KANSAN COMMENT Sorel's News Service The Bard of Wall Street NEW YORK—William Shakespeare got his comeuppance in a recent issue of Progressive Labor's newspaper, Challenge. "Romeo and Juliet may be about some people who lived a long time ago, but it's chock full of the kind of idealistic lies that help keep capitalism going today," the editors warn. "Whose side is the 'just and impartial' Prince really on? . . . If he was so concerned about the people of Verona, how come he never forced the lords to pay for all the produce they ruined in the marketplace?" hearing voices— To the editor: A very good friend of mine was killed in Vietnam last week. A friend for over ten years. The effect of this upon me is not startling; but its significance lies beyond my personal grief. A change has occurred within, and what this change is and what it implies must be recorded. I have been against this war for a long time. But it has been a subjective opposition, because of the obvious difficulty in discovering a way to oppose the war that would both satisfy my conscience and also be effective. I can see the dilemma of the American Left; how to organize power for change while maintaining legitimacy, or simply moral if not physical support from the larger polity. The Left has alienated much of society this far, and still refuses to or is unable to attract and guide a significant popular following (beyond the student-youth group). The politics of confrontation, against the University and against the civil authority has failed to end the war or to cause the American government (and people) to ask the questions behind U.S. intervention. The vast majority of Americans remain unconvinced that the war is a grievious mistake, or even less, that our intentions in Vietnam and in S.E. Asia are devious in the extreme. The American people think that they are in grave danger from Communist expansion, and that opposition to the war, even though Nixon has "committed" himself to withdrawal, is un-patriotic, unnatural and unhealthy. It definitely is unhealthy. A sick public is crying out for further affliction by demanding repression. And the Left, aware of the truth, unable to swallow the official hypocrisy, the democratic propaganda, seeing the war in the light of American expansionism and imperialism throughout the world, having rejected the so-called "American-way-of-life" and its captured, hectic, soulless frightened millions . . . the Left can respond but negatively, full of contradictions, fighting the repression, the official bullshit with fitful, destructive, and all too often purposeless actions, causing it to be further alienated from the society at large. There is no way to convince America, full of government-trusting, loving but fearful people, that their leaders, political and economic, are taking them on a tragic ride. The Left is isolated, persecuted and discredited. Having to meet force with force has resulted in political defeat--although there have been isolated successes. There will be more victories, and never extinction. Witness the high schools. The turmoil will end up in the Universities, the army, etc. The problem of the individual has been one of commitment. Why throw yourself into a situation you don't fully understand? Why voluntarily isolate yourself from society? Why think that violence, confrontation, symbolic or actual, is anything else but play-acting, tantrum-throwing? But nothing is simple, and the individual must decide. Abe Lincoln said, "Every man's gotta skin his own skunk." Lyndon Johnson encouraged our troops to bring home the coonskin. They failed. There never were any coonskins in Vietnam. 'They're all here,' in his America, and are beginning to gain the strength, however long it may take, to bring not only all the troops home from Vietnam, but also to bring the WAR back. The death of one lone GI has gone damn near unnoticed—one lone casualty in the defense of the American Empire. His family mourns him. But what the effect his death has upon this lone writer is a shift in spirit, a non-emotional, non-egotistical step further along a road traveled hesitatingly up to this point. But now there is a difference. No longer will the contradictions prevent decisions, deny activity or confuse enough to avoid action. Certainly there are many individuals such as myself who have had to resolve these matters within themselves, and who have realized that the change they undergo need not be outwardly visible. Yet a subtle decision is made to join, definitely, the struggle against the America no longer a friend, but an enemy. No time for eulogies—just one more mind made up. I will always try to explain myself, but I can no longer hesitate to speak my piece, my feelings, my opinions—regardless of who is listening. Or to act if the occasion arises. Contradictions tend to die with men. Ed Dolan Shawnoe series Shawnee senior Washington window Maverick Mills By ARNOLD B. SAWISLAK WASHINGTON (UPI)—If there are any established truths to be stated about the leading men of Congress, one would have to be that Wilbur Mills wears no man's collar. Mills, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has immense influence—partly because of high competence and partly because he can and has defied presidents of the United States whom he thinks are wrong. Lyndon Johnson, for one, found that out in 1967 when he had to accept a limitation on federal spending to get a surtax out of Mills' committee. The contest took more than a year. But two weeks ago there was the low-keyed Arkansas Democrat on the House floor selling President Nixon's welfare reform bill. Six months ago, it was a good bet that the "family assistance plan" would gather dust in Mills' committee at least until after the 1970 elections. Good, Long Look Mills had indicated that he wanted to take a good, long look at the proposal, including the guaranteed annual income concept imbedded in it; that was taken to mean the bill would wait months or even years, as did Medicare. The family assistance plan is at least as precedent-breaking and controversial as Medicare, but it took Mills only about six months to come around. It happened so fast that some observers felt Mills must have changed his mind on political grounds—that is, to approve the bill, good or bad, and return the welfare "hot potato" to the White House. A Washington veteran well-acquainted with Mills believes there might have been some politics in the decision, but it was too simple to say the whole purpose was to put Nixon on the snot. According to this man, who was not talking for attribution, Mills is far more pragmatic than political. And in the current state of public welfare, pragmatism required the conclusion that changes had to be made. For example, in the same 1960-70 decade that the number of persons below the poverty income line decreased from 40 million to about 22 million, the welfare rolls nearly doubled to 10.4 million and payments exclusive of administrative costs increased from $3.2 billion to $6.4 billion. That kind of a trend could not go on long without political trouble for everyone involved. Not To Be Ignored Mills could not simply ignore the situation after the President called for reform. Mills had two alternatives to the Nixon request. First, he could have gone for tougher administration of welfare with a strong emphasis on requiring that recipients go to work. But so many persons on welfare are unable to work, that the improvement, if any, probably would be slight and the outney from social workers and political liberals would be thunderous. So Mills decided to go along with Nixon for lack of some other good alternative. If the plan works well, Mills can claim part of the credit. If it flops, the finger will point mainly at Nixon. Mills,' second option was to design a better welfare reform program than Nixon sent to Congress—with, for example, benefits for the unmarried and childless poor, who would get nothing from the Nixon plan. But simply adding these 800,000 poor people would cost several billion dollars, and Mills does not relish the label of budget-buster. THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN An All-American college newspaper Kansan Telephone Numbers Newsroom—UN 4-3646 Business Office—UN 4-4358 Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods Mail subscription rates; $6 a semester, $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents. NEWS STAFF News Adviser . . . James W. Murray Managing Editor Ken Peterson Campus Editor Ted Illiff News Editor Donna Shrader Editorial Editors Joe Naas, Monroe Dodd, Mike Rlekke Sports Editors Bruce Carnahan, Steve Shriver Makeup Editors Charlie Cape, George Wilken Wire Editor Kenn Cummins Woods High School Editors Linda Loyd, Carolyn Bowers Arts and Reviews Editors Gemma Richards, Hiary Geary Assistant Campus Editors Cass Sexson, Robin Stewart Assistant News Editors Cass Sexson, Robin Stewart Photographers Ron Bishop, Bruce Bernstein, Randy Leffingwell BUSINESS STAFF Business Adviser . Mel Adams Business Manager Jerry Bottenfield Assistant Business Manager Mike Banks Advertising Managers Larry Cates, Joanne Bos National Advertising Manager Oscar Bassinson Classified Manager Shelley Bray Promotion Manager Jim Huggins Service Manager John Member Associated Collegiate Press REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY National Educational Advertising Services A DIVISION OF READER'S DIGEST SALES & SERVICES, INC. 360 Lexington Ave., New York, N. Y. 10017