Newspaper Page Text
I
4 • The Red and Black • Thursday, January 10, 1991
OPINIONS
The Red & Black
Established 1893—Incorporated 1980
An independent itudent newspaper not affiliated with the University of Georgia
Jennifer Rampey/Editor-in-Chief
Elizabeth Graddy/Managing Editor
Jeff Rutherford/Opinions Editor
■ EDITORIALS
War on democracy
Observing the current administration in action is
akin to watching a game show. What’s behind Door No.
3? Yesterday it was no new taxes and the Constitution
doesn’t require a congressional declaration of war when
George Walker Bush, III wants to “kick some ass.”
Today it’s a different tune.
President Bush Tuesday sent a letter to Congress
requesting that “the House of Representatives and the
Senate adopt a Resolution stating that Congress
supports the use of all necessary means to implement
U.N. Security Council Resolution 678...”
Demonstrating a thrillingly creative memory, Bush
wrote, “As you know, I have frequently stated my
desire for such a Resolution...” Stated to whom? Millie,
the White House dog? Certainly not to Congress.
The New York Times reported Wednesday that the
letter represented “the first Presidential request for
Congressional backing for offensive military action
since President Johnson asked for the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution on the Vietnam War on Aug. 5, 1964.”
We could speculate that Bush chose this moment to
execute one of his all-too-familiar flip flops. Maybe he
realized Congress does want to support him, but they
demand an opportunity to examine and debate the
issue in accordance with the law of the land. Possibly
he took as positive the results of a recent poll showing
just as many Americans agree with him as disagree.
We could speculate, but only God and Millie really
know. To get down to the heart of the matter, he should
have gone to Congress before he had amassed half a
million troops in Saudi Arabia, instead of behaving like
a petulant child who wants his toy soldiers all to
himself.
Casual disregard for this country’s highest law has
been a hallmark of Republican presidents (cf. Iran-
contra scandal), but none have swaggered so
arrogantly to the wastebasket, democratic principles
crumpled in hand, as Bush.
The United States has fought in approximately 200
armed conflicts without the president’s securing prior
consent from Congress, as any advocate of a stronger
presidency will say when attempting to legitimize the
latest gross abduction of power.
As anybody’s mother will tell you, 200 wrongs don’t
make a right.And arguing that Congress can tie the
purse strings if they don’t agree with the president’s
decision to go to war doesn’t make sense.
The founding fathers’ instructions to the contrary
notwithstanding, there are two reasons this argument
is false and misleading. One, if the president wants
money, he can get it somewhere else, maybe even from
a rich businessman or two (cf. Iran-contra again.)
Two, a split between two branches of the U.S.
government after the president has committed us to
war would do more to hurt his diplomatic or military
efforts than any amount of debate with Congress
beforehand. The ultimate crisis of legitimacy rising up
within the government could very well destabilize it
and would certainly have long-term ramifications on
the structures ensuring democracy.
An argument no less demeaning to democracy
states simply that Bush needs the power to declare war
because he is the one who has to deal with Saddam
Hussein.
Well, no, he is not the one who has to deal with
Hussein. That task will fall to the half million
American men and women waiting for war in the
Persian Gulf — men and women with families and
faces and names like Pfc. Mark Nicholson, Sgt. 1st
Class Daphne Gains and Col. James Dowd, all of the
University.
Who will protect their interests, particularly the
interest in not drenching the desert of that parched
region with their blood? In our democracy, that duty
falls to our representatives in Congress, with whom it
should remain.
STAFF
NEWS: 543-1809
N«w« Editor Chrtt Clonto
Sportt Editor: Gone William*
Entortalnmont Editor: Coloon Brooks
Aoooclato Nowro Editors: J D Squillant*. Ai Dixon
Front Pa*o Copy Editor: J snorter Wilkin
Chtel Copy Editor. Kym Tambourine
In aid* Copy Editors: Gloria Rowbotham, Amy Dudley,
Brian Wright
UOA Today/ Wire Editor: Doe Shutting
Photo Editor. Stacy Stenberg
Chief Photo*aphar Tracy Stenberg
Graphics Editor Stephen Moroski
Stall Witters: Lance Helms, Chris Grimes, Patrick
Flanigan. Richard Bamberger. Lynn Barfield. Dare
McLeod. Maria Edwards. Sandra Stephens. Angela
Hornsby. David Johnston. Kamn Howard. Jennifer
Peterson
Sports Writer: Randy Walker
Trends Editor: Margaret Weston
Assistant Trends Editor: Margo Moore
Cartoonist: Mike Moreu
Editorial Assistant: Doe Oce Vargas
Opinions e«pressed In The Red and Black other than
unsigned editorials are the opinions of the writers of
signed columns and not necessarily those of The Red
and Black Publishing Company Inc. All rights
reserved. Reprints by permission of the editors.
ADVERTISING: 543-1791
Student Managers: So an Fagan. Alan Holcomb
Advertising Assistants:
Niki Girardeau, Craig McAtee, Kim Richards
Senior Advertising Representattvee:
Lon Thurman
Spdai Protects Coordinator Young Sun Yun
Advertising Representatives: M<hael Bloom. Welter
Colt. Tracey Danyluk, Mona Fahmy, Sabrina
Feidtman. Wynne Jarboe. Kevin Leonard. Usa Maria
Mills, Dee Mosby, Alicia Ntcklas. Beth Toteis
Assistant Editorial Production Manager
Cristina Femdt
Production Staff: Andy Ard. Kann Christen son, Sara
Essoi. Laura Fnadnch, Lorin Marsh, Katie Teare.
Michttle Wogort
General Manager Harry Montevideo
Advertising Director: Sarah Cochran
Ofice Manager: Mary Straub
Production Manager: Marlene Martin
Clasalted/Raceptlonlot: Susan Andaraon
Credit Manager: Susan Davis
Clerical: Nancy Oavts
The Red and Black is published Tuesday through
Friday fan though spnng quarters and each Thursday
during summer quartor, with the exceptions of
holidays and exam periods, by Tho Red and Black
Publishing Company Inc. a nonprofit campus
newspaper not affiliated with the University of
Georgia. 123 N Jackson St.. Athens. Ga 30601.
Third class postage peid at Athens. Ga Subscription
rata S30 par year
■ QUOTABLE
"It reminds me of the scene in Chaplin's "Modern Problems"
where he is pulled Into the gears of the machine he Is working
on and is killed," said Mike Hendrick, English department,
about the system-wide budget cuts.
Two sides to the Christianity question
Every year, we have a major controversy
about the Christian faith. Someone will write a
critical essay about Christians — say, crit
icizing the liaisons of Revemed Falwell — and
then other people will take offense and consider
the writer a blasphemer. In the interests of pos
sibly settling the issue, I would like to compare
two very different people who each consider
themselves a Christian.
The first one is named Jim. I’m sure many
who have been at this University for the past
year know who I am referring to. This roving
minister comes here near the beginning of
every year to tell all of us what horrible people
we are. He has called me a homosexual repeat
edly, refers to any young woman in a sorority as
being something that rhymes with 'hut’, and
tells us all that we are bound for hell unless we
change our sinful ways. He believes anyone
who has another faith, say a Jew or a Muslim -
will have to board the Amtrak and ride it down
to that hot place with the rest of us. He judges
everyone and proclaims himself to be without
sin, having been ‘saved by the power of the holy
spirit’.
The second one is a friend of mine, also
named Jim. He isn’t as publicly notorious as
the minister. He believes in God, in Christ, and
in salvation. He never judges or condemns
others for sinning and doesn’t believe he is sin
less. Quite the contrary, he is more concerned
Johnny
Laska
with what Jesus, in the Bible, referred to as
‘being concerned with the beam in his own eye
before removing the mote from his neighbor’s
eye’. He isn’t prejudiced against other religions,
and listens to other ideas besides his own. Even
when we disagree, there is no calling one an
other heretic.
These two represent the wide variety of the
millions of people in the world, and especially
in this country, who consider themselves to be
Christians. It would not be right to say that
‘Christians behave like so-and-so’ anymore
than it would to make any such stereotypical
statement about any group of people. A large
proportion of our nation is either Catholic or
one of the many Protestant sects. There are
many people represented here, some who be
have like the minister, others who take after
my friend.
I suspect the reason some people are opposed
to Christianity is that they associate the
worship of Jesus Christ with people like our
campus ministers or those naughty televangel
ists. However, these are not the whole of what
being a Christian is all about. They are hardly a
majority. My mother attends a seminary and
preaches at a church in a small town in Con
necticut, and I know most of the people in the
congregation. I have been to Lutheran, Cath
olic, and Methodist churches, and I’ve noticed
that for every hypocrite there is at least one
other person who is genuinely a very good
person. Most people are simply ordinary
human beings, just like all the rest of us.
And, in the final analysis, if you consult the
Bible, you will find that Christ commands us to
love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Also, in the book of John, chapter ten, Jesus
says that if we say we are without sin we de-
cieve ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Martin Luther, the Reformer, additionally be
lieved that Christians are not perfect, just for
given through the grace of God.
When you consider what the Bible has to say,
ask yourselves which of the two Jims is really
living more as Jesus would want, and then
think about who the real Christian is.
Johnny Laska is a columnist for The Red and
Black.
Military complex creates a new enemy
“How we handle this crisis will very much
shape the future world order in the wake of the
Cold War. We have to ask ourselves if we want
to live in the kind of world where this kind of
brutality is the norm." So stated foreign service
officer William A. Stanton at a town meeting
last month in Palo Alto, California. Mr. Stanton
was speaking for the Bush administration at
the town meeting. He was in effect stating that
war was likely and necessary to retaliate
against this kind of brutality against Kuwait.
There are many questions that this
statement brings to mind. Most of them deal
with the fact that the United States is not ac
customed to seeing events through a global
viewpoint. How large a threat is the Iraqi inva
sion of Kuwait to the world community? What
is the history of the grievances and issues in
this situation? If there had been no Western in
tervention, how would the Arab countries have
solved this problem? Instead of asking how are
the U.S., European, and Japanese oil supplies
affected, a more pertinent question would be
what kind of global oil policies could developed
nations and developing nations pursue in view
of dramatic environmental problems precip
itated by the use of petroleum products?
The list, of course, could go on. There are,
however, several major areas on which to focus.
A larger country has invaded and devastated a
very small country. There is no punishment or
retribution that will make up for this terrible
act. How can we go forward to keep similar cir
cumstances from arising again? Going to war
ourselves will only add to the brutality referred
to in the opening paragraph. Many people say
that in order to ensure the future we must re
move and/or kill Saddam Hussein.
Transposed to the larger context would we
then be obliged to remove and/or kill every
third rate dictator in the world? This could be
come embarrassing since our government and
the Central Intelligence Agency have installed
and/or assisted many brutal dictators including
Saddam Hussein.
The Cold War of the last 45 years is over.
Annie
Gibson
Psychologically we, as a nation, are in a very
precarious position. We have focused entirely
on one enemy for 45 years. That enemy is now
falling apart. And in a very few months we have
replaced one enemy for another. We have kept
the military-industrial complex fueled. The
precarious position is whether we will always
have an enemy on which to focus and thus deny
our own internal national problems or whether
we will mature as a nation.
This maturing process is similar to what mil
lions of recovering addicts have learned. As
people addicted to alcohol, other drugs, and
abusive relationships know, the first barrier to
work through is denial. The world is making
major shifts in political and economic thought.
What is emerging is that economics and envi
ronmental concerns top the survival list. Our
denial of this is evidenced by the U.S. as a
debtor nation and in decline ns far as educa
tion, infrastructure, and economic superiority
is concerned. We have no national energy policy
and indeed the Reagan/Bush administration
drastically cut funds to the Environmental Pro
tection Agency. This shift in thought need not
be a punitive one. We do not have to invalidate
our previous military efforts. We do need to be
come aware that the use of the military is our
primary coping skill. As such it has gotten out
of hand. With all the sophisticated weapons
systems and billions of dollars flowing into the
military budget, our coping skill is now dic
tating our behavior just as in the case of any ad
diction. Indeed, the process of calculating our
economic output, known as the gross national
product, actually began during World War II
during a purely military economy.
To move foward in the Gulf Crisis, we also
need to recognize our ignorance of the cultures
of the Middle East. In stating we will not nego
tiate or allow for saving face with Iraq, we deny
two important cultural necessities of the
Middle East. The Iraqis are not asking for spe
cial treatment. They are recognizing how busi
ness is done.
Speaking to the issue of negotiating, Rep
resentative Les Aspin, chairman of the Armed
Services Committee has stated that we should
be “creating opportunities, not foreclosing
them." If we were truly committed to a diplo
matic solution then we could arrive at a set
tlement that all parties could live with. We
would not cease until all countries involved
were satisfied. This would allow for much
better relationships following the crisis then if
there is armed conflict. No amount of scenario
planning can predict what will actually happen
in a war. Nor can it predict the geo-political
consequences that could arise.
What is emerging amidst all the dramatic
changes and shifts in our world? We see that it
is no longer enough to insure the security of our
nation and our allies. In fact, the very meaning
of security is being altered. Ecology, health,
economics, and education as well ns defense
and foreign policy are all components on which
security is based. Environmental and economic
survival require that all nations work cooper
atively to share the world’s resources and to in
sure a quality of life. The new reality is that
global interests and global needs encompass
our own needs. This perspective does not allow
for military posturing. Many nations of the
world came together in imposing economic
sanctions agninst Iraq. The sanctions represent
a blueprint for settling diputes. Let us support
the sanctions and other non-violent efforts as
we accept responsibility for our future.
Annie Gibson lives in Watkinsville and is a
member of Beyond War.
Gene Williams Complaint
■ FORUM
□ The Red and Black welcomes letters to the editor and prints them in the Forum
column as space permits. All letters are subject to editing for ler^th. style and li
belous material. Letters should be typed, doublespaced and must include the name,
address and daytime telephone number of the writer. Please include student classifi
cation, major, and other appropriate identification. Names can be omitted with a valid
reason upon request. Letters can be sent by U.S. mail or brought in person to The Red
and Black's offices at 123 N. Jackon St., Athens. Ga.
I was shocked to see Gene Wil
liams’ column (Nov.28) concerning
the 1993 Super Bowl placement
issue. I couldn’t believe that a
seemingly rational person like Wil
liams, or any American for that
matter, could propose that it’s
right for the NFL to influence state
policy, even against the majority
will of its citizens.
He suggests that it’s fine for the
NFL to review votes and then dole
out awards or punishments based
on alignment with its own views.
Does he think that every time we
go to the polls we should be over
shadowed by the thought “I don’t
know who td vote for. Who do you
think Paul Tagliabue (NFL Com
missioner) would vote for?
I guess he thinks the next logical
step would be for Paul Tagliabue
and Jesse Helms to get together
and award or retract franchises
from cities based on abortion rights
views or religious predominance,
etc. That is, of course, just as soon
as they decide what the course for
the nation should be
Derek A. Leonard
Junior, Pre-pharmacy