SArI I jau algy
Seventy-Third Year
EDrrED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Where Opinions Are Free STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBOR, MICH., PHONE NO 2-3241
Truth Will Prevail'.'
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: ELLEN SILVERMAN

Lingering Aftereffects
Of the Cuban Affair

The Other Road
§ t
*i1 4
- \
t r
}iiS
/j

THE CUBAN confrontation has passed the
crisis stage, but the issue of missile basis
in Cuba will probably linger for some time to
come.
President John F. Kennedy and Premier
Nikita S.' Khrushchev made a significant deal
over the week-end that ended the immediate
threat of nuclear war and opens many ramifii-
cations.
Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro, seeking
to recoup lost prestige, may throw a number
of monkey wrenches into the Kennedy-
Khrushchev agreement that may keep the
United Nations out of Cuba.
CASTRO is throwing sensitive, extraneous
issues such as the United State's Guan-
tanamo naval base into talks with the United
Nations. Under a precedent set by Egypt's
President Abdel Gammal Nasser in the Suez
crisis six years ago, United Nations observers
may not be stationed in a country without its
permission. Castro will use this as leverage to
gain consessions and prestige from the United
States. This country has pledged that it will,
not invade Cuba and Castro may force the
United States to supress exile resistance groups
like Alpha 66 before Cuba allows United Na-
tions observers to enter Cuba.
This will force the United States to place
faith in the Russians and U-2 aerial photo-
graphs, neither of which are entirely reliable.
It will permit the Soviets to dawdle about
removing its missile sites while the Cubans
and the United Nations haggle.
T HE BARGAINING may take weeks, but the
United States and the United Nations have
the upper hand. The blockade will continue
until this country is sure the Russians have
shipped their missiles back to Russia. No
further aggressive advances can be made by
the Soviets. Meanwhile, Khrushchev, while
hoping Castro can wring as much out of the
UN talks as possible, will probably nudge him
to conform to his agreement with Kennedy.
These delaying tactics still do not obscure
the first major United States victory in a
direct confrontation with the Soviets in recent
years. The last 15 years have seen the U.S.-
Soviet stalemates in Germany, Korea, South
Viet Nam, Laos and the Middle East. The
United States has not achieved such a clear-
cut decision over the Russians since the Ber-
lin campaign.
The victory will boost the Kennedy Admin-
istration at a critical time before the election,
but at the same time it will aid the proponents
of a hard-line policy toward the Soviets. Ken-
nedy's decision over the Soviets may add 10
to 15 marginal House districts to the Demo-
crats and may give the Democrats the advan-
tage in such close gubernatorial races as Cal-
ifornia and Michigan.
THE BOOST to hard-line policy with the
Soviets may have a detrimental long run
effect. Like the late John Foster Dulles' re-
taliation policy, this attitude eventually leads
to a dead end. It may close the line of com-
munication between Moscow and Washington
tenuously established within the last week and
abort all posibilities for meaningful disarma-
ment discussions.
According to a number of Washington col-
umnists, the hard-line faction in the Pentagon
and state department were in command of

Cuba policy planning. They gambled on a direct
confrontation with the Soviet Union and won.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk and United
Nations Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, who
believe that there are other alternatives to
force, have been pushed into the background.
Kennedy, as he has been doing throughout
the crisis, has been taking the middle road.
He has conceded little and has tended to
resist talks, yet he refrained from all-out
military measures.
JAMES RESTON in yesterday's New York
Times reported that "while (Kennedy) may
be bold in risking conflict in support of vital
national interests, he is rejecting the con-
clusion of the traditional hard-liners that the
way to deal with Moscow everywhere is to be
tough, as in Cuba.
Kennedy is looking at the Cuban crisis not as
a great victory, but- merely as an honorable
accommodation in a single isolated area of the
cold war," Reston added.
Khrushchev and Kennedy have both broach-
ed the question of foreign military bases,
especially missile sites. Although Kennedy
rejected Khrushchev's offer to exchange the
Cuban missile base for a Turkish one, nego-
tiations are not closed on the matter of bases.
The British are seeking to use the Cuban
settlement as a lead toward renewed dis-
armament talks. Hopefully, the hard-liners
here and in Russia will not close the door to
fruitful negotiations.
THE UNITED NATIONS also gained prestige
in the Cuban crisis. UN Acting Secretary-
General U Thant's bold intervention in the
dispute made the United Nations a convenient
office to help shape and police any U.S.-
Soviet accommodation in Cuba. Thant also
insured that the United Nations will be heard
in any similar confrontation.
The United Nations can now play a further
role by reviving disarmament talks directed
toward the problem of foreign bases.
International law too has been strained and
proved powerless to prevent a possible clash.
Although Kennedy tried to maintain a legalistic
tone aboue the Cuba "quarantine," his action
had no standing in international law. However,
he has made the United States action stick and
unless an international conference rules other-
vise, the "quarantine" has set a dangerous
legal precedent.
MEANWHILE, Kennedy's direct dealing with
the Soviets throughout the crisis accented
European fears that such dealing would be
abandoned if vital United States interest de-
mands it. Press reports indicate this country
did not consult with its allies until decisions
had been made and only informed them of
policy. This action strengthened French Presi-
dent Charles de Gaulle's view that Europe
needs its own independent nuclear force.
The United States carried Russia and the
world to the brink of nuclear war last week
to maintain a vital status quo. The ac-
commodation has been tentatively made and
opportunities for going beyond it toward a
relaxation of tensions have been created. It is
up to the leaders of the United States and the
Soviet Union to avail themselves of this chal-
lenge.
--PHILIP SUTIN

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Dinosaur Philosophy
Delightfully A bsurd

POLITICS IN PERSPECTIVE:
Two Against Conservatives

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first
in a four-part series on the issues
in. the state election.)
By DAVID MARCUS
THE GUBERNATORIAL cam-
paign does not at first glance
offer much of a choice.
Gov. John B. Swainson and his
opponent George Romney stand
for substantially the same pro-
grams. The campaign has con-
sisted largely of images and slo-
gans rather than facts.
Yet it would be a mistake to
say that little or nothing is at
stake in the race for the gover-
norship. Romney and Swainson
have taken varying approaches to
the problems of Michigan. Al-
though they are almost completely
in accord on the solutions neces-
sary for Michigan's difficulties,
the question is which one can
best implement them?
THE MOST IMPORTANT point
of both platforms ij fiscal reform.
Both candidates are in favor of
a complete overhaul of the state's
tax structure. The present system
is a compilation of helter-skelter
laws lacking coherence. Fiscal re-
form would mean:
1) A flat-rate income tax;
2) Elimination of the Business
Activities Tax; and
3) A reduction in business pro-
perty taxes.
Furthermore, the state's tax
structure would be stabilized in
order to give businessmen con-
fidence and encourage them to
move into Michigan, to stay in
Michigan and to expand in Mich-
igan. In turn, fiscal reform would
help solve many of the state's
other problems. Added business ac-
tivity will encourage employment,
additional revenues will boost
state services and Michigan in-
dustry will diversify.
Although both candidates agree
on this program, each races radi-
cally different problems in worn-
ing for its passage if elected.
* * *
ROMNEY'S DIFFICULTY is go-
ing to be in reconciling his role as
governor with his role as head of
his party. The Republican party is
far from solidly behind any tax
program which includes an in-

come tax. Romney is a represen-
tative of the moderate side of the
GOP. But would he be able to
lead his party and advocate an
income tax? Would he rather be
right than governor?
Already the split between mod-
erate and conservative Republi-
cans is widening. Romney's at-
tack on the John Birch Society has
caused great discontent in some
party quarters.
Either Romney will have to
scrap fiscal reform, cause a deep
split in his party or find some
other area where he can safely
make concessions to outstate con-
servatives in return for not split-
ting the party on the income tax.
The first and last of the three al-
ternatives are highly unlikely. The
second is almost inevitable.
Romney has appealed for unity.
But unity is precisely what does
not and cannot exist within his
own party. His former position as
head of a large corporation where
he claims he reconciled warring
factions does not mean that he
Ploy?
MR. KENNEDY said, "For many
years both the Soviet Union
and the United States . . . have
deployed strategic weapons with
care, never upsetting the pre-
carious status quo which insured
that these interests would not be
used in the absence of some vital
challenge."
The fact is that the Soviets,
unlike ourselves, have hitherto
deployed strategic missiles out-
side their borders. It is we who
have done so, though keeping con-
trol with our own military techni-
cians (as perhaps the Russians
may be doing in Cuba).
Indeed I must confess to some
skepticism about IRBM's in Cuba
in view of Russian reluctance to
place them in any satellites and
the fact that Soviet diplomats
have not regarded Castro as too
dependable. Could we be up
against a feint and a ploy? Why
the absence of camouflage?
-I. F. Stone

can do the same as governor. He
might manage to get along with
the Democrats, and surely with
the moderate Republicans. The
question mark is whether he+can
get along with the conservatives
in his own party.
. * .
SWAINSON'S PROBLEM is
quite different. His party, as has
been demonstrated over the last
two years, is solidly behind him.
What he must do, in order to pass
a fiscal reform program, is muster.
sufficient support among moderate
Republicans. He almost succeeded
earlier this year. The program
failed in the Senate by only one
vote. He does not have to worry
about the political consequences
of the income tax.
Swainson's major problem is to
gain support from business lead-
ers who are extremely wary of him.
'For example, Henry Ford II, al-
though he backs Romney and pre-
sumably his program in the pres-
ent election, was one of the chief
lobbyists against the income tax
last spring. Businessmen fear that
the Democratic party is dominated
by labor and that the governor is
merely the tool of state AFL-CIO
President August Scholle.
Thus the electorate must choose
not between issues but between al-
ternative types of leadership. The
real issues on which Romney and
Swainson differ-the new consti-
tution and the apportionment of
the State Senate-are out of their
hands. The former will be decided
by the electorate next April; the
later is up to the United States
Supreme Court.
* *
EVEN GOING into issues other
than fiscal reform, one finds basic
agreement between the candidates.
Romney is asking participation in
job retraining programs for those
displaced by automation. Swain-
son pointed out, Michigan has al-
ready begun such a program.
In the areas of mental health,
research, advertising of Michigan's
advantages as a business and tour-
ist area, and reorganization of
state government they are in ac-
cord.
They are both really campaign-
ing against a certain segment of
the Republican party.

To the Editor:
AS A LONG-TIME admirer of
wit and humor, I have for
some time looked forward with
glee to each new installment of
Michael Harrah's murderous sa-
tires on right-wing political phi-
losophy, but have been negligent
in not writing to let Mr. Harrah
know of my appreciation.
Last week's editorial, entitled
"The Cuba Blockade: Too Little,
Too Late," was so delightful that
I cannot contain my enthusiam
any longer, and simply must con-
gratulate the gentleman on his
outstanding service to the cause of
liberalism.
The article is a small jewel in
which the Dinosaur philosophy is
rendered so delightfully absurd, so
drolly grotesque, that I wonder if
it will ever recover. I wonder too
how Mr. Harrah can get his tongue
so far out into his cheek without
dislocating his jaw.
* * *
EVERY PHRASE is expertly
turned. "The whining, cowering
arguments for 'international
peace'," for example. Magnificent!
"The President is committed to the
protection of Americans and not
to fair play with the Russians."
Glorius! This remark alone is
worth a dozen Walter Lippman
columns; it is complete in and of
itself, and there is absolutely no
need for the more sober-minded
types to ask what the man who is
called Our Saviour would have
thought of the philosophy that we
need deal fairly only with those
who deal fairly with us. The point
is already made by Mr. Harrah's
wit.
And the masterful suggestion
that we starve the Cuban people
into submission! Ant following
this, the superb understatement,
"This would have the effect of
hastening internal unrest against
the existing regime." Notice how
careful Mr. Harrah is to refrain
from stating that he means every
existing regime in the western
hemisphere with the possible ex-
ception of Cuba's. There is no need
for such explanatory superfluities;
every possible argument has been
made.
I admit that Mr. Harrah had me
fooled for a while when he first
started writing editorials; I ac-
tually thought he meant his car-
icatures of conservatism to be
taken literally, and I hereby hum-
bly beg his pardon. Some types
of humor are difficult to recog-
nize as such until one gets the
idea; then the humor pops out of
every line. May Michael Harrah
have a long and prolific life!
-Don Komma, Grad
walker...
To the Editor:
MR. PERLSTADT'S editorial re
General Walker certainly de-
serves a measure of comment, es-
pecially his contention that "The
society has no right to question
the sanity of an individual for a
unique action until he is proved
guilty of transgressing the law."
Where did you find this right,
Mr. Perlstadt, or rather lack there-
of? I should think that the entire
juridicial experience of our coun-
try in relation to criminal law
points to the fact that if there is
even the slightest doubt of the
"sanity" of a person who faces
trial for an offense, then an ex-
amination should be conducted be-
fore hand to determine the mat-
ter.
This, at least, is the rule in all
cases of homicide, patricide, and
fratricide, in addition to several
other areas of the law.
* * '*
THE JUSTIFICATION for this
is obvious. If the man be pre-
examined and adjudged insane or
mentally unbalanced, then not
only the verdict might be different
but the entire conduct of the trial
would shift.
There would be a delving into

'the matter of his (for Mr. Perl-
stadt's sake, "alleged") insanity
and the effect it may have had
on the offense he is charged with.
Sanity or insanity would be an
important factor in adjudging
whether or not the alleged offend-
er had the mental capability of
doing the act with which he' is

charged, that is, whether he is ac-
tually the type of person who
would do such a thing.
* * *
CONTRARY to Mr. Perlstadt's
fiat proclamation on what society
can and cannot do in such matters,
the question remains, was there
any reason to suspect that General
Walker was mentally unbalanced?
This is the only valid question, and
I cannot claim to be able to an-
swer it. Mr. Perlstadt, in his om-
niscience, says that when the Gen-
eral was arrested for "fighting in-
tegration," "he was judged possi-
bly not in control of his faculties
and therefore sent to be examin-
ed by a psychiatrist."
This, he claims, is no reason to
commit the man. And yet the
phrase "fighting integration" is
sufficiently vague to cover my ex-
housemother's adamant refusal to
have a Negro at her table, at one
end, to lynching a Negro at the
other. It may extend from an
amorphous dislike of colored people
to a vicious and bitter hate which
can stir to action, violent action.
The thing to be determined is
where General Walker fits in, or if
he is in a category all by himself.
-Steven Hendel, '63
Warning ..
To the Editor:
THE EDITORIAL by Ronald
Wilton on the Regents was a
stupid thing to do. What good does
it do to print it . .. after all we
don't elect them and they don't
have to care what we think. We
should be grateful that they do
listen to us, occasionally.
You should realize that they
are older than we are and are on
this board because they are so
well qualified. If they think that
we shouldn't be allowed to have
certain speakers then, I think, we
should accept their decision hap-
pily seeing as they should know
what is good for us.
And also, if they want to hold
their meetings in private ... well,
that's their choice. Even in Wash-
ington lots of decisions are made
in private and look what a great
condition our country is in. The
HUAC is doing a great job to keep
the commiet out.
You ought to consider the prac-
tical side of things. If we rub the
Regents the wrong way they might
not be so nice to us as they have
been in the past. 'hey have to
think of these thin too. I think
we should be grateful for all the
things they have done to us.
And you better watch it .
you may get fired like in
Colorado.
-Bernard Nevas, '66
Ad Nauseum .. .
To the Editor:
HARRY PERLSTADTS indict-
ment of distribution require-
ments covered so much ground
that inaccuracies were inevitable.
I can only say that I did not
recognize the political science de-
partment whose motives he so
deftly impugned. Many political
scientists at this university are
concerned with normative political
problems (in this century, who
could not be?). But it is absurd
to say, as Mr. Perlstadt does, that
most of the department could not
"bear" to see descriptive political
analysis given equal standing.
Like any large and individual-
istic department, this one has
many interests and few orthodox-
ies. Far from considering "under-
graduate knowledge of the exist-
ence and concepts of purely de-
scriptive behavioralism" a "her-
esy," the department has en-
couraged the development of
courses, both graduate and under-
graduate, on political behavior.
Ironically, the same issue of The
Daily that ran Mr. Perlstadt's edi-
torial also carried an article on
some political behavior studies at
,Michigan, whose findings my col-
leagues and I teach ad nauseum to

any students who will listen.
-Prof. Donald E. Stokes
(Letters to the Editor should be
typewritten, doublespaced and lim-
ited to 300 words. Only signed let-
ters will be printed. The Daily re-
serves the right to edit or with-
hold any letter.)

USNSA Referendum

OUR LIBERAL- FRIENDS on Student Gov-
ernment Council appear to be somewhat
disturbed these. days. They are dismayed be-
cause some of their conservative friends on
the council wish to force a campus-wide refer-
endum on whether the University should con-
tinue participation in the United States Na-
tional Student Association.
Robert Ross and his cohorts asserts that if
there is going to be a referendum at all, the
student body should first be adequately in-
formed about what USNSA stands for and
what it does. Educational pamphlets should be
distributed and pro and con, vanguard groups
should be organized before it is justifiable to
hold a referendum, the SGC left-side says.
This contention, while not unreasonable,
does raise a pertinent question heretofore
ignored: what gQod is NSA to this campus if
such a miniscule percentage of University stu-
dents is aware of its existence?
THE ASSOCIATION, after all, claims to be
an educational service organization for stu-
dents through student government middlemen.
An USNSA pamphlet states that "USNSA en-
deavors to aid your student government in
solving present problems and developing new
concerns:..
"As the only recognized representative voice
of American students, USNSA, in addition to
its affiliation with other national organiza-
tions, has been successful in bringing about
many national student programs."
If the 8-5 margin in favor of a referendum

the dilemma. They are now busy explaining
that it's all the fault of the SGC conservatives,
who have been hiding from University students
all the wonderful things USNSA does for them.
In spite of numerous Daily articles on the
subject; and in spite of a special SGC sub-
committee on USNSA, the council conservatives
somehow have succeeded in keeping secret the
benefits derived from membership in the as-
sociation.
Whatever evil designs the SGC right-side
may or may not possess are irrelevant, how-
ever. The point is that students who don't
like USNSA naturally aren't going to be over-
zealous in taking time and energy to dis-
seminate information about it, unless such
information is of a derogatory nature.
Admittedly, if their dislike of USNSA is
strong enough the conservatives should have
been working to arouse student opinion against
it. The fact that they haven't only shows that
they think an uninformed student body would
vote down USNSA in a referendum.
IT IS NO ANSWER to slap the blame for
lack of campus knowledge on the conser-
vative segment of SGC-there has been no lack
of opportunity for those who believe strongly
in USNSA to relay their convictions to the
student body. They've had 15 years to do this
work, and this sudden flurry of energy has the
label of blatant expediency.
Any decision on continued University par-
ticipation should be grounded in the proper
context-in other words, the vote should be


FEIFFER

IAM
~xecc-r Mot4J aQu
t c. Tfq. BAB
A WAY5
C7

(roe
wol

EVEN MiAN .1 EVER
KNEW FAILED M~E-
tMN FATHER, Mq'
fV s o Y FRIEND.
SIE PAThI NT,
FAL YOU.

(i)Hr AF
fOU 60!06
WEAK.

So FAR
FAILED N
teaMILTOC

W4INO' WILL PO,
yg. FAII.
KI.
II

Ml 6tItEJ MILTO?'JEVELf 1AK,.Mu
CYAN3CE TO FAIL ME. 1,VC WORQ ON)
VV EEN' DISLOYAL. FAIL tfOQ.
q11iL H{E QOE;IJ'TFAIL t
IAE. I

NOQ MASIZ WHAT
HE 6Se., 1 Aq 10 ._

'yE 61VEN' UP RO
ITIS Dk)Vlk* ME
(RAZY ~ 'OTHi WORq.

[AOVLA7 IT -WUP I
I 1A .E? WMAf l iIM ?


IIEW"lL*/ yytt s ;vt- " r