Page 4 EDITORIAL Beware The clean-up, paint-up, fix-up campaign which is underway in most communities of the Back Mountain, and held concurrently in many other communities across the nation, is one way to im- prove the appearance and ecology of our area. Unfortunately, it is during this time of the year that ‘“‘racketeers’”’ are provided an excellent op- portunity to prey on the pride of homeowners who want to keep their property in good condition. According to the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Pennsylvanians get taken for millions of dollars by these home improvement hucksters each year, particularly in the area of roofing and siding. We remember that just last year one of our best-known and loved residents was ‘‘rooked’’ for a considerable amount of money for an inferior roofing job. Homeowners are advised by the consumer bureau and the Chamber of Commerce to keep in mind a few basic rules when planning im- provement projects. These include: Check the reliability of the contractor you want to use with individuals for whom he has done work. Get written estimates from several contractors. Do not sign any contract before you read and fully understand it, nor any contract which has blank spaces left. Make certain the guarantee is in writing and that it spells out all details clearly including the period for which the guarantee will be in effect. Make certain that the contract includes in writing all promises contractor who asked you to pay in cash or in ad- vance. Usual procedures provide for payment on the job are completed. If you are asked to sign a certificate stating that the work has been com- pleted, do not sign unless the work has actually been finished to your satisfaction. The great majority of home improvement firms are legitimate, but homeowners should beware of any firm that offers a deal ‘‘too good to be true’”’—It probably is just that! Re ~ The attempted assassination of George Wallace is the latest in a series of violent political Kennedy, and Martin Luther King come to mind immediately, but there have been more. Jock Yablonsky, George Lincoln Rockwell, Malcolm X, President Diem, the Bank of America, Kent State, Jackson State, a church in Birmingham, school ‘busses in Michigan, Medgar Evers, and others of varying notoriety and-or obscurity. The list is itself a cliche. It will no doubt grow longer. To deplore, as we do, this attempt on George Wallace’s life isn’t enough, because to the majority of human beings in this country murder is deplorable, yet it continues. Not only does it con- tinue, but it seems to be gaining popularity as a means of political and social expression. ; { Choose, if you like, to lapse once again into thoeries that condemn the availability of guns in our society or the popularity of violence in the media. But while you are doing this, remember that it was the administration of John Kennedy, himself assassinated, which engineered the assassination of President Diem of Vietnam. These acts cannot be judged separately. Neither can the burning of the Bank of America and the napalming of Vietnam villages. Insist on viewing the slaughter at My Lai and the killings at Kent State in- dependently and you are fooling yourself. They all come from the same source. We are a nation that deplores violence while officially sanctioning the same. We can continue differentiating between good murder and bad murder, but on an absolute level there is no such distinction. We build and use more and more weapons for national security, and this is patriotic. A man uses a gun for reasons of personal security, and this is criminal. Wherein lies the difference? Changes Another presidential campaign and the nightmare returns. The gunshots. heard over the TV, have a dreamlike quality, not par- ticularly loud or alarming. They would go unnoticed except that the candidate, who a second earlier was smiling and shaking hands, is collapsing. There is panic. The assailant is immediately overwhelmed, but too late. The omnipresent cameras hover over the fallen candidate who lies un- conscious, suddenly isolated from the crowd, sprawled in his own blood in a small clearing surrounded by confusion and despair. While George Wallace lay in that shop- ping center in Maryland, his followers were initiated ' into the horror, frustration and anger that Robert Kennedy’s followers knew four years ago in a kitchen in Los Angeles. At the time of this writing Gov. Wallace’s doc- tors, are characterizing his recovery as remarkable so perhaps, at long last, luck has shifted away from the assassins. But one is reminded by the incredible and incongruous similarities of the two shootings that violence favors no ideology. The most irreconcilable of adversaries both succumb readily to the logic The shooting raises some grim questions. What kind of a free society can we have when a gun-toting madman wields a final veto over millions of voters? Isn’t it safe anymore to speak out? Must our political leaders take a passionless, do-nothing, middle course or risk assassination? Worst of all, why this plague of murders and attempted murders and how can they be prevented? There can be no doubt that fear is at the root of much of Wallace’s support. Long before Spiro Agnew became a household word, George Wallace was recognizing and dealing with people’s growing concern over crime. From behind his bullet proof podium. men for people to focus their fear and anger on. He attacked the ‘lawless element of society’, peace demonstrators and Blacks (though the media -is busily forgetting the racist issue for us). But when the assassin George Wallace feared for so long finally struck, he was neither Black nor radical. Called a ‘‘quiet” young man by his parents, well dressed, short haired, he blended in- conspicuously with the crowd of Wallace TRB Secrecy leads to self-deception. If you want proof of that overlooked political axiom, then look at the way we have gotten involved with a secret mercenary army in Laos. It all started off not so innocently a decade ago when the Central Intelligence Agency recruited, directed and supported an army of Meo tribesmen to keep Laos from : going Communist. It was like having a Gurkha army of our own, only no one knew we had it and thus nobody cared that we were getting ever more involved in a war in Laos. It was all going along splendidly until the CIA sent General Vang Pao and his army off on an ilifated offensive last spring. The Meo “irregulars’ got chewed up; they had about 10 percent casualties. That might not have been too bad except there were no more tribesmen to recruit in Laos. So the CIA started recruiting mercenaries in Thailand, only it called them ‘‘volunteers.”’” Now the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has commitment to finance an army of 10,000 Thai “volunteers” fighting in Laos. The Thai like it because they are getting good pay as well as extra military assistance from the United States. Presumably the Lao like it because the Meo and Thai can do the fighting. But what about the ‘Congress and the poor American taxpayer who never knew they were running up a $100 million annual bill in Laos? And what does it say about the present moral character of a nation that 200 years ago won its independence fighting Hessian mercenaries? Put aside all the moral, geopolitical and Thissa 'n Thatta by H. H. Null, IIT It just might be, that big business and big labor are getting a little closer to the ideal partnership, which would permit the United States to put her best foot forward in in- ternational trade. There are signs here and there that the old attitude of radical labor leadership—that the country’s corporations and corporations and businesses are trying to grind the workers down into peonage and that nothing will help but a national revolution— has gradually been overcome by sensible elements in the unions and that it has become possible for labor leaders to say a good word for the American Susten without being booed out of office or hanged in effigy. I have acquired this cheerful attitude as the result of a recent statement of George Meany who said that some way must be found to avoid future strikes—that there must be a better way of settling labor disputes. Also vention by Hunter Wharton, president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, warning union members that low productivity of workers can result in loss of work-to non- union employers. "For many years, labor leaders just didn’t make such public statements, doubtless because they believed they would lose support from the rank and file workers. To me this is a significiant change. I think that this change can be accounted for mainly by a gradual increase in educational levels of the workers which has come about through various causes. The families of the mainly unlettered immigrant of 40 years ago have grown up, and are much supporters. He is said to have favored Humphrey. If we could distinguish criminals by their skin color or style of dress or by whether or not they were registered Democrats, there would be no law and order problem. But crime, as these shootings have so clearly demonstrated, is unfortunately complex. Despite all the uproar over radicals none of the assassins of the past 10 years have been affiliated with political groups. (And until now the violence that conservatives fret so much over has confined itself to liberals.) Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald were mentally deranged individuals in the same mold as Richard Speck and Charley Manson. Incompetent as human beings they sought to assert themselves through murder. It is possible that the killers themselves were unaware of the real motive (if any) behind their actions. It is the unpredictability and senselessness of such crime that is so frightening. Is the death penalty a deterrent? It is to you or me. But then we would never seriously consider murdering someone to begin with. A mind that can accept the notion of murder is not likely to be bothered by any threat of death. Besides, what criminal really believes he will be executed? For practical purposes death is quite incomprehensible. The threat of life imprisonment might be more easily understood, but I wonder if there is any threat that can affect a diseased mind? We talk about beefing up the police force, about being tougher on criminals, but are such actions really the answer? George Wallace was protected by secret service men and his own bodyguard of Alabama State troopers. Certainly his would-be killer knew that by approaching to within a few yards of the governor he was condemning himself to capture and lifelong imprisonment. How is it possible to stop this kind of individual? We can interfere with the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, we can use wiretaps, gather secret dossiers, employ suviellance and mass arrests at demonstrations, propose no-knock and preventative detention laws without any effect whatsoever on the real criminals in our society. Criminals are not political animals. It is interesting to note that during Richard Nixon's three-year reign crime has increased by 30 percent, according to official FBI statistics. It should be obvious that factors which deter the normal individual from crime will not deter the deranged individual. The rising tide of crime will not recede until sucllictor as poverty, overcrowding, racial tensions and so on are lessened. The sickening attack on Gov. Wallace points out, once again, that crime has nothing to do with the bogey men and facile explanations presented to us by the law-and-order advocates. We will always have criminals. Every necessarily give rise to less uncontrollable criminal personalities. (Why is it that in London, where the police do not even use guns, you can still walk the streets at night in safety?). The idea of rebuilding our society to prevent crime at its source is not emotionally appealing. The emotions call for revenge. However it is the only reasonable solution and the sooner we recognize that fact (iy better. 20% 7 7 0 lr financial considerations. It’s also a disturbing case of the evils of secrecy in our government and Congress. Secrecy provides a way to subvert the constitutional checks and balances on the war powers. Oh sure, the CIA informed a few members of the Appropriations Committee. But then it intimidated them by explaining it was so rest of Congress. After that the privileged few didn’t even bother to raise questions--that was until Sen. Stewart Symington and his Foreign Relations Subcommittee came along and started poking around in the secret war in Laos. Even now the State Department and CIA won't ‘fess up to what they are doing with the Thai mercenaries. The reason is that Congress last year passed a law prohibiting the use of defense funds to help third-country forces fight in support of the Laotian or Cambodian governments. If all the facts were made public, it would be evident that the executive branch was violating the law. It’s easy enough to blame the executive branch for its secrecy. Everybody knows-- including President Nixon, who issued a new executive order on classification recently-- that the government business is weighted down with excessive secrecy. There's probably no cure unless bureaucrats are punished for over-classification, and nobody is about to do that. But much of the blame must be placed on Congress for the way it has tolerated secrecy even within its own ranks. For all its criticism of the executive branch, Congress really likes secrecy. At least those in power do because secrecy means power. “If you only knew what I knew” makes a senator very important in his own eyes and in the eyes of his colleagues. It also is a very good argument to silence any upstart who dares question ‘the wisdom of the Ap- propriations Committee or: the Armed Ser- vices: Committee. » If you want a bewildering example; take the case of Sen. Symington. One day he is issuing a statement deploring the executive branch’s secrecy on the Thai mercenaries. The next day he is on the Senate floor questioning whether secrets should be given to members of Congress except those on the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Atomic Energy committees. Sen. Symington, it should be pointed out, is the only member of all three committees. Or take the case of Bella Abzug, who had the temerity to introduce a resolution of inquiry demanding information on how many bombs we are dropping in Indochina. From the horrified look on the face of Eddie Hebert, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, you would have thought Cong. Abzug wanted to reveal the secrets of the A- bomb. But really his consternation was over the fact that she was challenging the power of the Armed Services Committee which wants to keep such information locked up in its own safes. Secrecy is also a convenient way for Congress to avoid responsibility it really doesn’t like. “Only the President has access to all the secret information and he must know what is right.” That's a common refrain around Capitol Hill these days when the President is getting us deeper int@ the Viet- nam war. It’s also an easy way to@¥ide behind the President and duck responsibility. Maybe Sen. Mike Gravel, with his maverick ways, is finally forcing Congress to face up to the problem. Hp: tried the other day to‘place in the ‘Congressional Record a copy gf a still secret national security memora¥um that Henry Kissinger had prepared back in 1969 on the Vietnam options open to the Nixon Ad- ministration. It was enough to send the Senate sputtering into two days of secret sessions. The basic objection was that Sen. Gravel would be violating the law by making public a document classified secret. Then to the amazement of the senators, it turned out that there was no law specifically authorizing the executive branch to classify information. The whole secrecy system, it turns out, just rests on implied powers assumed by the executive branch. The whole security system obviously is not going to come tumbling down. Nor should it. But once Congress starts questioning it, maybe it will begin to realize that Sen. Gravel has a point when he argues that Congress also can determine what information should be made public. Right now it’s reached the point of absurdity; the Senate sends its debates in secret session down to the executive branch to be declassified. ) . Congress ought to understand Mh it need not be such a willing, acquiescent partner in a secrecy system that leads not only to deception but to the impotence of Congress. better able than their parents or grand- parents to understand many things such as American History, American economics and America’s position in regard to the rest of the world. They have received, if they wated to, as good an education as could be had and they are fully fitted to consider themselves as part of the economy. They are no longer, on an average, stupid tools of agitators and demagogues and have acquired the intelligence and ability to examine both sides of a question. They are getting back to the essential fairness of an early demand for a ‘‘fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.” | Hunter Wharton, leader of the 400,000 man operating engineers talked to his con- vention like a Dutch uncle and told them that “The large increase gained for your respective memberships was a fine job, but I wonder how many of those fabulous increases were more due to the necessity of expedience on the part of the employer than our ability as negotiatots.’”’ He went on that ‘had productivity in- creased as wages began to rise, we wouldn’t now be faced with some of our present-day problems. Besides the growth of non- unionized construction, owners, bankers, government agencies and employers associations have all formed alliances to counteract the activities of the construction trades.” According to Mr. Wharton, productivity gains are an answer to these problems. ‘Our leaders can no longer demand and have standby labor on the job so as to create a job for those who have no desire to work for their pay.” As a detached observer of the state of the nation, it seems to me that some of the big unions are gradually achieving knowledge and integrity and that the membership has achieved a high enough standard of in- telligence and fairness to cooperate with a leadership which governs in accordance with these principles. Unions conducted like the United Mine Workers are an archaism that has not been permitted to catch up with current union conditions and thought. Mr. Wharton and Mr. Meany are telling their members that the days of violence and featherbedding must end and that union members must cooperate with other sectors of the economy unless they prefer a different form of government which will probably prove unfavorable to labor. This optimistic viewpoint will hardly be shared by the owners and managers of a few small companies in Lackawanna County, who have recently been forced by violence and excessive union demands to move their operations to other parts of the nagian where they are led to expect a oe climate. ; Meanwhile jobs have been lost, the rest of us will have to take care of the financial necessities of the displaced workers through our taxes and charities and Lackawanna County gains prominence and publicity as a good county for industry to stay away from. With such incalculable damage before our eyes, it is hard to believe that nationally, labor is steering a more reasonalbe and common-sense course, but I still believe that to be the case. After all, Lackawanna County is only a small part of the labor scene and if a part (a small part, I believe) of its labor choosest to harm not only local labor, but the rest of us who make our homes here, there is little to be done about it. Except, perhaps, to reflect that tie recent regrettable occurence may serve aa lesson to those who are still dependent on labor for their livelihoods. They may recall the old fable of the goose and her golden eggs. Editor emeritus: Mrs. T.M.B. Hicks Editor: Doris R. Mallin News editor: Shawn Murphy Advertising: Carolyn Gass = eT. 9
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers