WGBH Journal; John Kerry On Anniversary Of End Of Vietnam War, Virazon (Puerto Rican Theatre Group), Louis Lyons

Good afternoon. Welcome to GBH Journal I'm Bill Gavin. Today Show will consist of three features first an interview with John Kerry the founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Are you Asian of the third anniversary of the fall of Saigon then an interview if it's anti-Castro a member of a Puerto Rican theater group in Boston. And then Louis Lyons with his commentary on the news. This Sunday April 30th is the third anniversary of the fall of Saigon. The date which marks the official Vietnam War by April 30th 1975. Tens of thousands of Americans have been killed in that conflict.

And this country had suffered over a decade of dissention and polarization among its populace. John Kerry was the founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. One of the many groups which developed to oppose the United States involvement in Vietnam and a group with a particular emotional appeal from people who had actually experienced combat. John Kerry founded the group in 1969 and he is now an assistant district attorney in Middlesex County. He spoke recently with reporter John Markham. Immediately upon arrival things hit me which within hours and even you know days gave me real pause to stop and consider what we were doing in Vietnam. And I think that my opposition began to build from the very moment that I was there when I first got off an airplane and saw it. Remarkable buildings construction that the Americans

had undertaken Vietnamese soil and saw the relationship between the Vietnamese and ourselves as it was manifested in many many different ways from from the jobs that the enemies were doing vs. the jobs Americans were doing to so many other things and immediately began to sense that it was not really a partnership operation. And I think that's what began to rankle perhaps as much as anything. Did you discuss your feelings once becoming more defined about the other people there. You realized you were thinking the same thing at the same time. And it wasn't really a communal thought process. Absolutely there were discussions there. Frequent basis there was considerable amount of debate among many of the troops who were there on a

continuing basis as to whether or not they felt that what they were doing was right or whether they ought to be there or whether particular missions were absurd and if they were why were we undertaking them in the first place and I think there was a great deal of opposition right there so much so that part of the American effort became one of bolstering the very basis of our involvement among the troops themselves who were there. There was a considerable amount of energy expended by people trying to convince us that what we were doing was good and right and healthy and productive and all the rest of that. I left Vietnam with a very definite purpose and intent of trying to end the war and of committing myself to that effort and I didn't know particularly how I would do it. What steps could be taken except to tell the story where and I could just organize that frame of time as to how you went about action. Then I began to write a book on the middle of that.

I became involved with some other veterans who were opposed to the war and as veterans we began to become active together to voice our opposition and suddenly I really found myself of course up in the process of organizing veterans and of working with veterans in an effort to voice the opposition. And although I was trying to write the book I think I just got sort of pulled away more into that. And ultimately after some very emotional and many traumatic hearings in Detroit with respect to what was happening and at that point we we organized the march on Washington in 1971 a veterans which was sort of a pivotal point I think in some people's minds with respect to the efforts against the war. And I became one of the key

organizers of coordinators of that particular effort and suddenly found myself in Washington with about 5000 veterans demonstrating before Congress. I think there we had an opportunity to be extraordinarily effective opposition and sort of. I think that was the crest really of the veteran opposition to the war if not even American opposition to the war. We're talking on one plane in a very superficial level of the war versus your experiences and feelings and experiences and feelings of other people. And I know it's very difficult to bridge those two planes because it's and it's something that has passed but it is incorporated in you. But I feel that there's so much more that you could say concerning what you saw in Vietnam and what your feelings and how motivated and driven you were once you returned on a political and emotional level.

There is and that's a tough question and there isn't if you know what I mean. That it's a lot of us just blocked out I mean it's there but I just you know I don't talk I mean I spent a long time just trying to put the war behind me and I want to leave it there. And I think a lot of people feel that way a lot of them aren't as lucky as me. Now with 10 years behind you politically how do you look at America. Things have changed. And I think people have changed and politics has changed but I don't know if. If we've really learnt something that is that is going to be lasting then I think that war is something which unfortunately can easily be glamorized is quickly forgotten except for those who carry the scars with their lives every day. And I

think it's very very tough to predict in the future what is going to happen particularly because history is the process of reacting to felt needs. And as long as people feel something is necessary they will do whatever they have to do to satisfy those needs. You know a song is the name of a prairie theatre group based in the south and in Boston the focus of the group is political plays which they perform deal with the reality of the Puerto Rican experience in this country. The plays are all in Spanish and are geared specifically to reach the Puerto Rican populations in the cities where the group performs. The center

Castro is a member of Iraq song. He spoke recently with reporter Vivian Dukat. We're working here in a community that's very culturally underdeveloped. And we are very concerned with the community in terms that as soon as you clarify your cultural roots the sooner you can get organized and the sooner you can understand your own private problems and how you can and how are you going to fight that fight them. Since we're working here against a large amounts of other core cultures and a big Saxon influence. At the moment we need to stress these foods you know the for the poor awakens to continue us us. As a unique minority group with its own characteristics. And that's basically why most of the of the theater that we developed most of the theatres that we theater the theater pieces that we're doing are

focused on the weekends problems and Puerto Rican culture is language the one of the essential carriers of this cultural identity that that you were interested in upholding. Sure. I mean since we're dealing basically with Spanish OK if we're we can still can speak Spanish OK. Language like the strong cultural element cultural element. And if we can keep speaking Spanish who are still Puerto Rican and we can we can still call ourselves but we can't and that's that's why we're doing all the things that we're doing are in Spanish because we want to stress the language the Spanish language. Where do you draw your playwrights in the plays are they directly from Puerto Rico or they're written by people. The community here we have done different things with we've done theater pieces. From our weekend writers one we did one for him but we get a

writer a writer that lived for a long time in New York and that I knew very well how what what kind of problems the Puerto Rican so or there has been Hispanic community was dealing with in this in the Empire. We've done folklore equal pieces from Puerto Rico traditional peasant plays. Now right now we're we're dealing with with the developmental fly on one show that it's going to be drawing the history of the Puerto Ricans might be we can migrants since 1898 the year of the of the North American invasion to the end and sayings. And that's going to be like the first play that the group is going to develop collectively and it's going to be played but it's also it's going to have a lot of input from the community itself seems who we have been involved in the research

for quite for quite a long time for five or six months. Dealing with with the history of the Puerto Rican migrant and that's that's going to be the final show that we're going to do this year. And there is also a possibility for the group to to visit Cuba for the youth festival. Since we are the only group here in Boston there are still in socially and politically with with the with the problems of this minority group. And there's a big chance that because of the of the type of work that we have been developing here in Boston we were going to be allowed to visit Cuba and show our work and show the way we approached peer in this in the special community that's going to be a good chance also to to to show to other countries the real social and political situation of Puerto Ricans in the United States and specifically here in Boston.

How is the theater that you do political is the subject matter of the play. Everything all the theater is political. OK. The same thing as language is political theory. It's also political. Ours is more political because we're dealing with it with a historical reality and we are analyzing that historical reality or we are confronting that historical reality and we are making our community comfort to confront and to confront those problems were not given since we are not given solutions. We're showing the situation from a very objective point of view to the to the community for the community to write and identify the problem and find the solutions. One of the things that we we we do most of the times is that after the show we develop a discussion with with the with the audience in order to clarify different things from the play or from the situation itself. We are not organizers who are not organizing politically the community. That's that's going to be a job that the political parties will

have to do. But we're dealing with with other problems one a very theatrical or artistical point of view. Supreme Court ruling stating that women may not be forced to contribute more money to pension plans and commentary today. There's no nos in the well-established fact that women on the average have longer lives than men. But that doesn't mean that you're right Jane is necessarily going to outlive your father. It was news to most people that until today employers connecting contributory pension plans have been able to read

from the pay envelope of every woman employee and 15 percent from every woman because of the average 15 percent greater women than men but no longer. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that this violates the civil rights law which program precludes treating individuals as simply components of a class. The Supreme Court discovered this lopsided application of pension plans in the Los Angeles water and sort apartment which employs 10000 men and 2000 women. The women discovered it first and brought suit in 1973 to have it stopped and to have the passed over charge against them refunded. They won't get their refund. Only Justice Marshall said they should. But they want a 6 to 2 verdict to stop deducting more from their pay than from the man. The two dissenters were the Chief Justice Berger and Rehnquist. They said it would

have a devastating effect on the pension insurance industry which they said Congress did not intend with its Anti Discrimination Act. The issue is no small matter. The court found that 50 million people now participate in contributory pension plans such as that in Los Angeles that such plans have 400 billions assets growing by 15 billions a year. How many of them charge women employees more than men the court does not say of course and does not know you know how the mortality tables on the comparative longevity of men and women became involved in contributory pension plans. The newest Justice Stevens writing the decision put his finger on the crux of the issue. In a few sentences. And employment practice which requires 2000 individuals to contribute more into a fund than 10000 other employees simply because each of them is a woman rather than a man is in direct conflict with both

the language and the policy of the Civil Rights Act Sivan said. Then he stated what has always been the very basics of insurance the better risks always subsidize the poorer risks. He went on to insure the flabby and the fit as though they were equivalent risks may be more common than treating men and women alike but not any more than habit makes one subsidy seem less fair than the other. He put the word subsidy in quotes because the dissenters objected that the men would be subsidizing the women. Your charge is the same. This issue of subsidy or equity if there is one would seem to be largely wiped out by the survivor's cause which in the Los Angeles system as is common continues the pain pension of the man to his widow. The Los Angeles case had become moot for the city had changed its policy in 1075 after the women won their suit in the federal district and appeals courts. It now treats men and women even handedly. But the Supreme Court decision triggered by the Los Angeles

soat applies to all such pension plans. It may even apply more broadly for the New York Times reports that many lawyers believe the decision invalidates another form of applying a longevity tax to women. That's the policy of many state teachers retirement systems that charge women the same contributions as men but paid them lower monthly benefits on the ground as a class they will be drawing benefits for longer. Another side effect is noted by Justice Blackmun in his concurring opinion. He's concerned that this decision undermines the 1976 ruling of the court that it is not sex discrimination for an employer to exempt pregnancy from disability benefits. Justice Stevens may have opened a can of worms for the pension insurance industry. Dickens would have cheered. The vegan government of Israel has achieved a diplomatic coup in its contest with President Carter. The sharpest issue has shifted from Israeli settlements to planes for Saudi Arabia.

This diversion got a big assist from our story on who was quoted as he left Israel for Washington that Israel would rather give up promised planes than share a package deal with planes for the Saudis. This package deal question came up repeatedly yesterday in the president's press conference when the issue of prions for the Saudis broke into questioning about the president's other sharp issues with the Congress leadership over his tax cut and civil service reform. The president replied with increasing insistence that the commitment to planes to the Saudis was in the best interest of the United States that it was not a threat to Israel and that he would not delay sending the request to Congress this week. Events today said it will be submitted Friday. Speaker merely said before Larry key senators of the Foreign Relations Committee urged the president against it. I have made my decision the president said. It's preeminently in our national interest and in the interest of this security of Israel that we treat the moderate Arabs with fairness and friendship. The law requires that each major arms sale be separately presented

to Congress which then is 30 days to veto any. But I look upon them as a package the president said and if the Congress should accept a part and reject another then my intent is to withdraw the sales proposal altogether. I know for a fact he said that the sorry request is for defensive purposes. There will be no delay beyond the point where Congress can act before it goes into recess. So the president presses the point on the eve of vegans arrival for the 30th anniversary of Israel's independence to find the Congress diverted from the settlements issue to planes for the Saudis. No press conference question asked why these potential competence should be armed to the teeth in the interest of peace. And that's GBH journal for Wednesday the 26 of April the 1978 producer and

editor for the series is back. It's today's engineers break Carter and I'm Bill cap. Have a wild and wonderful when you're above when the end. Of a Wednesday. Think.

That the.