AA does enjoy
is probably due to the opinion that it is
the taw of the land. This belief is er-
roneous. Congress has never enacted a
taw requiring that the government
designate certain races as “protected
groups,’’ in order that they be preferred
in hiring, promotions, or school admis-
sions. On the contrary, Congress has
deliberately refused to enact such a
taw, in order to enact taws which say
just the opposite! From a legal point of
view, Affirmative Action exists
because some bureaucrats have
decreed it. Since AA is not law, but
bureaucratic flat, the Supreme Court
has had trouble judging it, even though
the Court is reluctant to act in ways
which might be thought harmful to the
interests of racial minorities. Never-
theless, in every case involving AA
ordered by an agent of a government,
the Court has found it unconstitutional.
Some believe that AA advances their
private interests. But such evidence as
does exist suggests that AA might ac-
tually have caused a decline in the rate
of hiring of capable members of minori-
ty races: the employer knows he can
get the government off his back by hir-
ing up to his AA quota; so he does that,
regards it as a cost of doing business,
and returns to his old ways. In fact, only
those who administer AA programs
have an unambiguous private interest
in the continuance of this racial policy.
And the AA industry is probably fairly
targe. For example, in my university,
more are employed administering AA
than have been hired as a result of it
Perhaps all this would be bearable, if
AA did not threaten to undermine the
very racial harmony it seeks to pro-
mote. But the disappointed job-seeker
of one race blames AA and the other
race for Ms failure to land a job-even
when AA had nothing to do with Ms
disappointment The reasoning is the
same whether he is wMte (“The quota
for black males must have been fill-
ed”).
But, if Affirmative Action is un-
popular, unjust of suspect legality, and
Ineffective, why has the new ad-
ministration failed to put an end to it?
AA. The President need only articulate
what most Americans already rightly
believe, to put an end to the
demagoguery of AA’s partisans.
So the Administration’s reluctance to
act must proceed from another con-
sideration. Affirmative Action is now
an institution in American society. A
targe number of Americans have
devoted important partaof their lives to
the public and privateAffirmative Ac-
tion industries. These people have
believed-in good faith and for over a
decade-that they were laboring on the
cutting edge of social progress, because
the national government encouraged
them to believe so. To dismiss them in-
gloriously would be harsh. Besides,
massive reorganizations of governmen-
tal agencies and corporate personnel
departments would be necessary, with
all the diseconomies that involves.
Thus, the administration has been
very gentle. In the appointment of
William Bell to head the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission, his
agreements with EEOC’s policies and
his commitment to the cause of racial
equality were stressed, but his position
on AA was downplayed. Similarly,
Budget Director Stockman has treated
AA as though It were just another set of
business regulations. He seems to be of
the opinion that there would be nothing
wrong with AA, if it were cost-
beneficial. In these ways, and some
others, the administration has artfully
contrived to avoid denouncing AA for
what it is: an outright violation of the
American principle that justice is color-
blind, and, what is worse, a violation
fostered by the government itself.
However much we might sympathize
with the Administration’s “go^low” at-
titude in deregulating racial relations,
it is impossible to sympathize with its
failure to articulate principled opposi-
tion to Affirmative Action. There aught
to be no doubts in the minds of
Americans that AA
ultimate extinction.
is the course of
POLK COUNTY
ENTERPRISE
ALVIN HOLLEY, PUBLISHER
Entered as Second-Class Matter at the Post Office at Livingston,
Texas 77351 under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1897.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Barbara White, Editor
Grace Holman, Family Editor
Beatrice Hall, Special Correspondent
Van Thomas, Sports Editor
Greg Peak, Area News Editor
Mike O’Bryan, Staff Writer
Marc Gibaon, Darkroom Tech.
PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT
Preaaraem Personnel- Adrian Dunn, David Holley,
Paul Holley, Beamon Goodwin
Shirley Starling, Angela Bloodworth,
Dana Gostick, Rebecca Nelson
CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT
Felicia Fiscal
ADVERTBING DEPARTMENT
Linda Jacobs, Rita Bloodworth
Jimmie Morris, Patty Hankerd
BOOKKEEPING DEPARTMENT
Diane Holley
SUBSCRIPTION KATES - $1U6 per year, ta cawty, $066per yanr,
•at af stale. PaMWwd sinl nsthly,
1166 Tyler St taUrtagston, Texaaby the Pa*
might (ear the accueation that they are
Looking up to a federal mediator just isn’t the same.
BattMatoai
tar
(am 3S7I to P.O.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
White, Barbara. Polk County Enterprise (Livingston, Tex.), Vol. 98, No. 57, Ed. 1 Thursday, July 16, 1981, newspaper, July 16, 1981; Livingston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth789652/m1/4/?rotate=270: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Livingston Municipal Library.