opinion_
Seeing the light
better late than never
How ironic it is to witness the Late-in-life ideological transfor
mation of many prominent social and political figures. The irony
is that many of these public figures were directly responsible for
shaping the world and now they disavow much of their handy
work.
The poet Robert Frost once said he was conservative in his
youth and became radical in his old age. For most, the opposite
course, from radical youth to conservative middle-age, is true.
But the number of senior conversions is increasing.
There's the conversion of Admiral Hyman Rickover.
Rickover, testifying before Congress on the eve of his retire
ment, called for the abolition of the Defense Department and
predicted the world would destroy itself in a nuclear holocaust.
Rickover is considered the architect of the modern navy and
pioneered the nuclear submarine. What's ironic is that Rickover
repudiated his entire career.
The latest conversion is Robert Strange McNamara, former
head of Ford Motor Company, president of the World Bank and
secretary of defense under presidents John Kennedy and Lyn
don Johnson. Those are impeccable credentials.
McNamara has been peering over the shoulder of the
Reagan administration and disputing its foreign policy. He
warns of nuclear annihilation if the Soviets and the United States
don't get a handle on arms control.
McNamara writes in Foreign Affairs magazine, "Nuclear
weapons serve no military purpose whatsoever. They are totally
useless — except only to deter one's opponent from using
them." Obviously McNamara isn't a hardliner, but he believes it
imperative the superpowers reduce nuclear arms — to "almost
zero" — to eliminate reliance on nulcear arms as a deterrent.
Last year McNamara joined with George Kennan, McGeorge
Bundy and Gerard Smith to dissuade NATO from its first use
policy. McNamara disagrees with NATO's "flexible response"
strategy that allows for NATO to use nuclear weapons if losing in
a conventional attack against Western Europe. It's important to
note that McNamara was one of the architects of NATO's "flexi
ble response" plan.
"It would be an act of suicide," McNamara says of any
launch of nuclear weapons against the Soviets. And the opposite
is true, as well
McNamara is now calling for Europe to become a "nuclear
free zone" and for NATO to replace its reliance on nuclear
weaponry with nonnuclear (conventional) forces. If NATO were
to proportionally feduce nuclear weapons while increasing con
ventional forces the Soviets may become more willing to
negotiate arms reduction.
There's much knowledge to be gained from these promi
nent figures who, late-in-life, suddenly repudiate the goals of
their career. And like that old line that those who do not under
stand history are doomed to repeat it, sometimes the wisdom of
our elders is ignored.
ERA vote in House
tells women to wait
Woman — you keep still and wait. That's the message im
plied by the House of Representatives' 278-147 vote against the
Equal Rights Amendment Tuesday.
But what's more discouraging than the continued waiting
(the vote was but six shy of the two-thirds required for passage)
is the despicable actions of House Republicans who sought to
sabotage the ERA with an anti-abortion amendment.
The controversy over attaching these "Hyde Amendments"
(named for Henry Hyde, R-lll. a member of the "4-H club") to the
ERA bill literally killed the possiblity of its passage.
The House was split into partisan camps. Oregon's
representatives voted along party lines. Republicans Denny
Smith and Bob Smith voted against the amendment. While
Democrats Jim Weaver, Les AuCoin and Ron Wyden voted in
favor of the amendment.
So we wait and take heart only in that 1984 is an election year
and those who opposed the ERA can be voted out of office.
Oregon daily
emerald
TNf Oregon Daily I mar aid n pu binned Monday through f n
day except during mam w»d and vac atmm, by the Oregon Daily
f mar aid PuMnhmg Co . at the Umverwty ot dragon, f ugana. OK
The I merald operates independently ot the Umvrruty with
o«ite* on the third Hoot <W the frb Memorial Umon andm
member ot the Atuxiated Pre*»
ichtof
Managing Idilor
Nmn Idilor
Avvivtanl Nnn Idilor
Idilor ml Page Idilor
Pholo Idilor
Spurn Idilor
Sidelines Idilor
lnlrrt«ntmm idilor
s«mmi InlrfUmmml tdilor
Nighl Idilor
AmhkIM* tdilui i
Higher Iduulion
Departments rnd School*
Sludnti Cowmmifli
I ealurev
Pol** *
( ommumly
Cmrd HtH
Advertising Mrnrgr.
UMidifd Advertising
Ptodu* lion Manager
( ortlroller
Debbte Howletl
Sandy lohnslone
frank Shaw
Brenda Thornton
Cod Fernald
Dave Kao
Doug levy
lohn Healy
Angela Allen Morgan
Kim Carlvon
Cod Fernald
Doug Na*h
Meh**a Martin
lim Moore
loan Herman
Brook* Daretl
Michele Malaga
Darlene Core
Sally CMtar
Vh lorta Koch
lean Ownbey
letters
Advantage
Persons opposed to the
Solomon Amendment seem to
agree that it is wrong for the
government to take advantage of
America's youth through draft
registration. Yet, these same peo
ple take advantage of the
American people through student
loans, grants, and work study pro
grams. When one asks a favor of
the American people to loan one
free money, one should be willing
to do something in return, in
cluding placing oneself on call in
case of a national emergency.
There is an inconsistency in
people who believe it's OK to take
advantage of government social
programs paid for by our hard
earned tax dollars, yet don't think
it is OK for the government to re
quire anything of them. First of all,
the receipt of government aid is a
privilege, not a right. In denying
financial aid to non-registrants,
therefore, how can any rights be
violated? You are simply losing
the privilege of receiving aid.
Thus the issue of the Solomon
Amendment is not constitutionali
ty at all, since it is not a question
of rights but of privileges. I
believe that the law is fair and
should be extended to welfare
programs as well. Freeloaders
should have to repay their debt to
society, and national security is a
good place to start.
Brandon Shepard
Arms limit
Like many others in the Univer
sity community, I support nuclear
arms limitations. I have no desire
to become one of several billion
chunks of well-done steak.
However, I believe it is unrealistic
to expect peace to be a result of
arms limitations.
Long before the first plow-share
was forged into a sword, humans
killed other humans with sticks
and rocks. Over the years,
humans have become more effi
cient and spectacular in their
methods of killing, but in some
ways the differences between
neanderthals and modern
humans are minimal. The veneer
of civilizations is very thin.
Observe what happens when the
power goes out in New York City.
Limiting nuclear arms will
reduce the destructive power of
humans without reducing their
destructive impulse. Of course,
not all humans are violent, but
more than enough of them are.
Violent conflict is here to stay. It is
realistic to expect arms limitations
to reduce the cost of conflict but
not to eliminate it. A lack of
sophisticated weapons never
stopped humans from killing one
another.
But don't get me wrong. I'm not
a pessimist.
Steve Reinschmidt
graduate
Bandwagon
It seems that a majority of the
people in the United States have
jumped onto a bandwagon of
endless ridicule and protest.
Leslie Hunter's letter (Emerald
Nov. 8) asked University students
if they were eager to fight for the
United States in Grenada and
possibly return disabled. She con
tinued by painting the American
position as that of a blood thirsty
culture. The main point of her let
ter, unless I am mistaken, was that
the United States was wrong to in
vade Grenada.
Although I am unsure of our na
tion's right to take such action, I
hesitate to protest it for one sim
ple reason — I don't have a better
solution. Hunter never stated an
alternative solution, just like most
of the other protesters that are so
vocal in their criticism of Pres.
Ronald Reagan.
Protest is fine, in fact it’s one of
our rights as American citizens.
But, it's also very important to
have an alternative in mind before
opening your mouth. I for one
would not have wanted to make a
decision concerning Grenada.
What if Reagan didn't send in
troops and a majority of the
American students on the island
were killed? People would have
criticized him for not sending
troops in.
Finally, I'd like to address
Hunter's implication that com
munism may be better than
democracy. I would gladly live in
poverty in America instead of liv
ing in luxury in Russia. And yes, I
would die for my country. I might
be hesitant to die in a foreign
country, but if we were invaded I
would be one of the first to enlist.
It's the least that I can do for the
U.S., which also happens to be the
greatest nation on the face of this
planet without a doubt.
Stuart Samuelson
freshman, journalism
Bigoted
Recently there has been a profu
sion of letters, columns, and ar
ticles in the Emerald which exhibit
bigoted fear and lack of
understanding toward gay men
and lesbians. I am not criticizing
the Emerald for publishing these
articles; I applaud it because this
exhibits in a public forum the kind
of elements in our society which
gay people must fight and
organize against.
There are many people who
deny the existence of threats to
the civil rights and personal safety
of gay people. The homophobic
articles in the Emerald are proof
that the gay liberation movement
has a long way to go before
achieving the goal of living our
lives without great fear of oppres
sion and invasion of privacy.
To legislate or moralize against
gays assumes the right to control
the private lives, living conditions,
and freedoms of association of all
people. Such a right is not
allowable in any just society, and
any tendancy in that direction
must be focused on and protected
against. Gay people ask for the
right to live our private lives accor
ding to our nature (which does
not interfere with the private lives
of others) without fear of oppres
sion. The oppression stems from a
minority of fascists and other
bigots, and their opinions are sad
ly impossible to sway toward ones
of harmony and tolerance.
It is, therefore, the responsibili
ty of the remainder of society to
ensure that these reactionary
voices do not drown out the voice
of tolerance and charity, the way
they managed to do in Nazi
Germany.
Rolf Erik Sjogren
junior, history
Claification
Many readers noticed the
letter of Nov. 15 entitled
"Send'em in" was a song by
Tom Lehrer, but wondered
if Lehrer had sent the letter.
In fact it was submitted by
Terry Neill. We regret any
confusion that may have
resulted.
Thursday, November 17, 1983