100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 13, 1979 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1979-03-13

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page 4-Tuesday, March 13, 1979-The Michigan Daily

.

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eigh ty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom
Vol. LXXXIX, No. 128 News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

The press in danger again

E IGHT YEARS ago, the govern-
ment stopped the New York Times
from printing a confidential history of
the Vietnam War that had been leaked
to the newspaper.
Last week, Judge Robert Warren
issued a 10-day restraining order to
temporarily prohibit The Progressive
magazine from publishing a story on
what freelance writer Howard
'Morland says describes how a
:hydrogen bomb works.
Morland didn't find out the infor-
,nation for his story by sifting through
secret documents or meeting with a
secret source. Rather, he simply
lured government nuclear facilities to
come up with his story.
Though this most recent case of
government-press confrontation
koesn't have the intrigue that accom-
Oanies press leaks and secret
documents, it's not dissimilar from the
Pentagon Papers case. Both cases in-
yolve an attempt by the federal gover-
nment to suppress the media because
'of the dangers that could be presented
to national security.
On the one side, Warren is being
warned that publication of the article
would help smaller countries develop
an H-bomb capability rapidly, ruining
any prospects for nonproliferation.
The other side to the case is whether
freedom of the press should be stifled.

The Supreme Court follows a general
standard that prior restraint of an ar-
ticle is warranted only if publication
would result in grave and irreparable
harm to the country's national
security.
The press is not omniscient. Editors
of The Progressive surely can't predict
what effect publication of the H-bomb
story could have. But, even with expert
testimony, Judge Warren certainly
can't forsee the impact the story would
have.
Thus, prior restraint of Morland's
article is a dangerous denial of free
press. If speculation by witnesses con-
vinces Warren to prohibit publication
of the article, a sad precedent would be
set, allowing the government to inter-
vene on a free press in cases in which
the consequences of publciation are
unclear.
In wartime, the High Court has
restrained publication of the sailing
schedule of troop ships. Such action is
justifiable, for consequences of such
publication would unquestionably be
detrimental to the country.
Publishing a story on the H-bomb
could be dangerous, but there is no ac-
curate means of determining if it
would be.
No one ever said a free press doesn't
cause damage. But democracy isn't
without its risks either.

I had an interesting bar-
hopping experience on Chicago's
north side over spring break, en-
tering a swinging-singles type
drinking establishment called
"Butch McGuire's" with another
under-aged friend. The bouncer
checked our I.D. cards, nothed
that we were both under 21, and
sent us to the next gentleman for
hand stamps. The second boun-
cer stamped my hand with ink
that wiped off with a napkin, and
he didn't bother to stamp my
cohort.
Thernext night, we went back to
the same bar, and the same
bouncers didn't even ask us for
I.D.
THERE ARE very few
similarities between Chicagoand
Ann Arbor, except that in both
cities, adults under 21 can always
find a bar to drink in. In fact, the
laxity of Ann Arbor bouncers and
waitresses make the leniency of
their windy city counterparts
look like hard-nosed Gestapo tac-
tics.
This city has a $5 drinking fine,
and anybody of any age can
usually drink anywhere-albeith
illegally - so one of the most
potentially explosive issues in the
April election has now fizzled
out. There will be no massive in-
flux of disenfranchised students
going to the polls in the city elec-
tions, and even if they did, the
Republicansvand the Democrats
have taken identical poisitions on
21-year-old drinking.
So despite the newly-registered
student voters all affected by the
drinking age hike, the com-
plexion of the Ann Arbor elec-
torate won't change much in
April. As far as bar-hopping here
is concerned, things are prac-
tically the way they were before
Prop D passed.
TAKE DOOLEY'S for instance,
that rowdy, beer-drinker's
establishment bar on Maynard.
There, they are aware of the
water solubility of hand stamps,
so they opted for the reverse -
they only stamp the hands of

Kk®Ith

ri

iv

people old enough to drink. The
switch os, however, that nine
times out of ten, the waitress or
bartender never asks to see the
hand stamp before seving drinks.
Also, one of-age drinker can
usually get a pitcher for an entire
table.
The pattern is similar in most
city bars. But the bar owners'
nonchalant attitude towards the
21-year-old drinking age is only to
be expected, considering both
parties in city hall stumbling
over each other early on to show
city voters that they were more
opposed to the new drinking age
than the other guys.
As a result of the ordinance
passed in December, just days
before the new drinking law went
into effect, Ann Arbor now has a
$5 fine for violators of the 21-year-
old age. That ordinance was in-
troduced, oddly enough, by
Republican Mayor Louis
Belcher, who beat the Democrats
to an issue suited for their largely
student partisans.
IT WAS BELCHER, remem-
ber, who said way back in 1971
that he was opposed to the $5 pot
fine, and that the police should
enforce the law "whether it
meant raiding the communes on-
ce a week."
But then again, the born-again
Belcher has reason for his con-
version - had council not passed
the $5 drinking fine, PIRGIM
would have continued their

petition drive to get a referendum
on the ballot in April. And the last
thing a Republican Mayor needs
in .an influx of newly-registered
student voters turning out in
April for a "student issue" like
the drinking fine.
In the fall, thousands of new
voters registered in Ann Arbor,
thanks to proposition D on the
November statewide ballot. And
those new voters could well have
thrown the local elections into
turmoil for the GOP, had they all
decided to exercise their right to
vote in April, as well as Novem-
ber.
BUT PROBABLY more impor-
tant than politics in the
Republicans' ardent embrace of
the $5 fine is the simple fact that
drinking in this city is business.
Selling liquor and beer in Ann
Arbor is a business enterprise.
And by siding with the students in
imposing the lenient fine, allies of
the $5 fine are actually siding
with the biggest money-making
enterprise in Ann Arbor next to
sports.
So the Democrats are left
fuming not only by the fact that
the students now have no $5 ballot
proposal to pull students out in
April, butthey don't have the
satisfaction of having been the
party to introduce the council-
passed $5 fine.
At the December meeting,
Earl Green was the only council
member to express that

ciy
limits

chburg

frustration, in the form of a
narrative history of the politics of
the drinking fine. Except in the
glare of the television lights - TV
News Four Detroit was filming
the debate - Greene's defense of
the Democrat's came across
more as a pouting "We thought of
it first."
SO RIGHT NOW, the only issue
that could have aroused at least
partial student interest in a city
election is, for the most part, over
and done with. The city has a $5
fine, and, in hindsight,, most
students' couldn't care which
party it was that first thought of
the idea. And, for all practical,
purposes, any student who wants
to drink in Ann Arbor can.
There isn't even a meaty rent
control measure or fair housing
ordinance to -draw at leastF
minimal student interest.
Small wonder students this
year look like they'll be more
apathetic about the city elections
than ever before. Students, as a
general rule, find it hard to get
excited about potholes (most
don't own cars), open meetings,
and budget deficits.
It's too early to predict whether
the presence of PhD candidate
and American Studies teacher
James "Jamie" Kenworthy will
be a draw for more student par-
ticipation.aBut Kenworthy is now
sporting a freshly-cut frock of
hair, matching blazers and ties,
and shunning his familiar
nickname "Jamie" in campaign
literature for the more formal
"James." Students may not even
feel that one of their own is run-
ning for mayor, which could have
been Kenworthy's strongest
drawing, card for the all-,
important student votes.
But Ann Arbor politics show a
history ofsunpredictability that
render most predictions at this
stage useless. This election year,
it could well come down to the
very last vote - but let's not go
through that one again.
Daily City Editor Keith
Richburg's column appears
every other Tuesday.

Letter-s
China must leave

#
p
9

Carter should appoint
a special prosecutor

Vietnam

0NE OF CANDIATE Jimmy
Carter's main selling points in
his 1976 campaign was his pledge to
restore trust, openness and honesty to
American government. He reminded
voters of the deception of the
Watergate incident, and offered, in-
stead, "a government as good as the
American people."
Since then a lot of the President's
1976 campaign promises have proven
to be empty rhetoric with the passage
of time. But now, the very integrity of
Jimmy Carter himself is at stake, and
the candidate, as President, seems no
better on that score than either of his
predecessors. The Justiee Department
is investigating loan irregularities at
the Carter warehouse in Plains, and
Jimmy Carter's Justice Department
has shown it can stonewall with the
best of them.
The case involves a loan to the Carter
family peanut warehouse from the
National Bank of Georgia. Peanuts
were the collateral for the $3 million in
commodity loans, but the peanuts may
have been moved out of the control of
the bank while the loan was in ef-
fect-a violation of the loan
requirements and banking laws.
There is no clear evidence that Billy
Carter, peanut warehouse manager,
deliberately kept the bank unaware
that the peanuts were removed as
collateral. There is also no indication
that the President, who owns 63 per
cent of the business in a blind trust,
knew of the possible illegality.
But the fact remains that it may
possibly be falsifying of documents,
violation of banking loans, and
collusion from the highest levels of the
White House. The only way to solve the
dilemma and to soothe the conscience
of the Ameican public is to appoint a
special prosecutor to investigate the
case.
The Carter Justice Department un-
der Griffin Bell's leadership has been
reluctant to appoint a special
prosecutor, calling such a move an ex-

Justice Department is trying to quash
the case by conducting an in-house in-
vestigation, then the lesson of
Watergate has been lost.
It is likely that there were no
deliberate attempts to break the law,
by the President, or by Billy Carter.
But if no illegalities were committed,
then why is Bell so reluctant to allow
an outside prosecutor? Why does the
administration insist on conducting its
own investigation?
The American people trusted Jimmy
Carter in his pledge never to tell a lie.
To find that President Carter is in-
volved in illegailities and cover-ups
would be more than the American
political system could take. The
President owes it to the American
people to appoint an independent
special prosecutor, if only to restore
that 'sagging faith in the American
:political system.
EDITORIAL STAFF
Sue Warner ................................ EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Richard Berke, Julie Rovner..........MANAGING EDITORS
Michael Arkush ...................... EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
Brian Blanchard ...................... UNIVERSITY EDITOR
Keith Richburg................................. CITY EDITOR
Shelley Wolson .................. PERSONNEL DIRECTOR.
Elizabeth Slowik....................FEATURES EDITOR
Dennis Sabo.............................SPECIAL PROJECTS
R.J. Smith, Eric Zorn ......................... ARTS EDITORS,
Owen Gleiberman, JudyRakowsky ..... MAGAZINE EDITORS
STAFF WRITERS-Sara Anspach, Ron Benschoter, Lenny
Bernstein, JulieyBrown, Rick Blanchard, Mitch Cantor, Joe
Ceterski, Ptefany Cooperman, Amy Diamond, Monica Eby,
Marianne Egri, Julie Engebrecht, Mary Faranski, Bob Feld-
man, Joyce Frieden, Greg Gallopoulos, Ron Gifford, John Goyer,
Pat Hagen, Marion Halberg, Vicki Henderson, Alison Hirschel,
Steve Hook, Elisa Isaacson, Tom Kettler, Paula Lashingsky,
Adrienne Lyons, Chester Maleski, Jeff Miller, Tom Mirga,
Mark Parrent, Beth Persky, Kevin Roseborough, Beth Rosen-
berg, Amy Saltzman, Steve Shaer, Tom Sinkevics, Bill Thom-
pson, Charles Thomson, Jon Vogle, Joe Vargo, Howard Witt,
Jeff Wolff, Tim Yagle
PHOTOGRAPHY STAFF
Andy FreebergH............................PHOTO EDITOR
Brad Benjamin.................STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Alan Bilinskv...................STAFF POTOGRAPER
C'vnrena (Chang...................STAFF PHOTOGRAPHItER
Pam Marks....................... STAFF PIOTOGRAPIIER
Maureet O'Malley.................STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Lisa Udelson.......................STAFF PHiOTOGRIAPHIER
QCtnUTC ATAFFT~

To the Daily:
Although China appears to be
withdrawing, the fighting bet-
-ween China and Vietnam con-
tinues and the spectre of
holocaust in southeast Asia
remains. The invasion of Viet-
nam is a dangerous anti-Soviet
provocation by the
US/China/Japan axis. While this
criminal assault is being carried
out by Chinese troops there
should be no mistake who is
behind it and what is its ultimate
target. China is acting as the
spearhead of a renewed drive by
US imperialism against the
Soviet Union and the working
people of Indochina. China must,
get out of Vietnam now !
The Peking bureaucracy wants
to take a swipe at Hanoi because
it believes China must reign
supreme in southeast Asia and
Vietnam is in the way. Marxists
do not support the nationalist
aims of the rival Stalinist
bureaucracies in Hanoi and
Peking. However, the Chinese in-
vasion is clearly intertwined with
imperialist opposition to the
gains of the Vietnamese
revolution, won at the cost of
more than a million lives 'and
decades of struggle.
The invasion comes in the con-
text of Jimmy Carter's anti-
Soviet "human rights" crusade,
and China's increasingly reac-
tionary foreign policy, most
recently under the guidance of
Teng Hsiao-ping. Thus, im-
mediately prior to the invasion,
Teng was parading around the
US with Carter, threatening
that China was going to "teach
Vietnam a bloody lesson." It is
clear that Peking would not have
taken the ominous step of in-
vading Vietnam without at least
tacit backing from Washington.
The Kremlin on the other hand,

has reacted quite conservatively
by ordinary burgeois diplomatic
standards, that is wanton ab-
dication of, all responsibility
towards Vietnam. The USSR has"
confined its support to a tepid-
communiqde warnihg China to
stop the invasion "before it is too
late," pointedly omitting any
direct military threat.
In part, this reticent response
is a reflection of Moscow's
dreams of detente with the
United States: hopes of
negotiating a new SALT treaty,
desire not to strengthen the hand
of "warmonger" Brezezinski
over "dove" Vance, etc. More
importantly, it is the expression
of bureaucratic selfishness. For
all its talk of proletarian inter-
nationalism, when an ally is ac-
tually under attack, the Kremlin
sits on its hands stingily doling
out minimum aid. Thus there is
mush speculation that they are
holding back in order to pressure
the Vietnamese into granting
base rights at Cam Ranh Bey to
the Soviet Navy. It is this
criminal negligence, allowing the
Vietnamese to stand essentially
along against the Chinese attack
in collusion with U.S. im-
perialism, that impels our
demand, "Soviet Union: Honor
Your Treaty with Vietnam!"
While it is our proletanian in-
ternationalist duty to defend de-
generation and deformed
workers states like the USSR and
China against imperialist attack,
it is not the ruling bureaucracies
we defend but the interests of the
working people and the gains of
their anti-capitalist revolutions.
Our fundamental appeals are
directed to the Soviet, Viet-
namese and Chinese masses,
whose interests are not served by
the illusions of deals with Car-
ter/Brzezinski but rather by the

program of communist unity
against imperialism. Today we
address the Chinese masses,
drawn by their sellout leaders int.
a war against their Vietnamese
*class brothers: Don't Be a Cat's
P'aw of U.S. Imperialism! Get
Out of Vietnam Now! In calling
on the USSR to honor its treaty
with Vietnam we are addressing
the Soviet masses, calling on
them to break with Brezhnev's
capitulation policy of detente
with the imperialists and to
remove the bureaucracy through
workers political revolution.
The western imperialist rulers
remain dedicated to overturning
the social revolutions which have
driven them from more than one
third of the globe. This means
war of one kind or another.-Right
now the Chinese Stalinists are
"punishing" the Vietnamese
people in the hopes of cementing
an alliance with the American
burgeoisie while extending their
own bureaucratic sway. This
vicious attack places the heroic
victory of the Vietnamese
working people in mortal danger!
Not empty dreams of "peaceful
coexistence" with imperialism,
but only world wide proletarian
solidarity for socialist revolution
can defend that victory. China
must get out of Vietnam now!
Spartacus Youth League
*T.A.'s
To the Daily:
The Daily article on foreigr
T.A.'s contained a well chosen
English vocabulary, was mostly
spelled correctly, was gram-
matically flawless and as far as
my foreign eye could see had a
perfect English syntax. However,
it lacked objectiveness, a well-
defined content and above all was
an example of bad com-
munication. Such faults, if

displayed by a teacher regar-
dless of the nature of his/her
passport could easily label
him/her as unintelligible and
'foreign.:
If this article has a point, it is
that preparing a good lecture
requires, much more effort, in-
vestigation and thought than
producing such articles. If
teaching could be carried out
with the intelligible sentences
alone, a tape recorder equipped
with well-pronounced English to
each class would more than suf-
fice for high-quality University
education.
Did the Daily carry out an in-
depth study on University
education? Were the foreign
T.A.'s, compared with their
American fellow T. A.'s on a
objective basis? What are the
statistics on inadequate teaching
done by foreign T.A.'s? Isn't it
true that some American
professors have a "language
problem", too? What is, pfter all,
the basis of this article? Is it to
fire-up ethnocentrism?
A good teacher should always
be prepared for his/her students'
tough questions. Such sloppy
"unpreparedness" in a Univer-
sity paper as the Daily strongly
jeopardizes its educational value.
-Ali Oziuk
Teaching Assistant
Dept. of Mathematics
*
Editorials which appear
without a by-line represent a
consensus opinion of the
Daily's editorial board. All
other editorials, as well as car-
toons, are the opinions of the
individuals who submit them.

WNeL FA

1- 5 I c6WS~ S 06
O c70

TO -1 AW H77~
TwORO
tow coon cnx
tW

TftI. 15 HOWO W ANk c660~
iNs is Wfr01 t ;
Til sWA e (~

LZIB
k i s: .

MV~ FaO.O AMIAD, W,
A"RT : R Q r ~L6H

l tP A S IAM4L
(VULS YD W '

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan