Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona on November 5, 1969 · Page 16
Get access to this page with a Free Trial
Click to view larger version
November 5, 1969

A Publisher Extra Newspaper

Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona · Page 16

Publication:
Location:
Phoenix, Arizona
Issue Date:
Wednesday, November 5, 1969
Page:
Page 16
Cancel
Start Free Trial

Page 16 article text (OCR)

not agree tilth A tiod that you say, but / »'/// to the teeth your right to say it ,.. Voltaire •THEARIfcONAREPUBLIC Wednesday* Nov. 5,, 19G9 o Page 7 The People Speak Geology Experts Oppose A Dam At Bridge Canyon -Editor, The Arizona Republic: % My letter, bearing the title "Thoughts on a Dam at Bridge Canyon." was published in the Oct. 29 Republic. An ed- .itor's note followed the letter. You said that "one expert, Lewis Douglas, wrote for the Arizona Highways Magazine that there is no important geology below Lava Falls that would be inundated by any lake created by a Bridge Canyon dam." Lewis Douglas, the Arizona banker, is not an expert. He has been many things. But, he is not a geologist. Arizona Highways is hardly a scientific journal. I cannot understand how anyone could dare to quote a nonprofessional writing in a popular magazine as an authority. . IF ONE READS Douglas' article, Mideast View Is Clarified , This letter is to clarify the letter I wrote in The Arizona Republic on Oct. 28. , What I meant in my letter is this: I am not condemning all the Syrians and Iraqis, and the other Arab countries. v .What I mean is this: the government of these two countries lack the know-how about law, but this only represents about 7 to 10 per cent of the Syrian and the Iraqis, who live in both countries. I WOULD LIKE to apologize to the rest of the Arab people living in the ••' Middle East. My intention, was to discuss Al Fatah, the Palestinian group which is really to blame for the fighting in Lebanon. Lebanon wants to stay neutral, but the Al Fatah insist on using Lebanese soil. I know the Arabs are trying to do their best to settle all the troubles they \ are having from Israel. On the other hand, the Arabs are not there just to fight the Israelis, the Russians, the British or any other country that has been interfering in the Middle . East for many years. ,The Arabs are a peace-loving people; they are well-known for their hospitality. YOU CANNOT BLAME those poor people who have been in war since the • outside powers started interference in the Middle East. I think the Al Fatah has the right to fight, to get the land they lost, or that ., has been taken away from them by force. , However, the Al Fatah shouldn't fight ..with each other in the Arab world. They should get united together to live in ^ peace and harmony. LOUIS M. HASBANY Positive Patriotism In line with our national program of positive patriotism, we would like to add the voice of Phoenix Lodge No. 335. We „ have won national honors for Phoenix for five years with our program. , To quote from our national instructions, "Your duty is to vote in every bond issue, school board, city, county, state, and national election—representative government is only assured so long as every citizen votes in every election— and then supports the decisions of the majority!" We feel that the tendency of voter apathy in city elections should be combated by individual effort. "Help get out every voter hi your community." J. W. LANGLEY, DVM, Chairman, Americanism Committee, Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, No. 335 Lebanon Learned You "goofed" again. I refer to the cartoon by Reg Manning showing Lebanon taking the middle ground. That's like showing Romania and Yugoslavia .as neutral in the East-West struggle. Lebanon and Jordan are well aware that should Nasser's dreams come true, the Jordanian government will be the first to succumb, and the Christians in .Lebanon will probably share the fate of their co-religionists in Egypt. There is less than honor in Lebanon's position. Lebanon .did not take action against the Arab attacks on Israel until Israel took action to punish Lebanon for allowing its land to be a springboard for attacks on its neighbors. 'Lebanon is insisting on control of these murderers, not removal. Lebanon has found out, as dozens of countries before, that appeasing the Communist Syrians or the Communist tooi, Nasser, 4oes not satisfy, but rather whets the appetite of the aggressor. DAVID LERNER which appeared in the May 1968 Arizona Highways, one finds quickly that he is making a big case for the Central Arizona Project in a rather biased and geologically naive argument. He says: "—whatever .of scientific interest lies in this stretch of the river (he is referring to the part between the start of Grand Canyon National Monument and Lake Mead) is duplicated in numerous parts of the world and more spectacularly within the Grand Canyon National Park and National Monument themselves." And you dare to quote Douglas as an authority on geology? I can only laugh. Or should I cry? There is not one grain of truth in this. The other evening I made several telephone calls to friends of mine who are geological professionals. These friends are as follows: 1. Dr. Troy Pewe, chairman of the Department, of Geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Pewe has recently written a guidebook for river runners for the first part of the Grand Canyon trip. 2. Dr. Verne Taylor, professor of geology, Prescott College. Verne spent most of the summer making a geological survey of the Grand Canyon, with particular emphasis upon travertine deposits. 3. Mr. David Ochsner, chief naturalist, Grand Canyon National Park. Dave has recently returned from a trip down the part of the river that we are discussing. 4. Dr. Malcolm McKenna, Frick Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Malcolm has made several river trips down the. canyon with us, and has been particularly interested in the lower canyon lavas. 5. Dr. W. K. Hamblin, professor of geology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Dr. Hamblin has made very extensive studies of the lower canyon lavas, has written several articles on the subject, and is considered the leading authority on these lavas, along with, perhaps Dr. Edwin McKee of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver. I TELEPHONED each of these men 'the other evening". I read them your rejoinder to my letter, as; well as my origin^!; statement. Every pne of them said that there is extremely important geology below Lava Falls that would be inundated by any lake created by a Bridge Canyon dam. And, each geologist specifically permitted me to quote him as saying just that. Need I say more? FRED B. EISEMAN JR., Scottsdale Contributing Little On Oct. 15, so-called Moratorium Day, I was in New York City. I saw a 15-. year-old child with a microphone in front of Mayor Lindsey's campaign headquarters shouting "Peace," over and over again. I was jostled off the sidewalk by mobs of chanting youth'with signs and black arm bands. They were not a representation of the majority of our clean cut, patriotic youth; but primarily a representation of establishment drop outs, who are contributing very little to our society. They offered no plan or solution to the world's problems, only passionate cries for peace. The facts of the matter are now becoming so twisted that we who do not approve of the Moratorium Day approach to peace are surely labeled as war-mongers and militarists. Yet this is not true, our goals are the same, we only differ in means. What good is peace without honor? Surely our adversaries are concerned about their image of strength in the world; we, too, must maintain our respect among the world powers. The Vietnam problem has perplexed three great presidents all with different viewpoints but all who sincerely wanted peace. I wonder if these misguided youths, backed by the Lindseys and McCarthys, have the answers for our total future policy and destiny in world politics? Seventeen-year-old Steven Levine and his column, The Young Generation, thinks he has the answers; but the words he puts on paper only show off his intellect, but seem to solve no problems. His almost treasonous statements referring to U. S. imperialism make me sick. (Levine should search the record book and learn about how much American energy and resources went into rebuilding Europe and Asia after World War II.) I also wonder if Levine will comment in later issues on the Russian involvement in Czechoslovakia? Probably not. A great nation is not conquered from without until it has fallen from within. I hope we have not fallen beyond the point of catching ourselves. A. G. JOHNSON JR. REPUBLI ' CITY Nixon May Have Aroused Critics He Tried To Quiet By JAMES RESTON New York Times Sendee NEW YORK — On various occasions since the Nixon administration came into office, its leaders and spokesmen have advised observers to watch what the administration does rather than what it Says. This is not a bad tip for anybody trying to analyze the President's latest speech on Vietnam. Words are treacherous weapons, which can be used either to clarify or confuse, and, this presidential speech is one of the classic mystifying clarifications of recent years. Taken in by 'the eye and ear over television, it was a memorable performance — good theater and maybe even good domestic politics. But was it good diplomacy? Did it achieve his objectives? Did it moderate the Vietnam critics and thus persuade the enemy of our unity, or arouse the critics and thus provoke more demonstrations of disunity, and thus play into the hands of the enemy? Political Future Of Kennedy Hinges On Outcome Of Inquest By JOSEPH ALSOP WASHINGTON—The argument about the inquest on Mary Jo Kopechne's death has finished at last; and the end is therefore in sight of this first chapter of Sen. Edward Kennedy's tragic misfortune. It is too soon, as yet, to foretell exactly what the end will be. For example, Massachusetts has motor vehicle laws of near-medieval severity. The lawyers' warnings about these laws have in fact deformed the whole public management of this terrible business from the moment Senator Kennedy's friends gathered at Hyannis. And one must wait until the inquest is over to see the outcome of this aspect of the problem. Again, much will depend upon the impression conveyed by the record of the inquest. At a guess, the most important question is whether this record will bring out, clearly and forcefully, the real explanation of the senator's behavior after the accident on the bridge. * * * THERE IS, SO FAR AS one can gather, a rather simple .explanation. The hideous combination of coming within half a second of drowning, plus a mild concussion, plus the sheer horror of the whole episode, temporarily put the senator into what can only be described as a state of shock. Nor is this so enormously surprising, if you consider the matter. It can be amply documented, furthermore, because this grave condition of moral and mental shock in some degree persisted for days after the accident. The anguished councils of the friends and advisers at Hyannis were like doctors' consultations held in the absence of the patient. Not until Robert S. McNamara, Theodore Sorensen and Burke Marshall finally offered their joint advice that he must plead guilty at the trial did Senator Kennedy truly resume full charge of his own life and destiny. These being the facts, the first thing to be said about the senator's future is that the inquest should be a major piece of good fortune for him, if all goes well when it is held. The truth is that- nothing less than a detailed official record, such as the inquest ought to produce, will ever write "Finis" to this chapter in the senator's career. * * * WITH SUCH A RECORD, the 85 percent of decent people will stop repeating rumors and start saying, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." As to the other 15 per cent, the ingrained Kennedy-haters were Kennedy-haters long before Chappaquiddick. There is, and never was, anything to be done about them. If the present chapter ends in this manner, as one must pray it will, then there is no reason at all for the future chapters of the senator's story to be tinged or even greatly troubled by the heavy darkness that he has recently had to live through. Senator Kennedy is certainly not going to be a competitor for the Democratic nomination in 1972; but, then, he never wished to run in 1972. He was being pushed into running in 1972 by the parasites and courtiers—the strange medley of persons who have long derived their sole importance from their much advertised (and quite often falsely advertised) link with the Kennedys. * * # HIS FAMILY AND HIS TRUE friends, the McNamaras and Sorensens and Burke Marshalls, were as much against his running in 1972 as the senator was. Like him, they thought that, given the senator's age and the present trends in this country, 1976 was the year that he ought to be aiming for. And now he can aim for 1976 in all good conscience, if he so chooses, without endlessly having to beat off courtiers and parasites animated solely by their interests rather than by his interests. .This business of the true friends vs. the parasites and courtiers leads to still another change in the senator's situation which will surely prove fortunate. The tragic ends of John and Robert Kennedy, cut off so young in all their golden promise, had strangely produced a most unhealthy ambience. You might have supposed that Kennedys were like English grandees in the very old days, who could claim the very highest offices by mere right of birth and name. Senator Kennedy never made this ludicrous assumption, any more than his brothers made it. Yet the ambience was all too real, and while it lasted it was a serious political handicap. It is gone now. * * * LIKE ALL STRONG MEN whom an unkind fate forces to traverse the valley of the shadow, the senator himself further seems to have gained in strength and in self-knowledge. If the present chapter ends as seems most likely, he will thus appear in the next chapter as a major leader of very special promise. ONE WONDERS. The speech did not really clarify the President's policy. The words were impressive only until they were read and analyzed. What, for example, is to be made of the following? At one point, Nixon said that "We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all United States combat ground forces and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable." But at another point in the same speech he said he would withdraw not only all American "combat ground forces" but that he would withdraw "all our forces." The difference between all American combat ground forces and "all our forces" is over a quarter of a million men. The first would leave the American Air Force in Vietnam and a lot of support troops, and the second would mean that all the boys would come .home. " Meanwhile, again in the same speech, the President said that he was going to carry on the effort to maintain a stable government in South Vietnam. "We are not going to withdraw from that effort," he said. "In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam but Southeast Asia. So we're going to stay." A few paragraphs-later on, he said he had a plan "which will bring 4he war to an end regardless of what happens on the negotiating; front-... a plan which we have worked out in- cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all United States ground forces...." ••>. The speech clearly mobilized the opposition to -the antiwar faction that wants peace i immediately.. The President presented' 1 some - solid arguments here. It is true that .quitting the war suddenly would, as the President says, have devastating human and political repercussions, but he tried to identify all his Vietnam critics with the antiwar extremists who want to cut and run, and this is not only unfair but raises a fundamental point about President Nixon and this speech. This was no ghost-written job. We are told, and it is probably true, that Jie wrote it himself. He was worried about what he calls the "vocal minority" in the universities and the press who have been opposing him, and felt that the "silent majority" was with him — though how he knows he had the majority if it was "silent" is not clear. So he set out to confound his critics and arm his "silent majority" with effective political arguments. * * * THAT HE armed his "silent majority" and created a. backlash against the antiwar extremists is fairly clear, but to do this with such self-righteousness in the name of unifying the country and persuading the enemy to negotiate is astonishing. Like all writers, he was obviously impressed with the logic of his own argument. His sincerity was almost terrifying. He put Spiro Agnew's confrontation language into the binding of a hymn book, and asserted he was different from Lyndon Johnson while sounding just like him. Nevertheless, his actions are not Johnson's, and this is the point his violent critics have missed. His words are familiar but his actions are really different. Mike Mansfield, the Senate majority leader, got the point. He noted that while the President said he had a "plan" but didn't disclose it, Vice President Ky of South Vietnam indicated that there was more to the Nixon speech than most Americans would hear. There would be nothing new in the President's speech, General Ky said before it was made; it would be addressed to the American audience, but he added a significant thing. Next year, he said, South Vietnam could replace 180,000 American troops. Presumably, Ky knows what he is talking about. After all, President Nixon said his "plan" had been worked out with the South Vietnamese government'. So the actions are likely to prove more important than the words. The President has a very large audience with many different constituencies. He needs the "silent majority" to coun; ter what he calls the "vocal minority of critics," but in dealing with his domesV tic political problem he has created -a really dangerous diplomatic- problem. For he has committed himself to support the Saigon regime and to respond to 4he military actions of the enemy, and in the process he map very well have limited his freedom of action and provoked the antiwar opposition he was trying to silence. If You Can't Give A Speech, Write It! By ART BUCHWALD WASHINGTON - The Old Nixon came out of the closet in the White House on Halloween just as the New Nixon was going to bed. "Now what?" the New Nixon demanded. "I thought you promised me that when the mud slinging started, I could do it," the Old Nixon said. "I know I promised it, but I've got to give Spiro Agnew something to do.". * * * "PROMISES, PROMISES," the Old Nixon sneered. "I've been hanging around for 10 months waiting to sock it to the snobs and the effete intellectuals and the arrogant, reckless, inexperienced elements within our society, and the first chance I get, you turn the job over to someone whose only claim to fame is that he's a household word." "Dick," the New Nixon said, "at the time I told yOu to wait in the closet, I thought I could use you. But it would be wrong for the President of the United States to say the things I. really believe. That's why I decided to use Spiro. "If I had you saying those, things, everyone would say 'Aha, the Old Nixon is back.' But if Agnew says them, people will say, 'Isn't-it a shame the New Nixon can't control his vice president?' " "That's just fine,'* the Old Nixon said bitterly. "But I have feelings, too. I've been in that closet for 10 months rehearsing what I was going to say. I had some swell speeches about activist elements who disdain mixing with the working classes and liberals who ride 'Now...To Get That Magic Formula?' around in limousines and how a few rotten apples spoil the barrel and..." # * * "DICK, I WANT TO make this perfectly clear. No one respects your point of view more than I do," the New Nixon said. "Everything I am or ever hope to be I owe to you. But we have to face the realities. If you start attacking the students and the professors and the news media, it will reflect on me. You're too closely associated with my administration. I'm now a world leader, a statesman, the President of all the people. I have to stay above the battle, and so do you." , * "And let Agnew grab all the head^ lines?" the Old Nixon yelled. "Dick, remember when we were vice president together, and you did all the talking for us? Eisenhower didn't get mad. He pretended he didn't know what' we were saying. And that's what I'oi doing. I'm letting Agnew spout off at the mouth. I'll gain the people who agree with what Agnew has to. say, and I'll avoid the animosity of those who get sore. But it will only work if you stay in the closet." * * * "THAT'S EASY FOR YOU to say. You get to go to Key Biscayne and San Clemente. You have all the big dinners with Duke Ellington and the Shah of Iran. And what do I do? I sleep on your shoes, breathing in moth balls." The Old Nixon pointed his finger at the New Nixon. "I'm not going to take'it much longer. You're going to have to choose between Spiro or me." "Don't get tricky with me Dick," the New Nixon said firmly. "I'm letting you stay in the White House because of 'a sense of gratitude for past favors. But as President of the United States, I'll make the decision as to who my hatchet man is going to be." ;' The Old Nixon dropped to his knees. "AH right, so I'm begging for a chance. Ixwk at this stuff I wrote in the closet — 'Merchants of Hate,' 'Parasites of Passion,' 'Ideological Eunuchs Straddling the Philosophical Fence,' Could Agne,w come up with hyperbole like that?" •#*'#•' ' -'i "GET UP, DICK. LOOK, I'll tell you what I'll do. I can't let you make the speeches, but I'll talk to Spiro about putting you on his speech-writing team." The Old Nixon shrugged. "I guess any thing's better than hanging around in that closet."

Get full access with a Free Trial

Start Free Trial

What members have found on this page