Page 14 article text (OCR)
Ml a$ree rtith A dor) that you say, tut I rill fafen) it the hath your ri$t to sty it . . . Voltaire THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC Jungle Rot All t.CmiUHa Saturday, Aug. 15, 1S70 Page 7 The People Speak Advancement Based On Merit Long Advocated By Unionist Editor, The Arltona Republic: I am a long time advocate of equal rights for Women, including equal pay for equal work, premium pay for more than eight hours work in one day, and opportunity for advancement based on merit. I agree with the purpose of the writer of the Women's News Service story entitled, "Unions — Labor lawyers in a tizzy" published in the Sunday, Aug. 9, Republic in the Women's Forum, which was to zero in on what the writer considered to be discriminatory practices against women workers. MERITORIOUS as that purpose is, erroneous conclusions might have been Greatest Right This is in answer to Lois Foster's letter to the editor of Aug. 11, regarding abortion. Miss Foster makes the comparison that the right to have an abortion is the same as the right of a woman to have her tooth pulled. I consider the life of a baby a little more important than that. Miss Foster doesn't place much value on the greatest right of all: the right to life. If the right to live is taken away from us, what do we have left? Just because an unborn child is dependant on its mother for growth doesn't mean the mother has a right to kill it. A mother has no more right to kill her unborn dependent child .than she would have the right to kill her newly-born baby. When the citizens of a country start playing God and deciding who shall be born and who shall not be born, we are in trouble. When Miss Foster starts talking about rights, she should consider the right to life itself first. , MRS. CAROL FUHRMAN Not Coolies Regarding the letter on trash collection from Darrell Kridler in the Aug. 11 Republic, by what right does he put down sanitation work as "coolie - type labor"? Sanitation workers draw a respectable wage for their work and most of them have much self - respect and pride in work and appearance. Who does he think would pay for the "attractive, concealed, landscaped, accessible recepticles"? Also,how would he like one of these recepticles to be located behind his property where the smell and spilled debris would be his to contend with? The main cause of turned - over garbage cans is dogs running loose. Also, the aged and sick would find his "physical fitness" program quite intolerable. I suggest he obtain more facts and use more thought on this subject. BILL SULLIVAN Why Forests? What are the forests for? After reading the Aug. 11 article about the small miners' trouble with the U.S. Forest Service and knowing of our experience with the rangers, I wonder what they have in mind for the forest? Forests cover a big part of our state and are controlled by the Forest Service. If it doesn't like the miners, and are hard on the campers (we arrived at Lower Manzanita, in Oak Creek Canyon, on a Tuesday afternoon and were told to be out by 11 a.m. Wednesday. It hardly pays to set up a tent), and they give cabin owners a very bad time, who are they saving the forest for, the people driving by? FRANCES SCHWEIGER Ike, FDR Lost War I have read "If Only We Had Followed Eisenhower's War Policy," by Clayton Fritchey (Republic, Aug. 11). If Eisenhower was so smart, why do we have the colossal failure of the Marshall Plan? Why the Berlin fiasco? Why did Russia get most of Europe with our blessing? Either Franklin p. Roosevelt or Eisenhower was to blame. Or both. Why did we kick out Chiang kai-Shek and build up the Communists in China and in other countries, such as Cuba? Eisenhower won no war. He was the head general, but he did no mud slog* ging. Ten million people with their hearts and minds geared to one goal and their prayers turned to God won the war. Eisenhower and Roosevelt lost the war we had won. WILLIAM J. MULLIGAN, Yuma avoided had the author made a study in greater depth before issuing a blanket condemnation of all labor unions based on what, in fact, appears to be a rather superficial look. The feminine quest for equal rights and opportunity would be enhanced, I believe, if proponents were to cite not only those organizations guilty of discrimination but also give recognition to those that have done something about the injustice of discrimination in employment because of sex. For instance, the first organization of any kind to apply the principal of equal rights for women was the union of which I am proud to have been a member for many years, the printers — the International Typographical Union. IN 1869 the ITU opened its membership to women craftsmen, required equal pay for equal work and barred all forms of discrimination against women workers. In 1870, Miss Augusta Lewis of New York was elected corresponding secretary — the first woman to be chosen as an officer of a national or international union. Hopefully those women battling to eliminate discrimination in all its facets because of sex will agree that this bit of ITU history dated over 100 years ago, in 1869, merits their plaudits. Especially do I hope that this is true of those women who also enjoy being women. M. A. DeFRANCE, Legislative Rep., Arizona State AFL-CIO ( Ban Not Lifted On the religious news page of The Republic for Aug. 8 was a United Press International article stating that the holy father, Paul VI, may be easing his ban on methods of artificial contraception. I believe that this statement or inference is simply a misrepresentation of facts. Both Vatican Council II, Paul VI and all previous popes have taught that a correct Catholic conscience can only be formed through obedience to the Catholic Church, its council and its laws. THE CHURCH and its popes have universally taught that artificial birth control is intrinsically evil, against the moral law and the teachings of the church. A universal teaching of the church, even though not solemnly defined, is infallible and must be obeyed. This is called in theological language the "magisterium ordinarium" or ordinary authoritative teaching of the church, and most teachings fall under this category. The holy father has certainly pleaded for mercy for poor sinners, but this in no way implies that either a disobedient or misinformed French clergy (or those of any other nationality) could read into the Pope's statements a lifting of any ban on an intrinsically immoral evil. IT IS TRUE that priests in rectories and retreat houses in various parts of the world are at variance with the holy father on this teaching and others. Father John of St. Anthony's Church feels, in regard to your article, that these priests actually comprise a very small percentage of the entire priestly population Even Christ had a dissenter in His first 12, Judas. It is certainly true that any Catholic may go to confession for any sin, including murder, abortion or immorality, and thereafter go to communion if he sincerely desires to give up the sin in the future. This fact can certainly not be construed as a lifting of the ban on the sin of artificial birth control in the Catholic Church. MRS. GEORGE MYERS Opposite Approach An article which appeared in your paper, Aug. 9, ("Killing Coyotes Starts Chain Reaction") at first struck me as being ecologically oriented. It pointed out another good reason for not killing coyotes indiscriminately. However, as I progressed into the article I found what appeared to be the opposite of the ecological approach. ". . . . first, if possible, destroy all the pack rats in the vicinity. ..." I wonder what effect this would have on the ecosystem and how it might directly affect people? I don't know but I think it's about time people begin asking this kind of question and obtaining the answer before moving. It is also interesting ty note that one of the chemicals recommended for use against the kissing bug is Diazinon. This chemical appears on the Secretary of the Interior's list of restricted pesticides issued on June 12,1970. I feel your paper generally is doing a great job of calling environmental problems to the attention of the public. I further think our own environmental thinking should be extended to include almost, if not at all, though. DWIGHT L. HAMILTON, Grand Canyon King Fealurei Syndicate, he., 1970. Soviet Union-Germany Pact First Major Peace Advance By HENRY SHAPIRO Can Our Present Government Survive Its Many Problems? By ROSCOE DRUMMOND and GEOFFREY DRUMMOND LAKE OF THE OZARKS, Mo. - Can our system of shared powers—federal, state and local — survive the staggering problems of the 70s? If not, must it be replaced by some form of central, all-powerful national government to mobilize all the nation's resources to do what needs to be done? From every section of the country, governors of both parties are gathered ' here for their 62nd annual conference, asking those hard and disturbing questions. Many of the governors are in despair. And the big-city mayors are even more frustrated: They are desperately frustrated because they know what is needed but have neither the political power nor the money to do it. Many feel like giving up. Some are giving up. * * * WHAT'S WRONG? What can be done? The diagnosis of the experts on the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (made up of people from every arm and level of government) is repeated year after year — and little or nothing is done. Three years ago it warned: "The challenges of today are cast in seething racial unrest and civil disorder, burgeoning crime and delinquency, alarming difference of individual opportunity for education, housing and employment." And this week the governors have before them the commission's renewed admonition: "The crucial question of the day is whether the American federal system can survive the crisis that eddies and boils in the great cities of the nation, or will only a centralized and unitary governmental system be equal to the task?" * * * THESE ARE THE FORCES which brought the crisis into being: 1 — Too massive and continuing population migration. Middle- and low-income people, accompanied by the young of all economic levels, left the farms and small towns of the South and Midwest and streamed into the urban centers of the Atlantic Seaboard, the Midwest and the West Coast. At the same time, upper- and middle- income whites left the central cities for the suburbs in the wake of school integration, poor public services, rising costs, high taxes and mounting crime. 2 — The costs of running the congested and slum-ridden cities were constantly rising while the sources of needed revenue were steadily declining because of the exodus of high- and middle-income families and business firms. 3 — Disproportion and new burdens were thrown upon the crowded, tax-poor cities. Examples: Baltimore has only 27 per cent of Maryland's population, but 72 per cent of the state's family aid is spent there. This holds true in many other cities. Local taxes in the central cities are 7.5 per cent of income; outside the central cities it is 5.6 per cent of income. Funds for education in the central cities are going down while educational expenditures per pupil in the suburbs are going up. This means that the children who need education the most are receiving it the least. * * * EVERY GOVERNOR here at this conference - which might better be held in Harlem or in Watts - knows that major changes in our government are urgently needed to make them equal to the problems which must be met. « What is needed is both a decentralization of the federal government and a considerable centralization of skate and local government. The reason city and local government is in such a plight is that, while the problems exist most acutely in one jurisdiction, the wealth to deal with the problems is in another. This fragmentation must be replaced because it produces governmental impotence and stalemate. The states will have to take over the whole cost of education and welfare. The federal government which collects most of the tax money and spends it badly, will have to begin to share this revenue. Finally, while the federal government has become too big to be efficient, state governments are often too small. Regional governments will have to begin to deal with regional problems. MOSCOW—Twenty-nine years ago this week Adolf Hitler's then "invincible" Wehrmacht entered Vyazma, 125 miles west of Moscow, and was inexorably advancing towards the Soviet capital. Moscow, as well as the Soviet Union, had been written off by the Germans and many Western military specialists, but less than four years later Germany was in a shambles with the Soviet hammer 'and sickle flying over what was left of Berlin's Reichstag. Such are the imponderables of history that today Chancellor Willy Brandt, whom Hitler had forced to flee into Norwegian exile wrote a new page into European history by signing a treaty with the Soviet Union which promises to heal the wounds of two world wars in one generation, during which the Germans reduced Russia to within inches of national extinction. » * * IF THE MARBLE WALLS of the Kremlin could talk they would testify to another Soviet-German pact, of friendship as well as nonaggression, signed in 1939 by Joachim Von Ribbentrop, and Vyacheslav M. Molotov, respectively Hitler's and Josef V. Stalin's foreign ministers. Soviet-German friendship was "cemented in blood," Stalin was to tell Hitler a few months later, although he had every reason to believe that the pact was worth less than the paper it was printed on. Even while Ribbentrop was exchanging toasts with Stalin and Molotov there was not a single Russian I knew here who did not then apologize for the pact and who did not predict an inevitable German-Soviet war. The Nazi-Soviet pact convulsed the world with fear. The Brandt-Kosygin treaty is now welcomed by most of the world including the Communist countries with the exception of China and Albania. The first document freed Hitler from the classical German nightmare of a war on two fronts and helped him unleash the second world war. The Kosygin-Brandt pact is expected to stabilize the uneasy peace prevailing in Europe since 1945, ease the way for a European security conference with the possible reduction of arms, and open broad vistas for German cooperation with Eastern Europe. "This kind of German drang nach os- ten (thrust to the East) we can only welcome," was a common reaction of many of my Soviet acquaintances to the treaty. Officially during the short life of the Nazi-Soviet pact, less than two years, the Russians were more than correct. The words Nazi and Fascist disappeared from the Russian vocabulary. The harsh censorship then in vogue did not permit even neutral foreign correspondents to use the words or write anything uncomplimentary of Hitler's Germany. But privately not only ordinary citizens but even some officials cautiously explained their shame in having been compelled to make a deal with their mortal Nazi foe. * * * TODAY, HOWEVER, popular opinion appeared to gibe with the official stance although the new pact was launched without "any of the theatrics that characterized the Ribbentrop^Molotov pact. It reached such absurdity in 1939 as Stalin banning the classic Soviet film "Alexander Nevsky"—the story of a Russian victory over German medieval knights. Its director, the famous Sergei Eisenstein, an ardently anti-Nazi Jew, was then persuaded to produce Wagner's "Die Walkure," Hitler's favorite German opera, which Soviet audiences preferred to boycott. But today the scores of German correspondents who came in for the signing ceremonies were pleasantly surprised at the lack of anti-Germananimosity among the Soviet survivors of the war which claimed more than 20 million dead by German arms. When Ribbentrop, later to be sentenced to death as a war criminal by an allied tribunal at Nurenberg was here there was nothing but war in the air. It was as evident to the Russians as it was to the small colony of neutral Western observers then here. * * * BUT IN THE PAST few weeks, in the course of the Soviet-German negotiations, there was a feeling of peace in the air. The pact concluded this week was only a first step but a major and promising step, probably the most important one since the end of the war, towards European and world peace. Genuine Achievers Rarely Attain Popularity By SYDNEY J. HARRIS Parents want two opposite things at once: they want their children to excel, and they want their children to be docile. But the two don't go together, and never have. Every study made of "achievers" in a genuinely creative sense — that is, people who were truly innovative, whose existence made some positive difference for the human race — has shown that as children these people were anything but docile and conformist. Almost all were independent, in mind and spirit, if not in body. They began thinking for themselves at an early age, and either rejected or modified their parents' code of conduct and scale of values. Many were not popular with their peers, and most of them were found either "stupid" or "difficult" by their teachers. * * * ACTUALLY, when parents say they want a child to "excel" what they customarily mean is that they want him to be successful and to be popular. But genuine achievers are often those who fail for a long time, and who rarely attain popularity outside a small circle. And they have often had severe educational problems, from St. Thomas Aquinas, who was called a "dumb ox" at school, to Thomas Edison, who received depressingly poor grades and left school before the age of 12. A creative and imaginative child is a great burden to the ordinary parent, and this is why a repressive society produces so few of them; the weaker spirits are crushed, and the hardier ones Generation Gap often over-react in a way that turns them into delinquents, or actual criminals if they happen to live in a squalid environment. As adults, most of us do not care to tolerate the kinetic.qualities of children. We want them to stop wriggling or jumping or sloshing through puddles or dangling from fence-posts^ and in the same way, we resent agile minds and mercurial temperaments. We don't like to answer silly questions, to respond to anxieties that take fantasy-form, or to acknowledge tht deeper life of the child's spirit. He is to be quiet, tractable, unquestioning unthinking and invisible if possible. Even the so-called permissive parent is doing the same thing in a different way — giving the child too much money or too much false freedom in order to get him out of the way, to leave time and energy for adult pursuits. * * * THE TV SET is now what the Bible lesson used to be, only more seductive and more effective. > Nothing in the world is harder than rearing a child who will make a difference to his society. But nothing in the world is more worthwhile, if we are breeding for improvement and not just for dumb survival. What Flag Stands For Is Undestroyable June's high school graduates will be September's college freshmen. One of them delivered a valedictory address that is particularly appropriate for the coming academic year. Here it is: By LYNETTE ANGLEY Florence (Ariz.) High School Pledging allegiance is more than just simply saying, "I will respect my country." Much more. An American should act upon his obligations and beliefs. If you pledge allegiance to our flag in the morning, is it right that you should help a group burn it in the afternoon? With all our flag has gone through — is it not right that we owe it something more than respect? Throughout the years, our Stars and Stripes has been shot at, burned, trampled, and spit upon. It has suffered more insults than all of our presidents. In spite of this,, however, our banner still flies. These indignations have not caused the colors to fade, its meaning to tarnish or the memories to perish. * * * OUR FLAG STANDS for something that cannot be-, destroyed. The freedom of a people, a way of life, a doctrine that has been and is now being tested. When we go off to college we will, for the first time, have to really decide for ourselves what is right. We will be influenced by all factions each with some good and some bad. The decision, however, will be up to each of us. , Don't judge us by our predecessors. A few of us will demonstrate. Some will be involved in the violence of our time. Some will pop pills or shoot "horse." But the rest, the majority, wiU not waiver too far from the straight path. Think of them when you watch Walter Cronkite's coverage of a college protest. Or Huntley-Brinkley broadcasting a draft-card burning. These "concerned" young people are only a handful of the thousands that attend college, or at least, try to. • * • "JUDGE NOT lest ye be judged." I'm sure in your generation there were and still.are misfits. People you condemned because they cut their hair or rolled up the stockings of their swimsuits. Each generation has a few rebels. We just have more than our share. But, on the other hand, we have more to rebel about. The last generation had WW II and the Korean war. We are still fighting the Korean war plus Vietnam and now Cambodia. The economics of your era was not as high but then neither was the poverty rate. There weren't as many cars, planes or motorcycles but the trak fie mortality rate wasn't as high. There weren't even as many swimming pooU — not as many unguarded little children drowned either. There wasn't as much of anything 30 years ago but you didn't have to pay for what you had the way we do — with death, demonstration and hatred. * We rebel all right. Not many people can face so much death bravely. This fear makes us what we are. This is also the force that vents its anger at a flag. * * * LOOK AT A FLAG. The most prominent color is red—blood red. We don't realize that red stands for courage in our flag — not blood, though blood may be shed. The navy blue may be the color of darkness to a frightened person, but to all it should stand for loyalty. The white may remind you of a lily, the flower of death, but to a true American it is purity, honesty and truth. I may not be able to speak for all my classmates but I hope I am speaking for most of them when I say that to us the flag is not a symbol of danger but rather the guiding light of America's democracy — the best way of life. Remember that each time you attack our flag in either thought or action, you are also attacking our way of life and our principles. If you don't agree with the way this country is, you may leave. One good factor of a democracy is that you can run when the going gets tough.