Low Resolution Image: Become a member to access this full resolution image at 375% higher quality.

OCR Text

Cedar Rapids Gazette (Newspaper) - July 7, 1974, Cedar Rapids, Iowa ifht    lAnpu^ Editorial Page Sunday, July 7, 19/4 »& Mi -’ 'hi',1tc¥tf;!:r W* '• « ' &'■*■ BEfjZRuSfir ■ i»iwa:Arl DOT sendoff unimpressive AS IT INEVITABLY happens when potential appointees are many and openings are few. Governor Hay’s selection of the seven-member board for the new department of transportation has triggered no small amount of public grousing and private grumbling. State Rep. John Patchett (D-North Liberty), for example, has called “inexcusable” the governor’s appointment of but one woman to the important board, Ann Pellegreno (a state aeronautics commission member) of rural Story City. Not as vocal but scarcely less irate are civic leaders in many Iowa communities who believe the names of would-be DOT commissioners from their areas were given short shrift in the governor’s selections. Indeed, the telephone wires in Linn county may still be smoking from the heavy run of “Can you believe it?” calls following Ray’s announcement. The governor can ascribe most barbs to politics and well-meanmg provincialism. But two criticisms, neither political nor ethnocentric, may not be easy to put aside: (I) On its face at least, the board is so rurally tilted that a group photo might recall a Norman Rockwell painting, and (2) there are too many highway commission members — three, count ‘em — among the seven appointees. Fortunately, the first-mentioned flaw may be illusory. It would be unfair, probably, to characterize Stanley Schoelerman of Spencer and William F. McGrath of Melrose as out of touch with urban transportation problems. Their apparent abilities crystallize when one realizes that Schoelerman, a livestock buyer, is chairman of the National Cattlemen’s Association’s transportation committee, and McGrath, a farmer, is a member of the Monroe county board of supervisors. Nonetheless, it was reasonable to have hoped that the DOT hoard would reflect more urban background than is evident here: Robert Bigler (chairman), New’ Hampton (1970 population: 3,621); McGrath, Melrose (192); Schoelerman, Spencer ( 10,278); Mrs. Pellegreno, Story City (2,104); Stephen Garst, Coon Rapids (1,381); Harry Reed, Winterset (3,686); and Alan Thoms, Dubuque (62,309). Only Thoms, Dubuque mayor and banker, hails from a CITY in the bumper-to-bumper, clogged crossing sense of the word. As for the superabundance of highway commission members, the drawback looks more serious. One can applaud the appointment of conscientious Stephen Garst, a Democrat, and concur in the selection of the able Robert Rigler, Republican and former state senator, as chairman of the transportation department board. Since they give the new board ample road planning expertise, Garst and Rigler are welcome company. But the addition of highway commissioner Harry Reed makes it a crowd. This is not to reflect upon Mr. Reed's performance on the highway commission — Iowans who follow that board’s deliberations can form their own conclusions. But to clutter a vital new state board with 60 percent of another state board seems ill-advised. Then, too, presence of three highway planners on the board naturally heightens concern that roadway natters will upstage other forms of transportation under DOT purview — air, rail and water. Rigler says he doubts the board will be too highway oriented. Here's hoping he is right. Obviously. Governor Ray believes his appointments have struck the desired balance. Perhaps the flaws discussed here — rural tilt and too much highway clout — will cancel out one another. What’s wrong then? It’s just that the governor did such a fine job laying the DOT’s keel that a more impressive a launching was expected. Free-movement limits AS LONG AS people could pour in from overseas with no adverse effect on the lives or environment of people already here, immigration in high volumes could be tolerated and absorbed without much trouble. If and when the flow impinges heavily on populations grown to problem sizes where they are, immigration can no longer — in fairness to those at the receiving end — go on as freely as it did. Accordingly, the Zero Population Growth organization is correct in warning of a need for reconsideration of the nation s immigration policy even though this goes against the free- Way with words movement tradition that helped build America. Outsiders moving here to take up residence reportedly run about 400,000 a year. How that number meshes with this country’s ability to absorb them and with other population-growth forces is a question of extreme complexity without easy answers. But at least one long-run answer does suggest itself in keeping with the still-worthy ideal of worldwide free movement: Let the rest of the world deal with its own overpopulation forces the same effective, pressure-easing, voluntary way that we have dealt with ours. Dirty made clean By Theodore M. Bernstein A WORD that has been coming up from time to time in the area of politics is laundering It refers to the disguising of the source of a contribution to a candidate for office. The donor sends ms gift to a committee backing a number of candidates with instructions that it go to Candidate A Then the committee deposits the check, sends a check of its own to Candidate A and he lists it as a contribution from the committee. Thus the name of the donor doesn’t appear, which is what he had in mind. The practice was supposed to have been outlawed by the campaign act of April 7, 1972, but laundering did not completely stop then. The laundry suds continued to bubble here and there • Myself and I. Tiny wrinkles are developing on the brow of Mrs James T. (lies of Rosemont, Pa., frowning every time she hears her son say, “Fran and myself went to the movies” or “Fran invited Bill and myself to a party.” At least so she says. But those misuses of myself involve no new wrinkles, they have persisted for years. Mrs Oles guesses correctly that they are caused by a fear of the words I and me In the first of these quoted sentences it should be “Fran and I” and in the second it should be “Bill and me ” But the same people who stumble into “between you and I” use myself because they can’t discriminate between a nominative case and an objective case In the first of those sentences it should be a nominative (I) because it is the subject of the verb went, in the second sentence it should Ik* objective (me) because it is the object of the verb invited. The -self words are used for only two purposes for emphasis (“I repaired the car myself") or for reflexive purposes, that is, to turn the action back on the grammatical subject (“she dressed herself quickly”). Word oddities. The word reflexive and a handful of related words derive from the Latin reflected, which is made up of re-, back, and flectere, bend It doesn’t take a bartending effort to get the meaning of those two elements, but it s something to reflect on Hew York Tim** Syndicate Theodore M. Bernstein Dark age no darker Against the loss, many credits By Roscoe Drummond WASHINGTON - I do not intend to minimize the somber plight in which the I’nited States finds itself today — its government weakened and indolent, cynicism rampant, trust in grievously short supply, uncontrolled inflation imperiling the very foundation of our society. Lewis Mumford, the 79-year-old historian and social philosopher, pronounces this grim verdict: “The dark age is not coming — we are in the midst of the dark age.” I do not dispute this view. Earlier I set out the signs of the decline of this nation which parallel many of the signs of the decline of the Roman Empire — the symptoms which cause Mr. Mumford to say we are already in the dark age. Third in a series_ But are we going to stay there17 Must we stay there? What can we do about it? Is all the evidence on one side — the side of hopeless despair? It isn t. And lf we are going to summon Roscoe Drummond ***\ People s forum Churchly Marxism? To the Editor. I am glad that the opinions expressed by nationally-known columnists are not. necessarily, those of the newspapers which print them That is, I hope they are not. One realizes that to challenge a columnist of the stature of Jenkin Lloyd Jones is about as effective as booing an umpire at a baseball game. Nevertheless, my conscience prompts me to reply In his article. “Marxism in Christian Raiment”, in the June 30 Gazette, Mr Jones does a skillful job of trapping the unwary, who are easily influenced by insinuation. a tool that inflames the passions of men who won’t undergo the rough discipline of findng the truth for themselves. Surely he isn t trying to bring us to the only inference in his line of thought, that Jesus himself, revolutionary, provocative, troublous, might have been Marxist’ Why didn’t he say that? Was it because he knew that unless we pay attention to social unrest in our time, no church pronouncement, however large crowds we attract, will be authentic anymore? Could it be that in many instances people are pulling away from the church because they can't face the rigorous demands of putting the Christian gospel into adion? Ralph O. Grot* Olin - LETTERS The Gazette $ editorial page welcomes readers opinions, subject to these guidelines: Length limit 400 wo'dt One letter per writer every 30 days AU rn ay be condensed and ad ted without 'hanging meaning None published ononymooily. Writer * telephone number (not printed) should follow nome, addrest and reodabie handwritten signature to help authenticate Content* deoi more with issue* and event* than per tonalities. No poetry the will, the energy , the resources and the vision to turn things around and avert the worst, then we need to appreciate something of the worthy and worthwhile things America and Americans have done as a nation and as a people since the end of World war II. This is the “other side” of what has been happening: • At a time when it possessed total monopoly of nuclear power the United States offered to destroy its atomic bombs and put the production of all nuclear weapons under international control and safeguards. The Soviet Union refused. • The American people contributed $14 billion to the economic recovery of its allies and former enemies after the war. • At the initiative of three Presidents — Truman. Kennedy, Johnson — the United States acted to arrest aggression at its inception in Korea and Vietnam, perhaps unwisely but with honorable motives. • Racial justice is ascendant. Laws enforcing segregation of blacks and whites in public education were struck down by the supreme court. After some years of resistance and resentment, the dual schools are virtually ended and the racial caste system in the South is nearly dissolved. • The supreme court abolished distorted voting districts which had produced so many unrepresentative state legislatures in its one-voter, one-vote ruling. • In the wake of these decisions congress enacted new civil rights legislation protecting minorities. • The United States has ended its war in Southeast Asia, is averting war in the Middle East and is significantly reducing the peril of confrontation among three superpowers: the Soviet Union. China and itself. • The generation gap and student radicalism have almost wholly disappeared from college campuses. • The nation s enterprise economy is ameliorating black poverty. The majority of black families moved into the middle class in a single decade. • The number of black mayors rose from 82 last year to 108 so far this year. The number of blacks elected to political office last year was 152 percent more than five years ago. Thus, black leaders are steadily turning away from protest against to participation in the American democratic process. • The United States is wisely reducing its military commitments in distant parts of the world and is seeking shared responsibility in serving the cause of peace. I cite the foregoing not to distract from what has gone badly but to show that the seeds of recovery and restoration are present and that the dark decade can be overcome. (Next: Urgently needed political and social reforms.) _o* Angeles Time* Svn<J'Co*e Credit? To tho Editor: In the Sunday Gazette of June 30 I noted. with interest, a full-page article with pictures concerning the open house for the new $5 million addition to Mercy hospital. Two pages later, in the same section was a five-column-wide picture of Iowa hall, the second major building at Kirkwood Community college, costing some $2 4 million Both of these projects are major buildings and create a visual impact on the viewer and user There had to be a lot of thought and planning in these. The caption under Iowa hall mentioned the name of the general contractor. Nowhere did I see the name of the architects mentioned for either project I have noticed this before in your fine paper and wonder if there is some reason for this oversight. Impeachment key Defiance By Rowland Evans and Robert Novak IIT ARRINGTON — Just before leaving * v for the Moscow summit, President Nixon received this stern warning from an important Democratic ally in congress: The most dangerous thing you can do is defy a ruling of the supreme court. Such hardboiled realism from Capitol Hill conflicts with the view inside Mr Nixon’s inner circle, where outright defiance of a supreme court ruling to hand over subpoenaed tape recordings is considered a viable option. The warning duplicates advice by Vice-president Ford and house Republican policy committee chairman John Rhodes, but Mr Nixon often seems more attentive to conservative southern Democrats than his own Republican leadership Thus, hearing the warning personally from a pro-Nixon Democrat could profoundly influence Mr Nixon’s decision The President received that advice because, threatened with impeachment, he uncharacteristically keeps in touch with key congressional supporters — particularly southern Democrats On the eve of his trip to the Soviet Union, he telephoned one such congressman whose support is essential to Mr Nixon's survival The President’s big question How am I doing? Usually a multi-million-dnllar project is not that easily hidden. It can be a delight or a blot upon our landscape, I think the architect should be given credit. In passing, I noticed that the Des Moines Register carried a story on the Mercy hospital project and did mention the architects and contractor I am a practicing architect who had nothing to do with either of these projects. VV. C. Ormond Mt. Vernon (Editor's note: The Mercy hospital architect's name appeared in the open house announcement June 23. There seemed no need to repeat it with the pictures. The Iowa hall architect's name was not used because Kirkwood did not include it with the information supplied.) disadvised r EVANS NOVAK Much better, he was told. But, the congressman went on. don’t get yourself in contempt of the supreme court. In other words, if, following tomorrow's (July 8) hearing, the court orders Mr Nixon to turn over tapes subpoenaed by special proscutor Leon Jaworski. obey that order Otherwise, it was implied, you mav well be impeached Mr Nixon replied that he fully intend ed to avoid winding up in contempt of the supreme court — a somewhat ambiguous answer which reassured his congressional supporter Although Mr Nixon sometimes gives replies in private conversation intended more to placate his questioner than reveal his intentions, the warning from ( apitol Hill may push him toward compliance — even a recalcitrant, sluggish partial compliance Puftll-.Ser* Mall SyntJir a'* ‘Scoreless tie’ played at summit By James Reston NOBODY seems to be very happv about the Nixon-Brezhnev summit meeting. Actually it was more honest than most. It was a stand-off — a holding operation in a time of political uncertainty all over the world In this sense, it was a realistic conference because it expressed the political realities, which are uncertain at best. Nations do not commit themselves to fundamental military changes affecting the balance of power in the world, when both politics and technology are in the process of revolutionary change. Nobody knows what inventions and politicians will bo influencing the course of events in the next few years. Henry Kissinger is undoubtedly right in thinking that the pace of nuclear technology is outrunning the pace of political stability or even common sense in the world “Both sides,” he observed, “have to convince their military establishments of the benefit of restraint: and that is not a thought that comes naturally to military people on either side.” But neither Nixon nor Brezhnev is now strong enough, politically, to compel their military establishments to cut defense budgets or take chances for peace. In a time of political weakness and confusion, the military men and their political allies tend to prevail; this is what happened in Moscow. In practical terms, Brezhnev could not enter into long-range military agreements with an American President facing impeachment. Similarly. Nixon could not, with all his other troubles, agree to concessions on weapons that would infuriate the joint chiefs of staff and their conservative allies in the congress, whose votes he needs to avoid impeachment and conviction. So, the summit meeting came out about as expected If it had been any worse, it would have been a disaster, and if it had been presented as a triumph, it would have bern a fraud. Even so, the pretense of success on both sides by Nixon and Brezhnev was a little thick. Both Nixon and Brezhnev, having disagreed on the primary questions of nuclear arms control, somehow felt obliged to pretend that their failures had been a great success. The truth is, that they lost out to the hawks, but pretended the doves had won. Actually, they came out of an ominous mess fairly well. and agreed to keep talking, but insisted on exaggerating their limited agreements. What is not clear is why they overstate their limited successes and underestimate their fundamental differences, and, in the process, confuse the American and Soviet peoples On his wav-home from Moscow, Nixon stopped in Maine on his way to Key Biscayne and argued that he was on the way to “permanent peace, that he and Brezhnev were engaged in an “irreversible’’ process toward concord in the world, when obviously everything is impermanent these days and reversible. The truth is. that the world needs fundamental changes in the control of military arms, inflation, prices, trade, population and the environment but does not have the political unity to deal with these fundamental questions. This is Kissinger’s main point. He keeps driving for the objective but does not have the political barking to put it over. It is not only that Nixon and Brezhnev cannot agree about these fundamental international issues. The governments of the Soviet Union and the United States are also divided internally Secretary of State Kissinger and Secretary of Defense Schlesinger disagree about what should be done on these fundamental strategic questions, but cover up their disagreements. Brezhnev has the same problem with his military leaders and his politburo. No wonder, then, that the Moscow summit satisfied nobody. But at least it kept the negotiations going, and raised the possibility of agreements later on in the 70s or '80s By that time, of course, as Kissinger implied, the arms race may be* beyond control. Also, Kissinger and Brezhnev will undoubtedly then be out of power But for the present, the main point is ( lear Washington and Moscow are still too divided at home and still too suspicious of one another to reach fundamental agreements on a new order in the world Also. the political instability of China. Europe, the Middle East and Japan is so obvious that neither the* U, S. nor the I S S R is prepared to gamble now on long range military accommodation I bis is why the Moscow summit ended in a scoreless tie Neither Nixon nor Bre/hnev could have compelled their military colleagues to make basic stra tegie changes, even if they hud wanted to The political structure is too weak the time is not ripe, even if fundamental ( flanges are overdue It was a disappointing summit, but at least it reflected tile political realities ;

Clippings and Obituaries for the Cedar Rapids Gazette