Cedar Rapids Gazette, November 29, 1974, Page 6

Publication: Cedar Rapids Gazette November 29, 1974

Cedar Rapids Gazette (Newspaper) - November 29, 1974, Cedar Rapids, Iowa "’ »T~Trr>    [l\    r$$    J',    ~    *    ♦•+.<*•    fr**    *W-*v-    «v    hi>6if’'«*    *    vc    ptytf    •    '*****$*%Uneasy vigil: After Vladivostok, what? Editorial Page Fftday November 29, 1974 Economic comeback near? Unless the country’s economic sages are reading the crystal ball upside down, Americans next year can expect a bounceback highlighted by a return to good old single-digit inflation. One of the prices exacted for general relief will be unemployment climbing perhaps to a distressing 7.5 percent. Those, in effect, are the forecasts of business analysts polled this month by the Christian Science Monitor Naturally, many midwesterners will take the Eastern prophesying with a grain of salt. Since simultaneous inflation and higher unemployment have made a mockery of textbook economics, one tends to devalue such predictions. Another reason for skepticism is economists’ insistence on generalization. No matter that unemployment for some age and ethnic divisions may run 25 to 35 percent, to the country’s corps of highly-educated and lofty-salaried business analysts, 4 percent joblessness is full employment and 6 percent is bearable. Misgivings and prejudices aside, though, business economists have done remarkably well at predicting the 1974 recession. In September, 1972, Dr. Raymond Saulnier, onetime chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, told a group of editorial writers that 1974 would be a very tough year. Inflation would really get going, according to a consensus of business analysts (Saulnier said), and government would urge Americans to pull in their belts. The great credit crunch and accompanying stock market woes also were foreseen. Interestingly, those predictions all were made BEFORE’ the Watergate maelstrom dragged down President Nixon and all but a life raft load of his crew. Even with the anticipation of “Four More Years!’’, the conservative, mostly    Republican economists saw- big trouble coming up in ’74. Some predictions were muffed — 1973 got a cheerier prognosis than was warranted — but as a group,    business advisers and professors showed a hefty accuracy percentage. The record thus suggests that Americans can look realistically toward    an economic recovery beginning next spring or summer. Trouble    is, though, experts are expecting the public to believe the economy will stay in bad shape for much longer — which trend would bode ill for President Ford’s re-election hopes. Here’s hoping business analysts are all wet with their protracted-pessimism forecast. The surest way to prolong an economic slump is by selling short the country’s resiliency. School damage increasing Eastern Iowans who feel snugly insulated from big-city problems ought to consider the mindless destruction of public property last weekend at North Linn elementary school in Coggon. Typewriters wrecked, windows smashed, * plumbing damaged. walls and fixtures smeared with mustard and catsup — the $5,060 sacking and other recent school breakins evoke images of an infinite number of felons wreaking havoc in    an infinite    num ber of school buildings. All for the purpose of, what? Setting education back IO or 15 years? What makes the spate of breakins so alarming is the similarity to disorder on school grounds elsewhere. School Product News reports that vandalism totals a half-billion dollars a year in the United States’ 17,000 public school districts. In the great majority of cases solved, breakins are traced to youngsters, though not necessarily pupils enrolled in the schools entered and damaged. Why is the bent for destruction zeroed in on school property? Psychologists most often lay blame on adverse home environments which make it very hard for children to concentrate, and thus succeed, in school. Frustrated at home but unable to vent anger there, disturbed youth are tempted to cause mayhem at the other site of unhappiness, the schoolroom. Culprits often turn out to be dropouts. Whether school intruders in Eastern Iowa fit the national pattern will be* for law enforcers and child specialists to determine, if they can. Perhaps the motives for breakins such as the Coggon school wrecking are no more complicated than the basic urge to raise hell. When tombstones are too heavy for quick tipovers and police and merchants are too watchful for pellet gun target practice, what’s a more natural outlet for idiocy than an old-fashioned schoolhouse bust-in? If these remarks seem angry, the effect is intentional. There isn t a school district in Iowa that can afford the malicious damage that vandals are dishing out in unprecedented doses. The only rational responses of penalized taxpayers are dismay and disgust. Way with wordsPlay good, score low By Theodore M. Bernstein In his book, “Strictly Speaking.” Edwin Newman points out that people in sports as well as sports reporters and commentators often say. “The team is playing good right now “ That misuse of the adjective good as if it were an adverb grates on him, and properly so. A team doesn't play good: it plays well And if you want to speak well, you won’t say you are speaking good. • Home mode compound A recent news article said, “The fall in the stock market is approaching wmdow-leapmg levels ’ Your host pointer! out that window-leaping derives from “leaping from (or out of) windows" and the missing preposition makes the coined compound sound off-key. He also suggested that a good guide is not to make up compound nouns from phrases that include a preposition (A term that defies that guide is babysitting, but that is a well-established exception .) Now Edward A Nickerson of the English department of the University of Delaware suggests that a substitute for wmdow-leapmg could be outodefenestro-hon The word defenestrotion means a tossing of a person or thing out of a window and the prefix auto-means self Like it*’ Word oddities You won't be punisher! if you use good instead of well or coin a bad compound, but you may cause pain among your listeners or readers. Nevertheless, the ideas of pain and punishment are not far apart. The word pain comes from th** Greek pome meaning penalty or punishment. More oddities. The word droners stirs the curiosity of William Voelcker of Philadelphia, who asks about its meaning and derivation. It means preference or choice, as in the sentence, “If I had my druthers I’d like to knock off early today." It s a dialectal contraction of I d rather, probably influenced by a rural pronunciation Ne* Vorh Times Syndicate Theodore M. BernsteinMideast issue slighted in breakeven summit By James Reston NEW YORK — There are two contradictory interpretations of the Ford-Brezhnev “tentative” agreement on the control of offensive nuclear weapons. The first, defined by the White House press secretary, Hon Nessen, was that it was a “triumph” for arms control, and the second was that it was a delayed Soviet trap to assure Moscow of I . S. trade and modern technology. The chances are that it was neither It was a sudden, \ague. and surprising “breakthrough” in principle, as Secretary of State Kissinger called it and an indication that the leaders of the Soviet Union want to continue their policy of peaceful coexistence with the United States, or at least avoid a break with Washington in the foreseeable future. In political terms, this is reassuring. The Soviet leaders might have taken a more belligerent line The Western nations are in serious economic and political trouble. President Ford has not established his authority over the United States government, or even organized his new administration And from the Azores, through Europe and the Mediterranean and the Middle East to .Japan, the free nations are divided and disorganized At least in the Ford-Brezhnev meeting at Vladivostok, the Soviet leaders didn t try to take advantage of the disarray of the West, but supported the policy of detente with the United States, agreed on a long-term control of the numbers of nuclear weapons, avoided arguments over Europe and .Japan, and gave at least tentative approval to peace and national independence to all nations in the Middle East, including Israel. The Vladivostok communique on the Middle East was extremely vague Both sides agree1 that the situation there is extremely dangerous, but both keep pouring arms into Israel and the Arab states that can hit both Cairo and .Jerusalem Washington and Moscow talk about “detente,” but the cold war goes on The Ford-Brezhnev meeting was merely a holding operation, and until the facts of their agreement are published, it will not really be clear what they decided. Meanwhile it is clear that the Sov let leaders are being very careful. They have apparently concluded that a major disruption of the detente policy would probably produce a violent anticommunist reaction in the United States, and maybe a Jackson presidency, or even a Reagan-Wallace campaign in 1976 In any event, and for whatever reasons. the Soviets have agreed to a ceiling on all main strategic weapons systems. equal to the United States. They have dropped their claim that all American forward-based planes in Europe and Japan should be counted in the strategic balance, and concentrated on a Moscow-Washington compromise in which they will get trade and technology in return for arms control. The arms control, however, will still leave both sides with enough weapons to blow up the world The main thing, in the immediate future, is what the Vladivostok communique said about the Middle East. It was extremely vague. Ford and Brezhnev merely “reaffirmed their intention to make every effort to promote a solution of the key issues of a just and lasting peace in that area on the basis of the United Nations resolution .TW. with due account taken of the legitimate interests of all peoples of the area including the Palestinian pe<e ple and respect for the rights of all the states of the area to independent existence." But this did not deal with. but merely evades!, the central issue. Ford and Brezhnev' did not really apply their noble principles to the Middle East. They are both shipping modern weapons into the area More important, they are now sending weapons that can destroy both states if a fifth Israeli-Arab war begins, and they are not using their influence or keeping their promises to avoid that war. These are the brutal facts of the situation. and on the big issue of the Middle East, the Vladivostok meeting was no triumph It kept the balance of nuclear power about where it was. It agreed to Insights War makes rattling good history; but peace is poor reading. Thomas Hardy maintain that balance for the next ten years, which is helpful, but on the immediate crisis of the Middle East. it did not use the power of Washington and Moscow to avoid another war. It is probably wrong to assume that Brezhnev was setting a trap for Ford, agreeing to a nuclear compromise in principle, merely to get trade and technology agreements through the congress, but Brezhnev did not really deal with the major crisis in the Middle East. And this is what really worries Washington and the other capitals of the world. Ne* York Times Service James RestonCatbird perch gives Moscow key choices By C. I. Sulzberger PARIS — There has been much public talk about a pentagonal world founded upon relationships between the United States, Russia. China. Japan and Western Europe and there has also been talk (now less often heard) about a triangular world based on a balance between the first three But the quintessential policy devised by President Nixon with Henry Kissinger's aid and now. it would seem, embraced by President Ford, still rests on the superpower balance between the U S A and the U S S R. One principal factor contributing to Washington’s original shift in attitudes toward Peking was the desire to ap-proach Moscow through the back door. Nixon and Kissinger realized the American diplomatic posture would seton flabby to the Kremlin so long as Washington had no contact at all with the largest nation on earth because the U.S. insisted on the ridiculous pretense that Taiwan, an offshore island, represented WM) million Chinese. It was as if some loony capital in 1814 claimed the exiled Napleon's domain of Elba spoke for “France." To approach Mao Tse-tung. Nixon used the Romanian leader. Ceausescu. to herald what was coming and then sent Kissinger on a secret trip to Peking via Pakistan. Indeed, so eager was the American administration to curry Chinese favor that Us policy deliberately “tilted ’ against India, China's adversary As Kissinger himself expressed it. the Peking and Moscow summits following the U.S. policy switch differed accordingly: Nixon's China trip marked a bifurcation in the road. an event that could lead to major changes by Peking But it left much for the future, and one could not judge its accomplishments The Moscow summit sought agreements that would lie justifying in themselves. Now. after the Ford-Brezhnev Vla-div«>stok meeting, both the American and Soviet sides stress that breakthrough has come. Should this prove true, it would mark an enormous step But it will take months before we know the answer The historian looks backward In the end he also believes backward. Frederich Nietiche In the meantime Kissinger has bounced over to China again lo explain his ideas and presumably, among other things, to stress that the United States had nothing to do with selecting Vladivostok as a site for talks, a city whose governance by Moscow is not yet wholly endorsed by Peking The Chinese are less than enthusiastic with their designated role as U.S. stepping stone to Russia. They have cooled their never oven-like warmth toward Washington and are disappointed with their old friend Kissinger. Trade with America hasn’t reached promised levels. There is irritation with U.S. attitudes on Cambodia. Moreover. Peking makes plain it still admires Nixon more than Ford Chou En-lai, commenting to me on Watergate a year ago, said: “You have had such things occur in your society and undoubtedly will again ” While one may expect a good deal of optimistic lacquer to decorate Kissinger’s latest Peking pictorial. China has signaled, since he was last there, that it too understands power politics. The Chinese have not only done exceedingly well in the third world of underdeveloped nations but they recently winked at Moscow quite coyly. On Nov. 8. Peking sent the Soviet Union a message once more urging “normalization” of relations as “responding to the fundamental interests of the two peoples” and pledging itself to work for preservation of “revolutionary amity.” This left Brezhnev in control of the ball. He could have played with Peking if he had wanted, although his trusted Outer Mongolian satellite, Premier Tsedenbal, complained publicly that Peking was pursuing “great-pow or. chauvinistic” policies at Soviet expense. Brezhnev has followed this hint bv personally smacking China down. Now he van coddle U.S. fancies and still cater to our peaee-mongermg instincts and budgetary pinch, or get tough in the Middle East. W hatever happens, Moscow has a key position, similar to that once claimed by Washington. It can swing either way. C. I. Sulzberger Russia has reached a military ascendancy which enables it to negotiate from strength — as it used to complain we did The critical test will be on Israel Kissinger made the mistake of trying to squeeze the U S S R out of the game of arranging an Arab-Israeli solution but. after a period of apparent success, he has seemingly lost that attempt. The Kremlin can now permit a new conflict to explode in the Palestine area and is busily sending the Arabs even more arms than the I S. is sending Israel. Or Moscow can limit such a conflict, after it has been ignited. Finally. Russia can force Washington to admit the USS R has a cardinal role in peace negotiations We will know the answer on this long, long before we know whether the promised nuclear arms limitation means much in checking the race to holocaust. New York Tune* Service ag.*)    »«#•«*»    ti    * What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon BonaparteNew SALT no miracle, but Schlesinger buys it By Rowland Evans and Robert Novak WASHINGTON - Although the new SALT agreement with Moscow is nothing like the miraculous breakthrough painted by President Ford and Press Secretary Rim Nessen. it is satisfactory and safe enough to get a private blessing from a sober critic: Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger Summoned to the White House last Monday evening for his first full-scale briefing from Mr. Ford on the V ladivostok pact, Schlesinger did not really know what to expect. Afterward, he told Pentagon colleagues with visible relief that he was “quite pleased Schlesinger's restrained pleasure is far more important than Nessen’s transparent attempts to induce euphoria and pump up a sagging Ford presidency. What s more, his caution more closely reflects the starkly realistic, noneu-phoric underpinning for the new strategic arms limitation (SALT) agreement: Sov iet desire to take advantage of Western political weakness mixed with fear of inherent Western technological superiority; U. S. fear that the heavily Democratic congress will not approve sufficient funds to unleash that technology. Schlesinger’s initial reaction, assuring Pentagon acceptance of the new agreement, is significant considering his backstage disagreements with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger the past 18 months over how to tame runaway Soviet developments of arms. What’s more, he was not fully informed on specific details of the progress made by Kissinger in Moscow earlier this year. When an aide to Sen. Henry M. Jackson contacted Schlesinger Sunday night for his reaction to Vladivostok. he replied glumly that he knew nothing about it Schlesinger has always been against piecemeal arms agreements, partly on grounds that the Russians would exploit the exempted areas. Kissinger, worried over spending limits imposed by a ne*«-lseditionist congress, has pushed hard for almost any agreement with Moscow His thesis: Partial agreements keep the door open. The aspect of the Vladivostok pact adopting the theory of “equal aggregates' — equality in the number of missile launchers and bombers — is viewed by one top Pentagon strategist as “an extraordinary breakthrough " Equally significant was the apparent So-vie! agreement, after years of intransigence, to exempt NATO airfields in Central Europe. Pub*'iS*rvMa» SyndicateIsn t it the truth? My Carl tibiae (r Exists there a man who never has asked “What’s the matter with women that they do not understand men0” lf there is such a man, he must be one who answered his question with: “The trouble with women is the same as the trouble with men — the opposite sex.” “Who) a woman admires in a man is distinction among men. What a mon admires in a woman is devotion to himself —Ambrose Bterce lnt*rOc*on Prm Syndicate People's forumRight-denial To the Editor: St. Luke's hospital requires a committee of doctors to approve Indore a surgical sterilization can be done there. The patient's form requesting the oj>era-tion also states: “In the case of sterilization for socio-economic reasons, sterilization will be contingent on the birth of a live baby.” At this moment, when millions of children are starving, it is inexcusable that a committee must rule on a couple's desire not to bring another baby into an overcrowded world The hospital policy also condemns a woman whose age or whose number of children doesn t meet committee standards to use ineffective, inconvenient or potentially harmful alternate forms of contraception. Agreement of the woman and her doctor is all that should lie required for surgical sterilization. Anything else is a denial of individual rights and is morally irresponsible in a world where the human race is “multiplying” itself to deal h Sharon Hannen Route I, ( enter PointUnfair to guns To the Editor: With the Nov. It showing of “The Gun”, ABU continues its policy, previously established with the ABC-produced movies “Savages" and “Scream of the Wolf ", of presenting programs which are biased against the private ownership and use of firearms. This film cannot Ik* considered an objective, dispassionate or fair appraisal of the role of firearms in our society From beginning to end negative connotations are attached to the revolver which is the subject of the movie The original owner's wife doesn t want the gun in the house The security guard reveals his wife feels similarly A psycho threatens to kill people with it. The gun is almost used for suicide It is used in a robbery. Finally, in a shock ending designed to reinforce the atmosphere of fear and loathing of guns fostered by the earlier episodes, a small boy accidentally kills himself with the gun Defense and informal target practice were the only legitimate reasons given for firearms possession and were barely mentioned . , . The producers have claimed that The Gun is an unbiased film which depicts the history of one handgun. However, they cannot claim “The Gun" represents the typical history of a handgun. The story line of “The Gun” was composed by stringing together a number of true but uncommon incidents, involving many different handguns, into a story of one handgun. A film portrayal of the life of a typical handgun would be very undramatic because fewer than I percent of privately owned handguns are involved in murders, suicides, robberies or accidents. But ABG has chosen to sacrifice the truth for an anti-gun message. Hopefully, KCRG will have the fairness and courage to refuse to show anymore films with such an inherent bias on a complex and controversial issue Donald Bohlken Route J, Monticello ;

  • Ambrose Bterce
  • C. I. Sulzberger
  • Donald Bohlken
  • Edward A Nickerson
  • Edwin Newman
  • Frederich Nietiche
  • Henry Kissinger
  • Henry M. Jackson
  • Hon Nessen
  • James Reston
  • James Schlesinger
  • Raymond Saulnier
  • Robert Novak
  • Rowland Evans
  • Sharon Hannen
  • Theodore M. Bernstein
  • Thomas Hardy
  • William Voelcker

Share Page

Publication: Cedar Rapids Gazette

Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Issue Date: November 29, 1974

RealCheck