Your account does not include highlighter on images.
Searches Highlighted on Image
| October 14, 1971 Shelton Mason County Journal |  |
|
©
Shelton Mason County Journal. All rights reserved. Upgrade to access Premium Tools
PAGE 4 (4 of 30 available) PREVIOUS NEXT Jumbo Image Save To Scrapbook Set Notifiers PDF JPG
October 14, 1971 |
|
|
Website © 2025. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Request Content Removal | About / FAQ | Get Acrobat Reader 
|
The manifestations of national paranoia change with the
times. But the mills of reason grind slowly.
It took 21 years for the Congress to repeal the despicable
Title II of the Internal Security Act of 1950, a product of the
times when Senator Joe McCarthy and other public officials
induced fear in the populace with their rantings that
communists were behind every American bush.
The statute allowed the government, in times of national
emergency, to jail persons solely on the basis of suspicion,
with no right to presumption of innocence, no right of trial,
no right to cross-examine, and no requirement of evidence or
witnesses.
The precedent for the outrageous law had been set during
World War II when the government locked up 112,000
Japanese-Americans in ten detention centers.
The hysteria of 1942 Which permitted the Crime with
virtually no dissent, was epitomized by a statement by
General John DeWitt, the officer in charge of the evacuation.
"You needn't worry about the Italians at all except in
certain cases," said DeWitt in 1943. "Also, the same for the
Germans in individual cases. But we must worry about the
Japanese all the time until he is wiped out."
When hysteria subsided and reason returned, it seemed
incredible that the American people could have accepted
such a completely false, completely racist description of a
segment of our population which, probably more than any
other, displayed the qualities of hard work, ingenuity and
perseverance supposedly recognized as the mainstays of our
society.
But panic and fear blot out reason. How else explain why
four presidents, with escalating hysteria, could convince
Americans that destroying first one country, and then three,
in Southeast Asia was in the national interest?
How else explain why a country which prides itself on its
sense of fair play pays more than two billion dollars to hire
South Korean mercenaries to slaughter Vietnamese civilians
in numbers that make My Lai look like a Sunday school
picnic and then denies responsibility for their actions because
there is no unified command in Vietnam?
How else explain why presidents who are neither believed
in nor believed by the majority of the people are allowed to
continue the immoral carnage year after year after year?
The national ego has temporarily replaced hysteria as the
cause of the continuing Southeast Asia debacle, but reason is
beginning to emerge and, given a few more years, may bring
an end to the tragedy.
With the ebbing of the yellow peril fever, however,
another program of paranoia is being pushed by officials who
hope to stay in office by promising to save us from yet
another hobgoblin.
Doors are locked, guns are bought and fear grips the vitals
as the latest menace - blacks, the young, the poor and
(thrown in for good measure) long hair and rock music - is
paraded before the public.
Thus, the executions-without-trial at Kent State and
Jackson State are accepted by a fearful citizenry as victories
in the fight for law and order and preservation of our way of
life.
Thus, Congress passes "no-kiaock" legislation which
abridges the individual rights without which our way of life is
indistinguishable from the tyrannies we supposedly abhor.
Thus, the vocal approval of the following remark, quoted
verbatim, made in a local coffee shop following an anti-war
demonstration in Seattle: "If they'd shoot every son of a
bitch on that street there'd never be another one."
The remark is strikingly similar to that made by General
DeWitt in 1943. Let's hope the mills of reason grind it
exceeding fine in less than 28 years.
We solve our problems in this country by ignoring them
until an old fellow wearing a black robe pounds a gavel and says
the rules have changed.
After that - sometimes, at least - we go to work and do
something about them.
This week anybody with an interest in the public schools
will be pondering the decision that was handed down Monday
by a group of black-robed gentlemen in California.
Financing public schools through local property taxes, said
the California Supreme Court, is unconstitutional.
California, like our own state, has been trying to run 20th
Century schools with a 19th Century form of taxation. The
result is that a kid from a district with a big tax base gets a
better break than a kid from a low-tax-base area.
The same sort of legal challenge would make sense in our
state.
Washington's constitution guarantees an equal education
for all children. It declares that education is a responsibility of
the entire state.
But local property taxes pay the bills. Elaborate efforts at
"equalization" have proved a farce, and your tax bill is clearly
determined by the district in which you live.
Up to now, the Legislature has failed to resolve the
problem. The citizens, by turning down proposals for tax
reform, have rejected any change.
rernaps it wtll ta :e action by the courts to push us into a
better way of paying the costs of education.
from the Bainbridge Review
Mailing Address: Box 430, Shelton, Wa. 98584 Phone 426-4412
EDITOR AND PUBLISHER ...................... Henry G. Gay
THIS liOT[ IS Lt6,4t. 1[WD[I~
FOR 4tt DEBTS. P4BLI¢ Alto PR~^T[
A 58398 A 8 IE
A58398AgI
WASH ING~rON, D.C.
1
By ROBERT C. CUMMINGS
Talk of a one.day special
legislative session to extend
unemployment compensation
benefits became pointless even
before Gov. Dan Evans repeated a
previous statement on the issue.
He reiterated that he wouldn't
call the law-makers back unless
the Democrats, who advocated
the one-day session, came up with
a plan to provide the money. But
before the Governor said this, all
chances of a one-day session
already had gone down the tube.
After House Democrats
agreed almost unanimously to
hold their session to a single day,
the majority leadership had served
notice that if a special session
were called, the Republicans
would insist upon tightening
eligibility requirements for
unemployment compensation.
That should have ended all talk of
a one-day session right there. It
would be impossible to reach
agreement on the touchy
eligibility question in a single day.
The law-makers weren't able to
agree in 120 days the last time
this subject came up.
Calculated Risk
There has been some talk of
the Democratic legislators
showing up in Olympia regardless,
to "show their good faith." It
would be a sort of "rump"
legislative session. But such a
demonstration would involve
certain risks.
If many Democratic
law-makers, after having second
thoughts, should fail to show up,
the plan could fall flat on his face.
Even if a substantial majority
came, the attempt to embarrass
the Governor still might backfire.
In politics, these are the kind
of chances a candidate takes when
he thinks he is losing. Democratic
chances of coming out on top in
next year's elections look pretty
good in this state. Any dramatics
at this time would seem
unnecessary, as well as risky.
Mechanical Problem
Even if the Governor and all
148 legislators were to agree on a
one-day session, the mechanics
involved would make such an
accomplishment difficult. The
shortest special session ever held
was in 1920, during the Louis F.
Hart administration. Republicans
had the governorship and
overwhelming majorities in both
houses of the Legislature.
To be enacted into law were a
bonus for veterans of World War
I, a revenue bill for schools, and a
5-miU limit on the amount of
property taxes which could be
spent for support of state
government. (In those days,
property taxes paid virtually all
costs of government).
Virtually unanimous
agreement was reached in advance
on all three measures. Still the
law-makers weren't able to
complete the job in a single day.
It took them three, and they
didn't have any irreconcilable
differences such as eligibility
requirements standing in the way
of agreement.
Home With The Bacon
Fears that Washington's new
bacon packaging law might
conflict with the federal meat
inspection act have been
confirmed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. But
State Agriculture Director Don
Moos is proceeding with
regulations for enforcing the 1971
Washington act, and will hold
public hearings on the proposed
rules in Seattle, October 26.
The law takes effect next
January 1. The regulations are
expected to require that in all
ready-wrapped bacon packages, at
E
1984
,al tender for the New Prosperity
(Clip and save - you'll need it)
Page 4 - Shelton-Mason County Journal - Thursday, October 14, 1971
least one full strip of bacon be
fully visible so a purchaser can see
the quality he is buying.
• Despite the conflict with
federal law, Moos is counting on a
federal court decision involving
the labeling of Turbet, a North
Atlantic fish, as halibut. The
federal court sustained
Washington and Oregon
regulations against such labeling
on grounds the federal
government hadn't acted in this
matter and the states had the
right to protect their residents.
Federal regulations also are
lacking in regards to bacon
packaging, so Moos is proceeding
in the hope that the halibut
decision will prevail, also, for
bacon.
Eyes On Law School
Recent controversies over
admission policies of the
University of Washington School
of Law are beginning to attract
the attention of Legislators. Since
a King County Superior Court
ordered the University to admit a
previously-rejected resident
student, an $80,000 damage claim
has been filed against the
University on behalf of a second
student.
Parents of the student, both
University of Washington
graduates and residents and
taxpayers for 50 years, contend
their daughter, who was fully
qualified, was rejected because
preference was given less qualified
applicants from out of state.
They seek $30,000, the
estimated additional cost of
sending their daughter to an
out-of-state law school for three
years, and $50,000 damages on
contention that attendance at an
out-of-state school-will handicap
her in her desire to practice law in
this state. The damage claim also
states that all other schools at the
University, except the school of
law, give preference to resident
students.
Some legislators already have
said that unless the admission
policies at the law school are
changed, the Legislature will act.
No New Laundromat Tax
The Legislative Council's
Committee on Revenue and
Regulatory Agencies hasn't acted
yet, but it is expected to reject a
proposal that it exempt
coin-operated machines in
laundromats from the sales tax,
and levy instead a flat tax of $5
per machine. Testimony at a
recent hearing brought out figures
showing the change would cost
the state $1 million in revenue.
Proponents of the plan
suggested that the $5 tax also be
imposed on coin-operated
machines in apartment houses
and motels, which presently are
untaxed. But other testimony was
to the effect that this wouldn't be
feasible; that they would be hard
to find, and the cost of collection
would exceed the revenue
involved.
The Fla
By STEVE ERICKSON
Something was very wrong on the freeway up ahead. A
front wheel had spun off a dilapidated sedan and now
loomed in the center of a lane. The other lane - mine - was
occupied by a hubcap and a youth retrieving it.
Beside me a small car had stopped, and was about to try
straddling the tire. I slowed from 70 and planned to ease
through between shiny hubcap and dusky youth.
In the back seat 9-year-old Shayla watched with interest.
In a padded carseat up front, 2-year-old Valerie sang "Lazy
Bones" and ignored the whole situation.
Suddenly, tires screeched. Terrifyingly loud, coming
ominously closer with a shrill crescendo. At the last second I
glanced into the outside rearview mirror and watched a white
Volkswagen slide into my back fender and bounce off.
We barely felt the impact but Shayla's eyes were
suddenly saucers. Valerie repeated the chorus of "Lazy
Bones."
The VW driver pulled off the freeway behind me and we
both stopped. He was a tall, pleasant young man whose hands
shook discernibly as he scribbled his name and address for
me. He was mustacheoed, and dressed for a night's work
building boxcars. He was married. He was sorry. He was uninsured.
Pearls of past wisdom whizzed through my head. Tales of
uninsured drivers telling damaged victims to go to hell, and
making it stick. Recaps of inflated body shop bills paid by
the innocent. Futility and helplessness as the victim tried to
realize justice in a hopeless situation.
Old wives' tales and ignorant nonsense. But bullseyes,
every one. I had the Hit-By-An-Uninsured-Driver-Blues.
This young man said he'd pay, though. He gave me his
name and number and told me where he worked and
suggested a good body shop, and we left the scene.
That was a Thursday and I was en route out of town.
Before I returned Sunday I had achieved complete, thorough
paranoia over what might have been a $50 bump, whose
significance, if any, was aesthetic.
What if the driver decided I had been at fault and
wouldn't pay, I asked myself, and what if the name and
address he gave me were fake?
Ah-ha! Had him there, the fraud; I'd hastily scrawled his
license number on a scrap of paper with a green color-crayon,
when his back was turned. Ah, paranoia.
And yet.., what if he just decided "I don't have to pay
and I won't?" What if my insurance didn't cover the damage?
The police, could they help? Why hadn't I found a witness?
I'd sue. If necessary. But then, he said he'd pay. But what
if... Et cetera, ad neurosis, ad nauseum.
By Monday I still hadn't done anything but worry. No
estimate, no call to let the other driver know the status of
things. But many, many "what-ifs."
He called me. Said he wanted to be sure I understood he
planned to be responsible for the damage. Said again it had
been his fault. Realized I had no choice but to slow down for
the situation. Hoped my kids were all right.
Come to think of it, that had been his first statement
upon parking alongside the freeway that day: "Are your kids
all right?"
I hung up feeling red faced but relieved, because he would
pay and I wouldn't have to. Didn't need the insurance
company now, nor the police. Wouldn't even have.., to...
sue.
Sue? Had I actually considered that? Well, yes.
So in addition to relief and a restoration of faith in the
human race I felt other things. Shame, embarrassment.
Disgust at my own irrational insecurity and distrust.
And I began to wonder, had I misjudged and sold short
mankind, or had I merely been lucky enough to stumble
upon a pearl among swine?
• That set me off again. I'll be worrying over that one until
life's next little chuckhole comes along. And I suppose I'll
ultimately regret that worry, too.
Once the "crisis" is safely past.
A majority of
school boys who
in school and ¢~
middle-class
physical violenCe.
• disputes rather th~
a.nd verbal
This
by a WSU
students of
study of more tha~
school students ha
Wisconsin
In fact ace(
L. Mauss
large minority of
adolescents
prochvities,"
Furthermore,
Winston said,
violence (of
variety) are
traditions of
and by the
American adultS,
1968 findings
Commission for
Causes and
Violence."
In a research
before a
S ociological
and Winston
identify the
associated with
"violence
level" kind,
slapping as
Their data
q u e s t ionnaires
several high sch
the assistance
and adm~ntS
measures of
were based
responses
•about
various conflict
The
the factors
associated
proneness were
sex, early
middle-class
influences and
identification,
these factors
They said
doubts abq
assumption
violent behavior
of lower-claSS
middle-class
'control their
In fact,
historical and
of it
Violence
clear that "the
history, and
have
toward violence
positive suPP'
prosecution
whether lawful
adult
princi
sp
children's
announced
from the
Office
come aS a
relief to
networkS, .
getting a 101
their ham"
gulling little
the bliss
society.
TIO
people
out? Did
headline
announces,
AmericanS
of
children's
Sad to
careful
ff
NoVZ
commerC
all kinds
Some
be no
feel
perhaP
¸harm in
you
no
have
unfair
NO
An ri#t
E
The
clause! A
-- tO
in dispute.