Newspaper Page Text
The Augusta News - Review January 26,1985,
Mallory K. MillenderEditor-Publisher
Paul Walker• Assistant to the Publisher
Georgene Hatcher-Seabrook'General Manager
Rev. R.E Donaldsoißeligion Editor
Mrs. Geneva Y. Gibson Church Coordinator
Charles Beale Jenkins County Correspondeni
Mrs. Fannie Johnson Aiken County Correspondent
Mrs. Clara WestMcDuffie County Correspondent
Mrs. Been Buchanan Fashion & Beauty Editor
Linda Starks-Andrews Reporter
Roosevelt Green Columnist
Al Irby. Columnist
Philip Waring Columnist
Marva Stewart Columnist
George Bailey....,Sports Writer
Carl McCoyEditorial Cartoonist
Oiando HamlettPhotographer
Roscoe Williams Photographer
“THE AUGUSTA NEWS-REVIEW (USPSB.B7B2O) is published
weekly for sll per year in the county and sl2 per year out ot the
county. Second-class postage paid at Augusta,GA POST
MASTER: Send address changes to THE AUGUSTA NEWS
REVIEW, P.O. Box 2123, Augusta, GA 30903-2121." (404) 722-4555
AMALGAMATED National Advertising Representative
FUBUSHERS/rNC. W
View from CapitolHitt
Looking calmly at nuclear
armstalks
by Gus Savage
Now that the euphoria resulting
from the unprecedented media
hpye surroundint the event has
subsided, it is
possible to
take a calm i
look at just
what occured
in Geneva!
recently when |
Secretary of3
State Georgej
Shultz and
Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko
sat down to talk about resuming
American-Soviet arms control
negotiations.
Both parties agree that a
decision was reached to reopen
arms talks in three separate areas:
long-range intercontinental balistic
missiles systems (sometimes
referred to as strategic weapons);
medium-range missiles systems
(often called intermediate
weapons); and space-based defense
systems (popularly known as “star
wars” weapons).
Based upon latest developments,
it now appears that this is all that
was agreed upon. Period.
American officials and obser
vers, however, came away from
Geneva glowing about how
Reagan’s deployment of Pershing
II and cruise missiles in Western
Europe in/1983 had forced the
Soviets back to the conference
table with no strings attached, and
how they had agreed to discuss
defensive systems without the
United States retreating from its
stated determination to test and
deplov such systems. In other
words, our spokespersons bragged
that the Soviets had agreed to
come back to the bargaining table
on our terms -a clear-cut victory
for Reagan’s get-tough policy.
Then, on January 14, a week af
ter Shultz and Gromyko first sat
down in Geneva, the Soviet prime
minister held a rare televised press
conference in Moscow and presen
ted an entirely different picture of
the Geneva meeting.
Gromyko declared that con
tinued deployment of U.S. missiles
in Europe would jeopardize the
coming arms negotiations. He
further stated that progress in
future talks was directly related to
American testing and deployment
of the “stars wars” system.
“If no progress is made on
questions of space,” he said, “it
would be superfluous to talk about
the possibility of reducing strategic
armaments.”
Additionally, American officials
had indicated that progress in any
one of the three areas was not
necesarily restricted by progress in
another area. Gromyko, on the
other hand, stated: “Without
reaching an accord, simultaneous
and interrelated in all three direc
tions, there can be no advancement
in the realization of what was
agreed upon in Geneva.”
The extent to which the Soviets
and the Americans disagree in
principle going into the new talks is
probable best symbolized by the
way the two sides view the so
called “star wars” system.
The Soviets seem to believe .that
>*«•■*■ ...
Support your local
| UNCF school
Page 4
the very idea of attempting at this
stage to develop defensive systems
against nuclear arms is
destabilizing. Kremlin strategists
agree the “star wars” approach
helps to create the idea that a
defensive deterrence against
nuclear destruction is possible,
thus weakening belief in the concept
the only deterrence available is the
ability of the United States and the
Soviet Union to destroy each
other. The Soviets have stated
that the only way to move away
from reliance on offensive
deterrence against war is the
elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Theorists who support the
Soviet view argue further that
belief in deterrence through defen
sive systems promotes adventurism
by encouraging one of the super
powers to believe that superior
defensive weapons could provide it
with the ability to engage in
blackmail, or with the power to
launch a first strike without fear of
equal, effective retaliation.
The Reagan administration, on
the other hand, believes that the
time has come to develop a system
which would make offensive
nuclear weapons obsolete. As the
President puts it: “We should
build weapons which destroy
weapons, not weapons which
destroy people.”
The international scientific
community, however, seems to be
of the opinion that the technology
is not available to develop the type
of defensive systems that would
make offensive nuclear weapons
obsolete, and that to attempt such a
thing at this stage would probably
bankrupt the ecohomies of both
the United States and the Soviet
Union. These experts point out
that even if we and the Soviets suc
ceed in developing a workable
“star wars” defensive system, it
would have to be 100 percent effec
tive to change the method of 1
deterrence from offensive to
defensive.
In my opinion, the defensive
systems concept should not be
discarded entirely. Just because
defensive systems might not ever
be wholly effective against massive
offensive nuclear weapons, it does
not mean that such defensive
systems could not serve a purpose
in a world where offensive
weapons had been radically scaled
down or eliminated. If radical
reduction or elimination of offen
sive nuclear weapons occured, and
both sides possessed effective
defensive systems or if such
systems existed under the control
of a world body then deterrence
could be shipped from the offen
sive capability of mutual destruc
tion to the capability of mutual
defense.
This mutuality of defense would
exist as much to deter other adven
turous nations and terrorists as to
keep Soviet and American am
bitions in check.
However, if the scientists are
correct, none of this is possible
without first halting the offensive
arms race and beginning the pain
staking process of reducing the
stockpiles of death already in
place.
\ / IFOUR \
\ / f MORE, \
\ / \ TEARS/ )
\ / RONALD O
\ / REAGAN, D 0...
©nee black fzesomzces imc-
Walking With Dignity
William Gray captures Budget Chairman post
by Al Irby
Philadelphia’s Rep. William H.
Gray 111 captured the all
important post of House Budget
Committee chairman by a skillful
campaign that
caught better-1
known can
didates nap
ping. He be-l
comes the top
ranking Black
congressman in
the nation.
Congressman
rj
'■Sk - ■
OTWBn
Gray sought help from the House
leadership early and even gathered
some conservative ‘boll weevil’
Democrats into his camp. He
would also appear to be a staunch
White House opponent. The
liberal congressman has helped
defend federal spending for
education and welfare against the
Reagan budget knife in his past
two years as a back bencher on the
House Budget Committee.
The handsome Rev. Gary
replaces Rep. James R. Jones (D)
Civil Rights Journal
Shielding corporate murderers
by Charles E. Cobb
The right to punish or seek
redress from those who injure us
has been a tenet of most societies
throughout history. There is an
inconsistency,
however. Those
who advocate
harsh penalties
for convicted
murderers do
not demand
the same
punishment for
■
corporate criminals whose crimes
have had an even more devastating
effect.
A recent decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court heightens this in
consistency. The Court
unanimously decided that the
owner of a toxic waste site was
protected from an order to asume
the costs of cleaning up his dump
because he had filed for jjersonal
bankruptcy.
To Be Equal
The battle of the budget
by John E. Jacob
The battle of the 1986 budget is
heating up fast, and the results will
have a tremendous impact on all
Americans, but
:specially on
poor people.
Programs ben
nefiting thej
poor have, in
fecent years,'
been offered as
sacrifices to
the war gods
t'JMk *
ir '
and this year is no exception.
Faced with massive deficits, the;
Adminstration is proposing to cut
some $34 billion out of domestic
spending programs. About a four
th of that total-over $6 billion—
would come from programs that
directly serve the poor.
And despite considerable talk
among conservative Congressmen,
business interests, and others that
the Defense budget is far out of line
and ought to be trimmed, the Ad
ministration plans to continue the
relentless rise in military spending.
Such limitless spending does not
necessaily enhance our national
security. In fact, many believe it
of Oklahoma, a moderate to con
servative who was prevented from
running because of tenure rules for
the committee. Rev. Gray said of
the Reagan plan as revealed so far,
“Jif it was shipped up here today,
it would be DOA--dead on
arrival.”
But the articulate Baptist
minister-lawmaker is capable of
surprises, as his budget chairman
ship victory reveals. While other
hopefuls held back, awaiting a
House decision on whether to ex
tend the terms for Budget Commit
tee members, the good clergy set
his eye on the post months ago and
quickly began seeking supporters.
He sought help from me House
leadership early and even gathered
some conservative along the way,
so that by late last year, other
would-be-contenders awoke to the
realization that minister had
already outflanked them.
When the vote came, no one op
posed him. Even colleagues who
had preferred others were ap
plauding the political skill of the
After the terribie illnesses and
deaths which resulted from im
proper use and storage of chemical
wastes at Times Beach and Love
Canal, the need for such cleanup
was, of course, never was in
question. Instead, a New York
Times article implied, it was the
sanctity of the Bankruptcy laws
which was being upheld in this
case.
Hiding behind the bankruptcy
statutes is not a new trick. When
the Johns-Manville Company, a
major producer of cnacer-causing
asbestos, was faced with thousands
of lawsuits, the company simply
took the easy way out - they filed
for bankruptcy. The company will
therefore have to pay only a por
tion of each claim filed.
Documents released during a
1978 Congressional hearing
clearly show that, even in the early
1930’5, Johns-Manville and other
asbestos producers were well aware
further endangers it. And giving
the Pentagon the key to the
Treasury undermines a nation’s
strongest weapon—a flourishing
economy.
A former President who was
also a great general, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, once said: “There is
no way in which a country can
satisfy the craving for absolute
security-but it can bankrupt itself,
morally and economically, in at
tempting to reach the illusory goal
through arms alone.”
Somebody ought to print that in
large type on the title page of the
Defense Department’s budget
submission.
There’s no getting away from
the fact that the soaring federal
deficit is due to the combination of
the sweeping tax cuts passed inl9Bl
and the rapidly escalating defense
budget. As has so often been poin
ted out, not enough money can be
cut from domestic programs to
make a difference in the deficit.
And further cuts in poor
people’s programs would be un
conscionable given the massive
fourth-term ‘Man-of-the-cloth’
'from the “City of Brotherly
Love.” Although his vote record
is almost Simon-pure liberal.
Congressman Gray is no
ideologue. He has always been the
type of person who says ‘Let’s see
what we can do.’ Gray convinced
the Black Caucus to go along with
the House budget plan of 1983,
despite cutbacks that the Caucus
opposed.
Republicans have mixed
emotions about the new chairman,
who has a reputation for being
a willing listener to all sides. “I
think he will be a fair chairman in
allowing people to expres views,”
said Rep. Thomas Loaffler (R) of
Texas, who has served with him on
the committee. But the conser
vative Representative Loaffler also
said, “I can see the committe
becoming even more liberal than in
past sessions.”
The polite Rev. Gray responsed
to the “too liberal” complaint of
of the hazards of asbestos. They
did all in their power to suppress
medical evidence about the
stomach, cancers and incurable
lung disorders which employee
medical exams were uncovering in
astounding numbers.
This is more than a question of
fines and bankruptcy statutes,
however. What is really at issue
here is equality of law. Clearly, it
is much easier for society to deal
swiftly with the murderer of one
store owner during a robbery than
it is to punish the corporate giants
whose actions result in the suf
fering and death of thousands.
Our minds are often unable to
comprehend the magnitude of this
greater guilt.
How can we adequately
respond, for example, to the
Johns-Manville medical director
who callously tells us that his com
pany didn’t put warning labels on
insulation containing asbestos
cuts that have already been made
in them, and gives the reality that
every such program could be
i totally eliminated and the deficit
would still be in the stratosphere.
The Administration’s 1986
budget proposal includes
elimination of the Job Corps and
the Legal Services Corporation,
and cuts in Head Start three
programs that are universally
agreed to have been successful.
Other cuts would result in
500,000 low income pregnant
women and infants and children
losing food supplements. Older
poor people would have their
social security supplemental
benefits cut. And million of other
who depend on fool stamps,
welfare benefits and other survival
programs would be victims
of lower federal spending levels.
This repeats the pattern of past
years, in which the 35 million poor
face sacrifices not sought from the
majority who continue to enjoy the
benefits of an economic recovery
that excludes the poorest citizens
and tax loopholes that don’t affect
Republicans with a smile and tljis
statement, “They might be quite'
surprised.” “I would remind
them—that Richard Nixon went to
China.” The new Budget Com
mittee chairman struck a moderate
pose after his election, as he called
for reducing federal spending and
vowed to be a “consensus
builder.”
Possibly the good minister’s
most serious challenge beside the
budget deficit will be satisfying his
home district, an 80 percent Black
urban and largely poor area where
federal domestic programs are
popular. He already has faced
criticism for his attention to third
world countries, including South
Africa.
But the alert clergy keeps close
tabs with his supporters and retur
ns weekly to expound the Gospel at
‘Bright Hope Baptist Church in
North Philadelphia, where the
3,000-member congregation
provided the core of support that
launched his political career.
because: (Quote) “...if the ap
plication of a caution label iden
tifying a product as hazardous
would cut out sales, there would be
serious financial im
plications .’’(Unquote)
We can no longer permit such
wanton corporate criminality to go
unpunished. If the federal
bankruptcy laws offer corporate
officials protection from financial
responsibility, then Congress must
move quickly to amend these laws.
But fines are not enough. What
price should we put, for instance,
on the thousands killed and
maimed by the Union Carbide
disaster in Bhopal, India?
Industrial murderers should be
no more shielded from criminal
prosecution than are other
criminals. Certainly jail sentences
will not bring back the dead, but
they can act as a deterrent against
future corporate disregard for the
well-being of our citizens.
the poor.
There’s something very wrong
about this brutal, persistent cam
paign against the handful of
relatively modest programs that
enable poor families to survive and’
offer at least a modicum of hope
and opportunities for the disad
vantaged.
And there’s something very
short-sighted about fiscal policies
that savagely slash investments in
our greatest asset —human resour
ces, while squandering many
billions on wasteful and excessive
military spending.
The new chairman of the House
Budget Committee, Rep. William
Gray, has indicated that the Ad
ministration budget would be
"‘dead on arrival” in Congress. So
there are hopeful signs that
responsible lawmakers see the
current deficit as being dangerous
to the nation’s economic health
and will refuse to accept a budget
that continues irresponsible spen
ding while unfairly punishing poor
people who were victimized in
previous battles of the budget .