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

OCR Text

Cedar Rapids Gazette (Newspaper) - March 10, 1974, Cedar Rapids, Iowa vassar rjr    smamc Itht Ctfdttf ihptdd @)tt3fHr Editorial Page Writer’s tell-off to Kremlin: a classic Sunday, Morch IO, 1974 Twelve billion or bust? THE MORE people there are in any given mass, the harder it is to keep them out of one another’s hair, the easier it is for group-control systems to come on strong, and the less the indiv idual, his freedoms and his rights amount to in the teeming mass. That is one good reason why the recent U.N. study indicating that the world’s population probably will level off a century from now at 12.3 billion is a bleak and dreary piece of news, if that comes true. Twelve billion, of course, is more than three times what the earth has now. The increase na* turally will be uneven as to where it comes. But trebling the in-place concentrations of today brings insights as to what the hundred-year development could mean: Cedar Rapids 330,000° Iowa City 140.0(H)? Des Moines 627,000? Marion 46,000? Iowa 8.4 million? No, thanks. The U.N. figures differ from the standard scare-type estimates which warn of 60 billion in the wings if present birth rates, worldwide, go on unchecked until today’s newborns have grandchildren. Instead, the U.N. outlook sees a stabilizing life-ex-pectancy of 76 years and a fertility level tapering down to zero-growth (replacement only) by 2075 or so. From this, 12 billion- plus would be the overwhelming yield. The information .just developed will serve as a foundation for the U.N. Population Commission s work (beginning this week in New York) on a world-population plan of action due for adoption later this year. As it stands, the proposal urges that all countries respect the right of couples to determine freely how many children they will have — subject to family-planning means available to all who may want them, hopefully by 1985. Those items nicely dramatize the nature of the threat. A world of 12 billion people will drastically change the nature of lifestyles known today and will inescapably microsize the role of any individual in such a world. Because of what free reproduction does to others in the mass, parents w ill no longer have a “right” to freely set their family’s size. Mass freedom and personal liberty w ill diminish together, if not disappear. How to avoid that condition is obvious. But if avoidance, worldwide, does not develop voluntarily, there is no sorrow in the thought of being absent from tomorrow ’s rabbit warren of 12 billion. The big regret is that descendants from the present world — imperfect as it is — will likely live in one worse yet. The new ‘anti-Semitism' ANEW and subtle form of an-Xi-Semitism is spreading through the world, according to B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League. Unlike the insane prejudice which brought mass destruction to European Jewry, the just-emerging insensitivity is “not necessarily deliberate” and often shows up among respected individuals and institutions. So goes the League's thesis in a recent report. And who are the architects of this alleged new impediment to human rights? Those cited include the Uhris-tian Science Monitor for a report which the ADL considers a defense of the Arab side during the October war, the American Friends Service Committee for its report titled, “In Search of Peace in the Middle East”, and — surprisingly — Columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak for being “consistently hostile” to Israel. Significantly, all purported grievances are based on the alleged anti-Semites’ opinions of the Middle East war. Evans’ and Novak’s presence in the ADL rogues’ gallery is enough to cast doubt on the League’s entire report. As regular readers of this page know, the columnists‘Nobility’ to neither are reporters first and editorialists second. Evans followed the format faithfully in his recent trip to the Mideast: When Arab extremism moderated, the columnist noted the change. Was it the acknowledgment that Arabs are men, not monsters, that put Evans and Novak on the ADL’s list of purported anti-Semites? More likely the offending material came in a December 28 piece which chronicled efforts of the American Jewish community to reduce pro-Israeli political passions—which passions were stirred at the time by none other than lobbyists from the Anti-Defamation League. Noting that B’nai B rith is a “highly responsible and effective national service organization,” Evans and Novak described an ADL advertisement in the New York Times as “verging on the incendiary.” The ad was attention-worthy since it coincided with the Geneva peace conference’s most fragile groundwork. Until the Anti-Defamation league presents better evidence, the notion that a new strain of anti-Semitism is running wild will remain highly debatable. To assign less than IOO percent war blame to the Arabs is not to slip into anti-Semitism. By William F. Buckley, jr. THE VISION of Alexander .Solzhenitsyn continues to unwind before a world stunned by its magnificence, and now an act of audacity unequaled in recorded history: a 15,000-word letter to Soviet leaders asking them to abandon Marxist ideology , no less. Hut this letter — written last September and transmitted then to these leaders and released only now for public scrutiny — was not merely a theatrical gesture. It is composed, for all that it is sublime in its Impact, of Russian earth. It is the deed of an obsessed but wholesome patriot. It could not have been written except by a Russian who had experienced Soviet history in every pore, and felt in his soul the great weight of Russian history. And there are in it of course invocations of human idealism. But, mostly, it is: cold turkey. Solzhenitsyn communicates how preoccupied Soviet leaders are with the possibility (probability?) of war with China. Solzhenitsyn says it quite clearly, that Russia and China are on a nonnuclear collision course. The reason is primarily ideological. He does not see how such a war, lasting ten years or more, could result in less than WI million Russian casualties — double the casual ties of the bloody Russian century, two world wars plus Stalin Ideological differences would trigger the war. ‘‘And what do you think will happen (then)? That, when war breaks out, both the belligerents will simply fly the purity of their ideology on their flags? And that WI million of our fellow countrymen will allow themselves to be Alexander Solzhenitsyn killed because the sacred truth is written on page 533 of Lenin and not on page 335 as our adversary claims? Surely only the very very first of them will die for that.” After that, he says, Russians will fight for Russia, even as they did in the second world war, when Stalin prudently retired all talk of international socialism, until Mistaken fear of U.S. ‘domination’ the! people of Russia had rebuffed the invader, permitting Stalin to resume his internal holocaust. And when that happens the present leadership of Russia will'Im' dispossessed anyway, and Russia will ‘.not only be through as the principal pat rim of worldwide class warfare, but will also be so weakened by the experience of the war thai it will lose the ties tc Western culture that animate it. • Sol/ihemtsyn goes on to spell out a great vision to Soviet leaders. He sees the world (suffering from a great Western heresy; the idea of eternal growth. It has It'd in Russia to the ruination of the land, the sea.^ the air, the community and Unhuman feeing. I The great opportunity for Russia is to look —(northeast. There is Siberia, populated very sparsely. Siberia could receive’ the Russian hordes and there they might recapture something of the old life* made more enticing by the knowledge of what it is that they had fif'd from. There would be clean waters, and silent skies . . . and — above all — an absence of lies, ‘‘lies, lies, lies,” more oppressive in modern Russia than any of the material privations that have resulted from ideological fanaticism. % Think about it, Solzhenitsyn says, as though ha* were in the village marketplace, bargaining with a merchant fur a table lamp. Think of it. You don’t have to go right away to a parliamentary democracy. Russia’s experience with democracy has been for only eight months in 1917, and they proved disastrous. It would be an authoritarian government for a good while, Solzhenitsyn concedes, and the present leaders could protect themselves in power. They would need only to: Renounce Marxism. Permit people to say what they want, to practice their religion, to read what they want. ‘‘Only allow us a free art and literature and you will see what a rich harvest it brings. ” ‘‘What have you to fear? Is the idea so terrible? An* you really so unsure of yourselves? You will still have a great and impregnable power, a separate, strong and exclusive party, the army, the police force, industry, transport, communications, mineral wealth, a monopoly foreign trade, an artificial rate of exchange for the ruble. But let the people breathe, let them think and develop. If you belong to the people heart and soul, there can be nothing to hold you back.” Five months later, Solzhenitsyn was plucked out of Russia and dumped in Germany. But his great epistle to the Russian leaders — an instant classic — will survive them all. It may yet be critical in insuring the survival of the country he loves so deeply. Wo*hino»on Star Syndical France becomes ‘nasty’ to Kissinger By James Reston PARIS — Relations between the United States and France have taken a nasty turn. It is not primarily that their policies are different, which is understandable and even natural, but that they are beginning to personalize their differences and blame Kissinger or Jobert or Pompidou for their misunderstandings. The charges against the American secretary of state here are startling. They amount to an indictment of bad faith. In official quarters in Paris, it is said that he tells one story to the French, another to the British, and a third to the Germans. At one point, they claim he wants Europe to speak with one voice, but when it does, they feel that he rese nts having to talk to the Danish foreign minister as the spokesman of the Nine, and insists that they confer with the United States before presenting him with Europe’s decisions. On the other hand, Kissinger feels that the French are purposely trying to exclude the United States from conferences which affect American vital interests. His view is that the problems of trade, money, oil and defense are common problems that can be solved only by common policies among the industrial nations, but the French take a different view. They opposed his suggestion that there should be a trilateral declaration of policy by the United States, Western Europe and Japan to deal with the financial and economic problems of the advanced nations. France insisted on a declaration by Europe and Japan, excluding the United States. Similarly, Kissinger wanted Europe and the United States to hold a conference with the Arab states this year to discuss economic, financial, and cultural relations, but again France insisted on a Eurupean-Arab conference without the United States. Aside from these fundamental differences of policy, side issues are now adding to the problem. For example, the Hunters, critics both overdo it By Don Oakley WITHIN recent years, anti hunting sentiment in America has grown rapidly. Hunters have been characterized by anti-hunting organizations as “miserable cowards” with a “lust to kill ” To the anti-hunter, hunting is an evil, a retral outrage. To the hunter, it is a positive good and crucial to wildlife conservation. And never do the twain meet on any common ground. A plague on both houses, says Jack E. Hope As a former hunter who writes on environmental concerns, Hope is qualified to examine both sides of the controversy dispassionately, and does so in the current issue of Smithsonian magazine. There is little reason, he says, to believe that hunters are motivated by abnormal cruelty or propensity to violence. If they were, they would not confine their attention to animals designated as legal game but would indiscriminately open fire on everything. Hunters are overwhelmingly law-abiding, says Hope. Pressure from hunters was instrumental in establishing game laws and in creating a funding mechanism (through hunting licenses and taxes paid on ammunition) to rescue several declining species. Until the recent upsurge in environmental Don Oakley interest, hunters were foremost among those people who devoted any thought or effort to the welfare of wildlife In thousands of rural communities in the United States and Canada, many families consider the annual moose or elk or deer an important supplement to the fond supply. The hunter, far more than the nonhunter, is also close to the cycle of life and death. This is not to equate shooting an elk with buying a side of beef. The elk is wild and relatively rare. Cattle are domestic arid plentiful — almost a manmade product. But our herds of domestic livestock compete directly and indirectly with wildlife for space and food. In addition, ranchers and farmers trap arid shoot predators. Even a total vegetarian cannot escape having an effect upon the welfare of wild animals Human appetite, not only for lamb and beef but for second homes, automobiles, paper plates, lawn furniture and kilowatt hours, has sufficiently altered the complexion of the landscape so that many wildlife populations have been pushed into remote areas. Hut the hunter who likes to think of himself as an “ecological savior,” equally participates with nonhunters in the frivolous resource consumption that reduces wildlife habitat. "It is neither morally nor philosophically consistent,” says Hope, “to spend five days of each week whittling away at wildlife’s living space and then to claim that the weekend hunt — the harvest of surpluses — is an act of environmental mercy ... “The real immorality of the hunting movement is not its willingness to kill, per se, but its unwillingness to respect the biological and esthetic integrity of the natural world In its selective, self-serving attitude toward wildlife, in its eagerness to manipulate the environment for the sake of its sport, the hunting movement displays an ultimate Insensitivity to all lower life forms.” Hut, he concludes, any ethic that would condemn sport hunting would, if it were consistent, also condemn such things as ski resorts, JOU-horsepower automobiles, swimming pools, overeating, fur coats, large families, golf courses and summer homes N**»pop*r i nt#f pf 14* Afflation United States government is informed that the French ambassador in Rio de Janeiro has been telling Brazilian officials that the talks between Washington and Moscow on the limitation of strategic arms are designed to establish the domination of the United States over Western Europe and of the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe. Also, French officials blame Kissinger for urging President Nixon during the Washington oil conference to threaten Europe that oil trade, monetary and defense questions were all “linked.” Therefore, failure to reach agreement on economic questions could influence Washington’s decision about keeping United States troops in Europe, and even lead reluctantly to a reviv a1 of American isolationism. So the poison spreads. As a result of these differences, Kissinger did not come back through Paris on his way home from the Middle East, but went to Bonn to talk to Chancellor Willy Brandt, and then to Brussels to report on his Middle East mission. This was not accidental, and French officials took it as a rebuke. Nobody talks about President Nixon here. Watergate is seldom mentioned All questions are about Kissinger; his philosophy, his scholarly writings from his days at Harvard, which have been studied in official quarters here with meticulous care, and particularly, as the French see it, his fascination with world order based on understandings with the primary military powers. The view of America here is very odd, and in many ways deeply unfair. It is not understood in Paris that the United States has come out of Vietnam and Wall I NI <    I iiiSS ni People s forumParadox To the Editor:1 Lt. William ( alley, who thought it was “no big deal” when he murderer! scores of Vietnamese civilians, has been released from house arrest and seems destined to gain his freedom. President Nixon, in regard to ‘‘draft dodgers,” has publicly stated that within our system of government, when an individual makes a mistake he must pay for it. Paradoxically, he has indirectly had a manifest effect on the decision to free Lt. Ca Hey. Incredibly, this would seem to imply that he feels ( alley should tie forgiven while those morally opposed to and unwilling to lie a part of the war in Vietnam should not. The majority of perceptive Americans now can realize the utter futility and tragic consequences of our past and continued involvement in Vietnam. The staggering numbers of casualties, both American and Vietnamese, can on no pretense tx* justified by our claim that we only desire the people of Vietnam freedom to choose their own form of government. Our policy has not been dictated by genuine concern for the Vietnamese people but rather has been based primarily on preservation of our own self-interests. Why then should it continue to Im.* a crime to have realized and refused to Ins a participant in such a fiasco? Since the l*aris j>ea<e agreement, the people of South Vietnam were to Im* free lo join and vole for the political party of their choice. Instead, South Vietnam is governed by a puppet dictator who is supported and financed bv the United States. The mony of all this is that we have always professed the desire to give the Vietnamese people the same freedoms we enjoy in this country. tergate in a miss! of self-doubt and self-criticism, and far from trying to dominate Europe, is searching for new ways to create a different world order and laking to Europe for help in finding common policies to deal with the present disarray in the noncommunist world. French officials prefer to believe that the Nixon administration, in trouble at home, is trying to compensate by showing how strong and powerful and dominant it is abroad. In short, they think the danger to France is American domination, whereas the greater danger to Europe is American frustration and isolation.    *, Obviously, thew is a fundamental political problem between the United States and Francelabout how the world should be organized. But this is being made much n*>re difficult by President Pompidou psychological fears and doubts on both sides, and this threshold question is not really being discussed. Presidents Nixon and Pompidou, both in personal difficulty, are standing aside, leaving the negotiations primarily to Kissinger and Foreign Minister Michel Jobert. The cartoonists and commentators are hav ing a field day with this Mike and Henry show, but this only makes things worse. The front cover of the pro-government French weekly magazine Le Point recently showed a huge American eagle in the sky, casting its shadow over the whole continent of Europe. That is the official line here: That America is not seeking a new world order but trying to impose its influences and leadership on Europe. The notion of the Nixon administration trying to dominate Europe when it cannot even win the confidence of its own p«*ople would be funny if it were not so tragic. What is even more odd is the French suspicion that Kissinger is trying to break up the unity of Europe, when all the present facts suggest that there is no unity of Europe' and not much hope that there will be if the Europeans are left to squabble among themselves. One day Kissinger and Jobert are going to have to discuss this growing atmosphere of distrust. They are both highly intelligent men who respect one another despite their policy differences, but the policy differences are not likely to be removed until the mistrust is removed. This is the preliminary question, and it cannot be avoided much longer without senous consequences for both America and Europe. New York Times Service Our President’s refusal to grant amnesty to the many young Americans opposed to the Vietnam war poses some interesting questions abbut the man himself and the obvious ireongruity of many of his actions. One can almost discern a tendency toward convictions being merely a matter of expediency rather than of ethics. This indeed is sad when Prelates to a man who has ln.*en trusted ami often forgiven by so many, yet has reciprocated by being genuinely concerned and compassionate toward so few. David A. Bradley 2131 Blairs Ferry road NEMolesting * To the Editor: Are little children less traumatized by sex offenders today than their counterparts of yesteryear? I think not. Then why the need for “updating” section 725 I of Iowa code dealing with immoral or lascivious acts with children? Mothers and fathers should write their legislators. If child molesters are let off any easier than they already are, noehild will Im; safe. Judy Harrington 2fi25 McGowan avenue MarionOverstaffed ? To the Editor: As a Marion city employe and chairman of the city of Marion employes committee, I feel compelled to enlighten the taxpayers of Marion concerning statements recently made by some of <uir councilmen. \ Quoting Councilman Galligan: “Still, I suspect city hall is overstaffed." Councilman Martin. “But computerizing is a possible way to reduce the staff still more arid cut down on some waste ” Councilman Emmons “Still, I think the city as a whole has Um> many employes — (hr* list is heavy, t<M» heavy — yet I don’t know how or where to make changes.” Marion, with nearly 20,(HK) people, is served by a sanitation crew of six men. This is overstaffed? Ninety miles of sanitary sewer and nearly that many miles of storm sewers are maintained by a crew of three. Overstaffed? The garage, with two mechanics, service and maintain over 93 units. Are they overstaffed? The street department crew of eight men includes one supervisor, one man maintaining all street and traffic signs, traffic signals and painting traffic lines, one street sweeper operator, and during the summer one man mowing weeds. This leaves four men to care for 140 mile* of streets. Is that the heavy list? Marion’s city clerk has a staff of three. loo many? Would someone advocate cutting our police and fire protection? How does Marion's ratio of city employes compare with other nearby cities? Marion can progress and rise to new heights. However, let s keep our problems in the right perspective. Are some of our sewer and drainage ditches a problem? Are some of our street conditions a problem? Are we overstaffed? Al Etzel N. Tenth street Marion Insights there ate no hopeless situations^ therm are only men who have grown hopeless about them. Clare Booth Luce ;

Clippings and Obituaries for the Cedar Rapids Gazette