The Index-Journal from Greenwood, South Carolina • Page 4

Page Four October 30,1991 COMMENT The Index-Journal Greenwood, S.C. Cairn IBiratisDn Comscswatfiws flusnim on? IlJ William A. if Rusher 'fc-' lrpMT KnlTriiM Akhii. vote. It is not impossible, therefore, that the -election will produce a "hung Parliament," with one or the other of the two major parties being forced into a coalition with the SDLP in order to attain a working majority in the House of Commons.

What haunts me, however, is the memory of another British election that of 1945. World War II had just ended, and the Tory candidate for reelection as prime minister was the man who, from the British standpoint anyway, had won it: Winston Churchill. Opposing him was Labor's Clement Attlee, that "modest little man" who, in the words of Churchill's famous put-down, "had a great deal to be modest about. It seemed inconceivable that the British would choose Attlee. Yet, when the smoke blew away, that was exactly what they had done.

The war was over, people seemed to be saying; now give the other blokes a chance. With the end of the Cold War, a similar attitude may work in favor of Labor over the Tories. John Major will need more luck than Wintson Churchill had. its enormously unpopular (and enormously dangerous) support for unilateral nuclear disarmament. And he may even be making headway in bersuad-ing the British public to change its mind about him.

His address to the assembled faithful at Brighton was a solid piece of work, surprisingly full if substance for the kick-off speech of a national election campaign. And, to my eye at any rate, Kinnock himself seemed to have matured a bit, coming over as something more than merely an irritable Welsh elf. Certainly the Tories take him seriously witness Major's cautious decision (leaked to the press, curiously, rather than announced) to forego an election this autumn and hold it instead next spring, probably in May. If the Conservative tea-leaf readers are correct, the economic picture ought to be slightly brighter by then, giving rise to that upbeat mood among voters that is the most precious asset of an incumbent party. The pollsters report that public opinion is, at the moment, just about equally divided between the Conservatives and Labor, with the SDLP that third-party wild card taking around 13 percent of the LONDON While America's Democrats cast about disconsolately for some half-way plausible contender willing to take the fall with George Bush next year, Britain's Labor party, gathering in Brighton for its annual conference early this month, was entitled to feel somewhat better about its prospects of ousting the Conservatives from power in the election that must be held some time between now and next July.

Of course, the Conservatives are a long way from throwing in the, towel. John Major, who succeeded Margaret Thatcher as prime minister a little less than a year ago, is personally well liked by the electorate far more so, if polls are to be believed, than Neil Kinnock, who is slated to replace him if Labor wins a majority of the seats in the next Parliament. What's more, the Tories are considered by the voters (according to those same polls) as better than Labor at handling proflems involving foreign policy, defense and crucial addition!) economics. But the average Brit still has plenty to complain about, and in the nature of things it's the "Ins" who get the blame. Unemployment and interest rates are both still far higher than in the United States.

And Kinnock, whatever his personal failings, has spent his eight years as Labor's leader successfully restoring Labor's reputation as a viable alternative to the Conservatives. He has reduced the still-over-whelming influence of the trade unions over the Labor Party. He has all but expelled the leaders of the so called Militant Tendencya far-left faction totally out of the mainstream of British politics. He has forced the party to reverse (OpnumoDim KdikY aJ tiprrtito im these columns represents our ow views. Opbbvos are limited la tfcifc pane.

Letters to Ifee editor represent views of toe authors. Adjoining columns, cartoons and other items reflect a variety of opinions in an effort to provide diverse viewpoints for our readers. They are not the opinions of this newspaper. Mard-to-lose tenure: Make it hard to get! WHY DON'T MEN I MEAN WON WOULD YOU LIKE IT SEE SEXUAL IF, MADE LEWD REMARKS TO YOU, HARASSMENT DESCRIBED SCENES PROM PORNO MOVIES, AS A PROBLEM OR PATTED YOUR BEHIND? THE WAY WOMEN WK HOW MUCH FOR ALL THREE? university as a professor. Current President John Palms says no, not with all that's happened.

Palms has threatened to initiate tenure revocation hearings against Holderman if he tries to return to teach government. This situation has stirred emotions of various faculty members, with some in favor, some opposed. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the entire affair highlights a definite need to make tenure more difficult to achieve. If it's so complicated and traumatic to revoke tenure, it should be just as hard to The continuing controversy surrounding the University of South Carolina and its former President James Holder-man cannot possibly be a source of pride for anyone. The entire state has felt the ramifications of that ongoing fiasco.

Still, some good beyond the obvious may come from it. The latest point of focus has been on the subject of faculty tenure, something that has created controversy of its own from time to time. Holderman, who was granted tenure by the USC Board of Trustees as a courtesy, has said he wants to return to the acquire. Sunlbsndliaiimg art is Mmdemnoeiratie Letter to the editor D.C. failure Sarah I Overtreet Newttpaper Enterprise Awtn.

rest, and I'm grateful for them. It just doesn't give them the right to take money from the rest of us to support their pursuits, or the pursuits of those they have marked as worthy. At least, no in a democracy it doesn't. I could go on and on about grants to artists whose work leaves most of us scratching our heads, but it's not germane to this argument. I'll agree that if I have to have my tax money go to pay for art, I'd rather it subsidize a great performance of "Madame Butterfly" then someone who puts a crucifix in a beaker of urine.

I don't think the government has the right to take our money for any art, whether I like it and Jesse Helms doesn't, or neither of us do, or both of us think it's the greatest artistic triumph since Etch-A-Sketch. And the impressionism exhibit I enjoyed so much last summer? I thank its sponsor, the Ford Motor Company. They certainly won some points with me. government funding is jerked. Philosophically, I look at the arts the same as any other talent, including athletics.

If sports didn't pay for itself, would I want a National Endowment for Sports to, tax me to train athletes? Nope. Now about a National Endowment for the ArtsGrand Ole Opry division, for the training of future Reba McEn-tires and Garth Brookses? No again. There are those among us who are much more sophisticated about the than the After watching some of the recent events in our United States Congress, I have developed a deep sense of frustration with our elected officials in Washington. It is quite evident these officials pay no attention to their constituents and, as a result, the only vent for my frustration is my fellow voters. It was not enough to embarrass the American public with the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, although it was informative to hear Ted Kennedy discuss morals and ethics, our Senators and Representatives had to compound that embarrassment with bounced checks and non-payment for meals.

Now, both Houses of Congress want to insult our intelligence by screaming for a tax cut. Watch out, can a Congressional pay raise be too far behind? Don't they realize that the American public is not stupid and fully recognizes their election year ploy for what it really is? Please don't misunderstand me, no one would like to see a tax cut more than I. But where will a tax cut come from, Congress has already spent the government and public into the ground. The current proposals made by both parties are contradictory. The Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich and big business but want to continue to back our foreign policy with American tax dollars.

If we want to house and feed the homeless, let's house and feed the American homeless first! The Democrats want to extend unemployment benefits an additional 20 weeks, and at the same time, proposes a major tax cut to the middle class. Another Catch 22 if they cut middle class taxes, where are they going to get the money to pay the unemployment benefits? Big business pays little are no tax, even during good economic times, but my own Republican Party proposes a tax cut to big business and the rich. When the dust settles the question will be simple, who is going to have to bite the bullet? We don't have to debate that one, do The only way to reverse our country's economic decline is fiscal responsibility by our Congress. We must have a balanced budget amendment and a line item veto for the President. We must have an overhaul of the entire government system, cleaning out the bureaucratic deadwood on the public payroll.

We must replace the current system of taxation with a fair and equitable flat tax system, the working middle class shouldn't have to bear the burden of the rich or big business. And, most importantly, in defense of the American citizen; a limit on Congressional terms must be established. Will these actions turn things around? I honestly don't know. These topics have been discussed off and on for years and have made excellent rhetoric at election time but they have never been tried. But, I am certain of one thing, an attempt would sure beat the failure we now have in Washington.

ROBERT E. WOMACK, JR. Ninety Six This may sound odd coming from someone who traced the patterns on her crib before she crawled, whose parents could not stop her from making crayon murals on furniture, walls and even her father's banjo head. I loved to draw more than I loved any of my toys, and, in fact, I grew up to teach art for a year in a junior high school. I remember it as the happiest year of my life.

I still love galleries and exhibits. The impressionism exhibit I saw at the ST. Louis Art Museum last summer thrilled me as much as anything I can remember. I enjoy seeing original art, listening to live music and watching dance, I want art in our lives: strong, accomplished and, most of all, available. I just don't want you to pay for it, unless you share my feelings.

Therefore, I don't support the concept of a National Endowment for the Arts. I's not that I have any use for its arch enemy Sen. Jesse Helms, who in his infinite wisdom would be arbiter of artistic merit. Helms wants the taxpayer not to have to pay for anything he considers offensive. I think the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for art, period.

This is a scary thing to admit, because in art circles this kind of thinking usually brands one as the enemy. And then, no one wants to play with you any more. I well know the fear that underpins the "government must support art? position: If the government doesn't support art, the rest of us sure won't do it and we'll all grow up with no knowledge of culture. We'll lose ground to other countries that put a premium on art. Those among us with talent will wither away because the others will refuse to pay them to develop their gifts.

We will become a nation of zombies. I'm not so afraid anymore. This may happen for a while right after government funding is removed, but I don't think it will last long. Artistic talent is so important to a lot of us that we will pay for it, just like those of us who can't stand the thought of a diminished National Public Radio network dig into our pockets any time they have a fund drive and especially when any of NPR's Berry's World ''Another tuition bill?" miarNEA in 4fc Wednesday Trivia COME SEE ALL THE EXTRAS FOR YOURSELF AND FALL IN LOVE. This home, nearing completion, has just what you are looking for.

A large kitchen with an island and a breakfast room. The master suite is on the main The Index-Journal KIanor M. Mundy President and PuMinher Judith Mundy Burns William A. (Collins Vice PreaHlrnt Onrral Manager rrrrtmr Richard Jackson, CPA Ednr, Controller Roper R. Burton Harry Garrett Production Dircrtor Marketing.

Director Syatem Manager Credit Manager Clarence1 Latham 4 'il: Circalalion Manager R. Frank Mundy 1915-1982 flooras is thp separate dining room, the family room, large could be an office. See co laundry roont a cozy room that for yourself. i. -4' Lamb comes from sheep less than a year old.

Messages are sent from the brain, the body's main control center, to the body at a rate of 240 mph. There are three kinds of teeth for chewing food: The incisors chop it, the canines tear it and the molars grind it up. Citiijens Trust Company 201 N. Main Ramona P. McLallan, BIC 223-8221.