Lubbock Avalanche-Journal from Lubbock, Texas on April 3, 1975 · Page 33
Get access to this page with a Free Trial

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal from Lubbock, Texas · Page 33

Lubbock, Texas
Issue Date:
Thursday, April 3, 1975
Page 33
Start Free Trial

Opinion By K«nn«th May TO BOLSTER their campaign for approval of a legislative pay raise in the April 22 election, legislators are pointing out that janitors and groundskeepers in the state capitol now make J4,- 984 per year. That's $184 more than the lieutenant governor and the Speaker of the House, * FOR THE FIRST time in quite some time, we stopped in downtown Dallas a few days ago. . • One change was dramatically evident: We had a •choice of on-street parking places in practically .•every block. •". AH my life, I've considered myself lucky to find .;even one vacant slot in the heart of Big D. ;• Merchants and Dallas civic leaders are worried ;about the trend, of course. As well they should be. > Not that downtown Dallas is deserted in the ."daytime. Far from it. But it is not, let's face it, ';nearly so hustling and bustling as in days of yore. : ONE COUNTER-ATTACK about to be made on ;the problem is to provide free bus rides in the ,-central business district. •I Newspapers in Big D say that's been done quite ^successfully in Portland, Ore., and other places. • Downtown Dallas parking lot operators aren't '.so happy over the proposal. Other businessmen •_say, though, that a motorist can park in fringe ."area lots much cheaper, take the free bus down^own, and do himself, the ecology, the energy -problem and downtown's congestion a lot of good. '. It'll be interesting to watch the Dallas experiment. '* * r : POTOMAC FEVER: Overtime pay practices ;of the Guv'ment allow 16 hours' pay for 8 hours' •work on Sundays and holidays—and the worker Igets credit for 8 hours even if he just works a f rac- ;tion of it. '• One immigration inspector in Maine, with a Salary of $16,848, drew an additional ??<) ; a99 for oc- ;casional work on nights, Sundays and holidays. .' That sounds worse than it is: The Guv'ment has ,'so many holidays that anybody working all of 'em •has just about put in full time! • It's things like that overtime pay that's causing -a projected federal deficit next year of :$80,000,000,000. * • Come to think of it, what's an immigration in- Tspector doing making $16,848 in salary to begin ;with? • * THE U.S. DEPARTMENT of Health, Educa- and Welfare, that bungling bundle of -bureaucratic boondoggling, has just taken another .'.giant step backward. ; It is releasing to several states ?159 million '.withheld from them because they had permitted too many payments to too many ineligible persons, even under HEW's liberal standards. Its reason: The recession. Getting the money ;iito circulation is important to spur the economy. • Translation; Waste makes haste. ' •* ; Sudden Thought -while driving on an East Texas Highway that's being widened to four lanes: Since Uhere won't be any more two-way traffic, isn't it ^wasteful to cut so deeply through so many hills •and level out the two new lanes much more so lihan the two old lanes have been all these years? • No wonder Lubbock doesn't get its rightful -share of the Texas Highway dollar. ', * • U.S. SEN. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas voted for the .federal income tax rebate-cut package despite its Clashing up of the oil depletion allowance and its -?408 negative tax give-away to non-taxpayers. '. Bentsen let his party loyalty outweigh his ^responsibility to represent Texas and his better -judgement. Is gaining the Democratic nomination for Presi- ' dent so important? • * '. Australian researchers have learned that stress * ;can cause headaches and that 20 minutes a day of 1 total relaxation can cure 'em. That has to rank ,"right up there with American researchers iind- • ings that tots can overturn a tricycle because it ^onlyhas three wheels. : * • WHAT, PRAY tell, is wrong with a "winner I take all" primary? ; Back in the dark ages, five or six years ago, the -whole idea of running for office was to gel more votes than anybody else and win. Then along came the fuzEyheads, who said tch, •tch, that isn't fair to the people who vote for the .loser. In the Democratic Party, for example, con; vention delegates suddenly had to be directly in '. proportion to the sex, color, philosophy and eye .'make-up of thepopu'-ition. • These same fuzzyheads now say that if Texas '.switches over to letting the public vote on ; delegates by Presidential preference it's going to >have to perpetuate this proportional representation stuff rather than let the top vote-getters be 'selected. • In politics, as in war, the nation seems to be ; drowning in a "no win" mentality. BILLY GRAHAM: MyAnswer QUESTION : Whenever we put any restric- ; tions on our 16-year-old son, he goes into a rage. \ He curses and tells us he doesn't care for us, and ," wishes we were dead. Are we wrong in wanting to - know where he goes, and expecting him to be i home at a certain time? We have raised him In the ; church and a Christian home. — Mom ; ANSWER: When they used propeller aircraft « more extensively, there was frequently the '. danger of a runaway prop. It happened when the j usual controls and limits broke down. It's a good < analogy of your boy. i If you want to see your "runaway" son j become a massive problem — for himself and for , society — just let this angry behavior go un,' checked. Proverbs 16:32 says: "He that is slow to • anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth ! his spirit than he that taketh a city." You and your son need counseling. You must -, arrange for help so he can learn to handle his \ emotions. The world he faces now has rules, ': restrictions and regulations; but in the future, ; they'll only be more plentiful. \ There is a difference between a teen-ager's i normal rebellious spirit and antisocial behavior. You must recognize when the latter is evident, and arrange for guidance and support at that point. ROBERT S. ALLEN: Demo Left Rides On WASHINGTON - Those interminably brawling Democratic factions are right back where they were one year ago. Last week's Democratic National Committee meeting not only didn't dampen the protracted ideological bickering as it was supposed to, it actually inflamed it all over again — thanks to Chairman Strauss' unfailing penchant for pussyfooting and backing away from showdowns. In February, at its first meeting, the Compliance Review Commission laboriously worked out a compromise on "affirmative action" — key issue at the root of the rancorous factional wrangling. LEFTISTS, characteristically pursuing their usual "rule-or-ruin" tactics, balked at the commission's peace formula and demanded a ruling from the national committee. Instead of squarely facing up to that stalling maneuver, Strauss ducked and resorted to a favorite stratagem — tossing the long-raging controversy into the lap of still another committee. This time it was the By-laws Committee, which he hastily conjured up out of his hat. HEADED BY Sheldon Cohen, general counsel of the national committee and internal revenue commissioner in the Johnson administration, this panel presumably is "safe" and under Strauss's control. The By-laws Committee is slated to meet this month and pass on the compliance commission's compromise on "affirmative action." What happens after that is anybody's guess. The national committee is not scheduled to meet again until fall. IF THE BY-LAWS Committee approves the compromise, as expected, it's a foregone conclusion the leftists will again refuse to go along and vehemently clamor for national committee consideration. Once again, that will put it up to Strauss, and whether he will finally crack down or once more back down and come up with a new committee only time will tell. Surely the Texan will have to stop stalling sometime. After all, the national convention is next year and the rules and procedures for its functioning will have to be laid down before then — or should be. MAYBE STRAUSS will devise still another committee to run the show. Baffling question is why he pussyfooted at last week's national committee meeting. There was every indication he had the votes for approval of the compliance commission's compromise. Significant evidence of that was South Carolina state chairman Donald Fowler's easy victory (6440) over Alabama state chairman Robert Vance Keeking an unprecedented second term as head of the Association of Democratic State Chairmen. STRAUSS THREW his weight behind Fowler, with Vance backed by a bizarre array of rightists and leftists. Pressuring and lobbying for Vance in this astonishing alliance were Alabama Gov. George Wallace; Sen. James Allen, Ala.; Sen. John McClellan, Ark., chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee; Sen. George McGovern, South Daokta radical; Sargent Shriver, his modish 1972 second-choice running- mate; Alan Baron, short, beefy radical now on McGovern's congressional payroll at $36,000, while continuing the so-called "Democratic Planning Group" financed by wealthy leftists. ALSO COVERTLY putting in licks for Vance was Rep. Morris Udall. The gangling Arizonan obviously was hoping to gain favor for his presidential candidacy with these strangely assorted elements — but he bet on the wrong horse. Udall has a habit of doing that. After Vance's thorough drubbing, the Alabaman wailingly complained to newsmen about Strauss' "intervention" for Fowler — blandly ignoring the furious wire-pulling and lobbying for Vance by the motley collection of leftists and rightists that vainly sought to put him over. If ever there was an instance of the kettle calling the pot black, Vance's whining was it. The plain fact is that Vance's defeat was a personal repudiation. STATE CHAIRMEN had been increasingly miffed at him on a number of scores — personal, political, administrative. Many were particularly incensed at his retention of Spencer Oliver, abrasive McGovernite, as executive director of the association. Vance retained Oliver when he was slated to get the ax. As time went by, Oliver further antagonized leaders both in the association and the national committee. First thing Fowler did upon unseating Vance was announce his intention to replace Oliver as executive director. CAREFULLY NOT fanfared at the national committee meeting is the fact that it still has $2.6 million in debts from the 1968 and 1972 campaigns. Whether this long-standing red ink will be erased before the 1976 national convention is conjectural. Finance chairman Lee Kling did say the national committee has agreed to pay American Airlines 5650,000, but AT&T is suing for the $1.039 million owing it. •Just When The Town Got Rolling. They Took Away Our Railroad!' Berry's World "When I asked you if you ihink we're entering into an era of nso-isolationism, I didn't mean the U.S., J mean US!" TODAY'S EDITORIAL. UN Members Can Help IF IT SEEMS that the United Nations is doing nothing at all about the disasters unfolding in Southeast Asia, it's not really true. Secretary General Kurt WaJdheim has appealed "to all who might be in a position to help" to relieve, the plight of refugees in South Vietnam. If they have no other way of helping, he said, governments might lend aid through the UN High Commissioner for Refugees or through the UN Children's Fund. Both have aid programs in both North and South Vietnam. MOREOVER, Waldheim has offered to bring together the warring sides in Cambodia in an effort to restore peace to the country and to relieve the suffering of the civilians. Chances for doing so should be better with the departure of President Lon -Noi, but (here's still Prince Norodom Sihanouk to deal with. The former Cambodian head of state consistently has turned down the efforts of JOHN D. LOF rO/V Jr.: Waldheim, who was instructed last fall by the General Assembly to try for a negotiated settlement. The UN, of course, does not have enough collective prestige to earn respect for its resolutions.. IN VIEW OF this fact of international life, it will be interesting to see which UN members, in addition to the United States and its friends, produce effective aid for the' refugees, regardless of political alignments. Altruism is currently not a strong point among nations of the Communist camp, and does not appear to be much stronger among "Third World" countries. Perhaps they will use as an excuse the fact that no one seems to know exactly who leaders of the Cambodian insurgents are, and "the fact that the •Communist Viet Cong in South Vietnam have not demonstrated trustworthiness in such matters as withholding fire endangering civilians, Still, it would be encouraging to see signs of UN concern. ERA's Chances Dimming As Proponents Ms.Fire WASHINGTON — As the outlook for passage of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution continues to grow dimmer, supporters of this cause are beginning to indulge in rhetorical overkill. One such barrages was fired off recently by Gloria Steinem, who declared that if ERA is not passed "we will have said that the country, the Constitution of the United States, does not apply to half of its citizens, women of every race. It will be the clearest admission that this is not and never has been a democracy." NOW, THE RESPONSE to this sort of ialk is that it is twaddle. If ERA fails to be ratified by the 38 state legislatures needed to add it to the Constitution, this will say absolutely nothing at all about whether the Constitution is deemed to be applicable to women. On the contrary, many opponents of ERA feel there is already enough in the Constitution to protect women which is why they are against Ms. Steinem's amendment. If ERA is rejected, it will be because a lot of people are convinced it is a snare and a delusion and it would cause more harm than good. MUCH OF THE support for ERA has been based on contentions of "discrimination" against women in respect of their status and opportunities in the labor market. The proposed amendment, it is asserted, is intended to elimcnate these disadvantages. But, as a Library of Congress study by two legislative attorneys in its American Law Division points out, the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 already guarantee women "equal pay for equal work" and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination "because of .. .sex." OTHER OBJECTIONS to ERA have been raised by numerous legal scholars such as Prof. Paul Freund of the Harvard Law School, who argues that the amendment would create a turmoil of legislation. Every provision of the law concerning women, he believes, would raise a constitutional issue which would have to be resolved in the courts. Prof. Freund argues that equality for women would be more effectively brought about by simply changing individual laws and outlawing specific discriminatory practices. The difference, he points out, between an ERA and writing laws aimed at certain sexist discrimination "resembles that in medicine between a single broad-spectrum drug with uncertain and unwanted side effects and a selection of specific pills for specific ills." ANOTHER OBJECTION to ERA is raised by Prof, Leo Kanowilz of the University of New Mexico Law School, who has written extensively on the legal rights of women. Noting that at first blush there is a certain beguiling panacea-like quality about the amendment for those dedicated to the quest for equal dignity between the sexes, he disagrees that ERA is capable of achieving this goal in one fell swoop. Prof. Kanowitz believes that ERA would have "little or no effect" on women's constitutional rights. Women would have the same constitutional protection upon adoption of ERA as they now have under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, he says. THIS BEING the case, Prof. Kanowitz wisely advises: "Proponents of equality of legal treatment for men and women will find that, as a tactical matter, their energies will be better spent in other activities toward this goal. ' "Every day spent working for the amendment is a day that is taken away from informing the American public of the continued areas of unequal treatment, or from participating in the presently growing number of challenges to such treatment based on existing constitutional provisions." C'mon now, Gloria, be honest. Does this really sound like somebody who wants to deny women their constitutional rights? LUBBOCKAVALANCHE-JOURNAL P. 0. Boi 491. Lubbock. Texas 79408 An independent newspaper published every week day evening except Saturday and Christmas Day by Southwestern Newspapers Corporation in m building a! >ih SI. and Ave. J.. Lubbock. Texas Consolidated on Sunday morning] only, with Uie Lubbock Avalanche- Jouma). Morning £d:lion. Second class pottage paid at Lubbock. Texas. ROBERT R. NORRIS Vice President- General Manager J, C, RICKMA.N' _ Business Manjger DAVID EKNAPP JAY HARRIS Executive Editor FrlUnr BURLE PETTIT KENNETH MAY Managing Editor A;Kc;ale Editor CARL N. CANNON ROBERT C. McVAY Adverliswf Director Circulation Manager Full Itastd wire member of Associated Press and United Presi International. National Advertismi representatives. Teias Daily Prew t. DalUi Tqat Page 4, Section A Thursday Evening, April 3, 1975 the smoll society SV1-VIA PORTER: Movies In Comeback YOU, AMERICAN families from coast to coast, are now spending more money to go out to more movies than ever before — because of the business slump not despite it, because of the shrinking buying power of your dollar, not despite that adverse fact of life either. In all of 1974, says Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, your spending at movie box offices approached a record J2 billion. This is far above the previous peak of $1.7 billion you spent in 1946. And permit me to remind you, that year, more than a quarter-century ago, was before TV. IN THE FIRST quarter of 1975, the informed estimate is that your spending for movies approximated $420 million — just about the same as in the first quarter of 1974. This is in the face of. the fact that 1975's first quarter had no block buster equal to 1974's "The Exorcist" to send admissions and receipts into orbit. In fact, General Cinema, the largest chain of independent movie houses in the nation, reports an 8 per cent jump in its first quarter operations. (Since the first quarter has just ended, formal figures for the (J.S. are not yet available.) IT'S NOT JUST the young or the elderly who are going out to the movies. "The entire family — housewife, father, brother, sister — is flocking back to the movie •houses across the country in startling numbers," declares Richard A. Smith, president of General Cinema's 564-iinit theater chain. On this same point of who's going, Valenti adds a fascinating sidelight — namely, the higher the level of education, the more frequent the moviegoer. Of those with one year or more of college, 65 per cent are frequent or occasional movie goers while 21 per cent never go. Of those with less than one year of high school education, only 25 per cent are frequent or occasional movie-goers while 63 per cent never go. THE WHOLE story has fascinating implications. Why this sort of spending in an era of recession and high unemployment? * The very fact that this is an era of slump is a key factor, for movies have consistently outperformed the economy in periods of business downturn. In Valenti's words: "Consumers tend to gravitate toward lower ticket leisure-time expenditures." In Smith's view: "Admittedly, movies aren't the 15-cent, 20-cent buys they were in the depression, but what other form of convenient leisure can compete at this price level?" ' ANOTHER OBVIOUS factor is that we are seeking entertainment closer to home — at the shopping center around the corner or at the movie house down the block. Spending on big-ticket items, (particularly those to which we have to travel by car,) has been drastically curtailed. Smith also credits the multi-auditorium concept for bolstering attendance — the twins, triplets and quad shopping center theaters we know as Cinema I, II, III, etc., which offer us a wide variety of movies in one spot. * A THIRD IS that movies are a major form of inexpensive escape from today's everyday problems and movies now have a greater audience appeal than did the message and sex- films so popular in the 1960s. Valenti believes that there is a "greater proportion of 'vacuum cleaner' movies — box office hits that sweep up the audience because of their vast general appeal." Among the ones he names are "Godfather II," "Earthquake," "Towering Inferno," "Funny Lady." Among the prospects he lists are: "Roller Ball," "Tommy," "Hindenburg." Still another provocative point is that the enormous possibility for education-by-eyedrop that movies devoted to svorldwide problems can offer. * AS FOR THE future of the movies, that would seem bright in the bad months that remain ahead and the good tiirws to follow. I see an attendance explosion if some genius coulrl and would film a series of the best of Sherlock Holmes — ranging from "The Sign of tile Four" through "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" to "The Final Problem." In fact, I can see myself knocking out this column as fast as I can, turning to my secretary Sally, and giving her the famous call to anesthesia: "Come, Watson, come! The game is afoot!" JEAN ADAMS: Teen-Age Forum MISSING: (Q.) My father just got out of the hospital. He brought home a bunch of pills. Now some of the pills are missing and my mother thinks I have been taking them. What can I do to convince her that I didn't? —13 in New York (A.) You can only tell your mother the complete truth. If you did not take the pills and do not know what happened to them, tell her you do not know where they are. If you didn't take them but know where they are or who took them, tell her. No matter what she may ask you about the pills, answer the question truthfully. If you know the correct answer, tell her. If you don't know, tell her you don't know. by Brickman

What members have found on this page

Get access to

  • The largest online newspaper archive
  • 8,600+ newspapers from the 1700s–2000s
  • Millions of additional pages added every month

Try it free