Santa Cruz Sentinel from Santa Cruz, California • Page 27

Monday, Nov. 16, 1981 Santa Cruz Sentinel-27 Sentinel Editorial (IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO GET ANYTHING PONE IN A NEW AW ORDERLY MANNER AROUNP HERE EVERyBOW WANTS TO GET INTO THE ACT KNOW THAT'S OUR GREAT WEAKNESS, NHCH THE The Strange Session FUNDAMENTAL STRENGTH OF OUR SYSTENA On a panro that the lawmakers will make some sort of compromise and hope to act on the remaining bills so the Assembly members will return. There remains a question, of course, whether the Assembly woud agree to come back to Sacramento even for a few hours. No matter how you look at the unusual antics last week, it is difficult to believe this is the proper way to run state government. It was evident during the regular session that little love was lost between the two houses despite the fact they are both controlled by the Democrats.

The acrimony between the Assembly and the Senate has been growing in intensity the past few sessions. It is a rare instance when they are cooperative, but the latest episode goes far beyond normal differences. Whether any sense of unity can be re-established in the Legislature is difficult to predict although it is all too clear that little love is lost among the leadership. To a degree there are similar differences among the minority Republican members of both houses although they have managed to keep their differences off the front pages. It takes a great deal of understanding to comprehend the action of the California Legislature last week.

Lawmakers, who had been congratulating themselves on what a good job they were doing, suddenly decided they didn't like to stay in Sacramento. The Senate got all fouled up dealing with a plan to reapportion the state's Board of Equalization districts, so they quit and went home after a Thursday night session failed to find room for compromise. They forgot to tell the Assembly about their decision. Speaker Willie Brown found out about it Friday morning after a call from Republican minority leader Carol Hallett, who apparently had been told about the action by Republicans in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader David Roberti didn't tell the Speaker, which may or may not tell you something about the harmony in Sacramento this year.

Both houses did pass an emrgency bill to allow the state welfare program to comply with federal regulations, a move that should save the state some essential millions of dollars. However, there was no final action of the ment of the Board of Equalization districts. That failure, too, may tell you something about the Legislature in 1981. It didn't bother to act on the board districts during the regular session despite the fact the action is needed for the 1982 primary. And when they were called back to act, the houses couldn't reach agreement, perhaps because they were trying to tailor-make a district for one of their members.

The speaker said he has no plans to call his members back before the opening of the 1982 session in January while the Senate adjourned until next Thursday. It should be rather interesting to see what happens when the senators return to Sacramento. The probability is For one thing, the Democratic action on reapportionment served to unite the Republicans as they joined together to protest the gerrymandering i of Assembly, Jack Anderson Senate and congressional districts. Rebels7 War In Afghanistan The absence of any influence from the governor's office also is puzzling. While it is true the governor is sort of in a lame duck position, one would think that the Democratic leadership would at least talk to the governor before deciding to split Sacramento.

One would also wonder if the last charade would tend to help folks re-elect an incumbent Legislature. Andrew.Jully At Home With Paradox guns." The mullah wanted Rasheed to wipe out some Communist machine-gun nests that had killed one of the night fighters and wounded two others. "So early the next morning we loaded the recoilless rifle on the back of a donkey and set off. We worked our way through wheatfields, ditches, irrigation canals and farmyards to within 200 yards of the enemy strongpoint. The machine guns fired at us only a few times." Rasheed positioned the bazooka in a partially destroyed house, aiming It through a hole punched by a Soviet tank shell.

Before he commenced firing, Rasheed poured water on the dirt floor to avoid kicking up dust that would give away their position. "What a joke that turned out to be," Grant reported. "The first shot kicked up more dust than a camel stampede. I braced myself for the return fire from the tanks, mortars and artillery we knew were in the fort." But the only return fire was from the machine guns that were the guerrillas' targets. "For half an hour we picked off machine-gun nests without any response from their heavy guns," Grant reported.

He was told later that this reluctance of the Soviet-led troops to commit their clearly superior equipment is characteristic of the Afghanistan war. For whatever reason, the Russians have chosen to fight the war on a shoestring. tUnited Feature Syndicate "Men lunging around the courtyard grabbed their rifles and dashed out," Grant reported. "Shakour picked up a SAM hand-held, ground-to-air missile a weapon the Mujahidin supposedly did not have." Grant's host led him to an inner room and told him to wait there. The sound of battle was comfortably distant except for one loud explosion, which my associate assumed was a rocket fired at the village by one of the helicopters.

The choppers finally left, and Shakour returned. "Smoke was rising from a nearby field, and I asked Shakour if that was from the rocket I had heard land so close," Grant reported. "He grinned sheepishly. he said. 'That was my "He explained that his unit, which was in charge of air defense, had the Mu-jahidin's one ground-to-air missile, which had been captured from the Russians.

For weeks they had been preparing to use it. But Shakour didn't fire it properly, and the SAM landed in the field near his own troops." Grant spent a week with the besieging "army" around Tamir. It was an instructive lesson in Soviet tactics. "One night, after a particularly bad dinner of bread, oil and grapes, the mullah in command of the Mujahidin's night fighters visited the group I was staying with," Grant wrote. "He spoke animatedly for 15 minutes with Abdul Rasheed, whose unit had two mortars and a recoil-less rifle most of the rebels' heavy WASHINGTON If some latter-day Homer decides to pen the history of the Russians' war in Afghanistan, the siege of Tamir would hardly be his centerpiece.

Epic it is not. Yet the battle for this little crossroads town in southeastern Afghanistan is, in its own modest way, typical of the peculiar war being fought by a superpower and its satellite army against ill-fed, poorly equipped native tribesmen. My associate Peter Grant witnessed a brief, inconclusive episode in this strange contest. The Ajax of the siege of Tamir is a genial former schoolteacher called Malm Shakour. Unfortunately, his military skill did not match his courage: When he fired a captured SAM missile at a Russian helicopter, the $40,000 rocket landed in a nearby field, barely missing his own men.

The Tamir garrison, which had been encircled by the guerrillas for three weeks when Grant arrived, consists of some 800 Afghan army troops and 20 Soviet advisers. Their only means of supply is Russian MI-8 helicopters, which fly in usually about twice a week. My roving correspondent had already watched two Russian gunships exchanging fire with the besiegers as he and his two Mujahidin guides hiked the last couple of miles across the rocky desert toward Tamir. That should have been it for a day or But no sooner had he arrived in the deserted mud village that was Shakour's headquarters than the two choppers returned on another foray. breath he could note that "I haven't seen much individuality in the (Chinese) people yet their dress and appearance are conformist" and in the next declare unselfconsciously, "but I'm sure it's there.

I think there is more individuality there than in the United States." Jim seemed to feel that the Chinese people had achieved the apex of individuality simply by shrugging off the superficial trappings of phony, bourgeois-capitalist freedom and deciding for themselves to do what their masters tell them. I expect it is mere coincidence that this decision was reached simultaneously by the country's some 750 million souls. Then there was Alice. She declared that "In China there is no exploiting class. The workers have power." It must be wonderful to discover Eden with a minimum of research.

I know my little mind would be incapable of concluding in a week's time that the Red Chinese philosophy is "beautiful." I would need at least a couple of more hours to say, as Alice did, that "Chinese women are much more liberated than American women." If that's true, Chinese males must be in WASHINGTON As is well known, Americans are a curious people. They are so grateful not to be insulted by a French headwaiter when they tip him outrageously. They think only the British speak real English. Having visited a Communist country, they are so relieved not to have been arrested on sight that they return home overflowing with fawning appreciation. At a cocktail party the other night, I encountered several members of a packaged-tour group just back from Communist China.

Well, sirs and madames, you'd have thought they had been treated to a glimpse of Paradise. One young man named Jim was so impressed by his week's stay in the land of Mao that he decided Red China's rulers were "the greatest moral and intellectual leaders in the world today." Of course, Jim is a sociology major at a midwestern college and thus uniquely equipped to appraise the quality of Red Chinese life after only seven days of regimented sightseeing. Like so many instant experts, young Jim was at home with paradox. In one deep trouble. Charles, a computer salesman, was "impressed with Chinese discipline.

Discipline means beating a kid in America. I'm sure they don't beat kids in China." Well, I suppose Charles must know. He's spent a week in Red China and I haven't. There was also George, who works for the United Nations. Reaching back into his peculiar expertise, George claimed that "We Americans have a misconception as to the restrictions imposed on the general public in China.

Everyone seems to. have 100 percent freedom of movement." Only a bounder like me would suggest that this freedom is limited to that degree of movement involved in getting to work on time and showing up for mass rallies glorifying assorted political bosses. Ho hum. If Jim and Alice and Charles and George have not yet defected to Peking, I suggest they do so forthwith. Not to knock their basic intelligence, I am yet constrained to suggest that what they need most is an education.

McNaught Syndicate Voice Of The People Washington Today Bigger Not Better Gossip Now Is Unpatriotic Editor: The election of a progressive majority to the City Council has had a quiet although significant impact on me and many of my friends and colleagues. I am a member of the postwar baby boom age group who have in common the turmoil of the late 60s and 70s. We grew up during affluent years yet seriously questioned the materialistic values of our parents. Not having lived through World War II we questioned the nationalist views of many of those older than we and we vehemently protested the war in Vietnam. For a decade or so we protested "mis-justice" and searched for new and more meaningful values.

In the process we often caused ourselves and our friends and intimates, and our families, much con By WALTER R. MEARS 1 WASHINGTON They used to say that loose talk sank ships. Now President Reagan has adapted the World War II admonition to suggest that loose talk about discord within the administration can punch holes in foreign policy. And that, Reagan said, is a disservice to the United States. This gives gossip a rich, new meaning: It's unpatriotic.

Reagan's news conference comments on the subject will not stop the Washington rumor mill. The city thrives on gossip. People dine out on tales of who said what about whom in the Cabinet room the other day. Besides, the juiciest inside story of the year bears the official imprint of Reagan's own State Department. It was not a rumor factory that turned up the claim that White House official, still unidentified, is waging a guerrilla Berry's World attention it is drawing in the local media.

Besides the fact it seems to require a totally infeasible resource and capital outlay, I can assure Collins and the Rio Del Mar Improvement Association that citizens in the Gubhouse-Pinehurst neighborhood are not overjoyed to see a proposed junction in their front yards. This proposal appears to me to be another stab-in-the-dark antidote to an obvious problem: overdevelopment of the Seascape benchlands. 1 am not arguing a position of absolute no-growth; 1 feel it is simply obvious this area has developed at a pace which over-capacitates Rio Del Mar's traffic infrastructure. If the Rio Del Mar Improvement Association really wants to bring improvements to the area, it would do best to begin advocating more sane planning policies regarding unchecked residential development. Then we would not have to grasp for such uneconomic (and unaesthetic) solutions.

Thomas C. Utterback 871 Clubhouse Drive Rio Del Mar Coastal Trail System Editor: Obviously the writer of the Nov. Sentinel article about Coastal Com-nission action on Younger Lagoon was lot at the hearing in San Francisco. The Tported coastal trail system extending rom Delaware Street around the per-phery of the lagoon was not approved; the iniversity simply does not own that and that portion of the commission's itaff recommendation was deleted before iction was taken by commissioners. The important context for the commission's action was not covered by the irticle.

In 1976, development of the Long Marine Lab at Younger Lagoon was approved, subject to the submission to the commission of a formal -esearch planning program for future management and maintenance of the lagoon system. In 1978, a progress report Mailing research that could and should be undertaken and those research projects that were already under way was submitted. The management plan required to support the research plan was submitted in September of this. year. Approval of this plan (and the previously submitted research plan) was the action, taken by the Coastal Commission in its Nov.

6 meeting natural study area. No recreational use of the beach, by the public or university, will be permitted. This restriction will enable long-term research at this small site to be undertaken, studies not impacted by human intervention. Bill Doyle Director, Marine Studies UC Santa Cruz Editor's Note: The information for the article was obtained from the regional Coastal Commission staff. According to staff, tbe commisison told the university to do whatever it feasibly could do to provide tbe path.

As Mr. Doyle points out, since the university doesn't own the land or rights-of-way, it apparently won't be able to provide a trail. Right To Bear Arms Editor: A well, regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It has often been stated that we have a constitutional right to buy and keep weapons. And then these same citizens misquote the Second Amendment, to prove their statement.

There it is up there. The complete Our framers did not intend that all of the people had the right to keep arms. Far from it. As was written, they stated that "A well regulated is the "people" who "have the right to keep and bear arms." It was always the intent of the framers, representatives from the then recognized "states," to assure that the right to maintain a "people's" army in each state not be infringed" by the federal government. The Second Amendment refers to the "state" militia the military reserve the "people's" army.

They have the right to "keep and bear arms." This right is as important today as at the time of the Minutemen in the Revolutionary War. When we refer to Article Section 8, paragraph IS, we find that Congress is responsible for the financial and arms support of the military in each of the United States. The leadership, however, is appointed by the governments of the separate The authority which may determine possession of arms (weapons) for all civilians (non-military) is, most properly, the central government. Each respective "state" is constitutionally guaranteed the right to provide for and authorize its reserves "to keep and bear arms." Wash Kostinko 1 Brooktree Lane campaign to undermine Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr.

It was Haig who said that, first to a columnist and then, through his spokesman, to the world at large. He did so in trying to put down reports that he had fallen into disfavor with the president. That makes it difficult to take at face value Reagan's statement that his foreign policy team is a "very happy group." So, too, with the president's contention that he was quoted out of context about the possibility of limited nuclear war in Europe. In clarifying that statement, he repeated it. On both topics, he blamed the messengers the reporters and columnists who write about the administration.

Reagan said at one point that newsmen have gone ahead with stories even after the administration has refuted them. He cited no examples. "I know you've got a job to do and you're trying to do a job," Reagan told his news conference Tuesday, "but all I ask is all of us I think it behooves all of us to recognize that every word that is uttered here in Washington winds up by way of ambassadors and embassies in all the other countries of the world. "And we should reflect on whether it's going to aid in what we are trying to do in bringing peace to troubled spots like the Middle East, or whether it's going to set us back," he said. But it wasn't reporters who transformed an unattributed report of presidential dissatisfaction with the secretary of state into a for-the-record assertion that Haig feels he has an enemy high on the White House staff.

It was Haig. For his part, Reagan has said repeatedly that he is more than satisfied with Haig's performance and thinks he has done a remarkable job as secretary of state. After the latest flap, Reagan summmoned Haig and Richard V. Allen, the White House national security adviser, for a private talk or talking to. "I called them in, actually, to find out and to-urge that they, with their staffs, just as I have with my own, ensure that we're a little more careful," the president said "There seems to be too much loose talk going around.

"But it has been exaggerated out of all reality. There is no animus, no personal animus, and there is no bickering or backstabbing going on. We're a very happy group." That drew a burst of laughter. "The picture that has been given of chaos and disarray is a disservice to the country and to other countries and allies as well," Reagan added. "We are not in disarray with regard to foreign policy.

I think our accomplishments have been rather astounding." His critics don't think so, but that was predictable. So were the internal rivalries and disagreements that gave rise to the Haig controversy In the first place. That kind of thing has happened before and will again. The difference in this case is that Haig talked about it publicly. The Associated Press fusion and pain.

Now that we have come of age, have our university degrees, our families or other stable support systems, and our jobs, a lot has come together. We have decided on some beliefs that we share together: that bigger is not better, that the environment is important and delicate, that solutions are complex, that the decision-making process is more important than the decision, that diversity is good, and that working together and sharing are better than working in isolation and competing. Much to our dismay and in spite of our dedicated and hard work in the community, we have felt unappreciated and unrecognized by city officials. We have felt almost as if we were still the rebellious kids of the 60s at a time in our lives when we yearned to be leaders and doers in our community. The election of a progressive majority to the City Council has changed all that.

Suddenly and for the first time in our lives, we live in a city where we are the legitimate majority, where our modest lifestyles and professional careers are validated as they are and not seen as poor Imitations of the wealthy. And finally, the opportunity to participate fully in our own city government and live with our own choices and decisions may be the sweetest fruit of our victory. Neil Brown 203 Gault St. Tunnel Daydream Editor: Re: Al Collin's $10 million traffic tunnel in Rio Del Mar (Nov. 11).

The first time I heard of this proposal it seemed to be an amusing daydream off an engineer's drawing board. However, I am now becoming alarmed' at the serious iT-rf 1 I I ill ffl and this action fulfills the condition of the permit required of the university in 1976. This plan restricts access to the wetland and beach area to those people involved in approved research projects. Appropriate overlook areas with interpretive signs will permit scheduled public oversight of this.