Behind Ford's statehood motives.
Eighty-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Saturday, January 8, 1977
News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Taking care on the tax cut
By STEPHEN KURSMAN
WITHOUT EXPRESS AUTHORITY from its people,
Gerald Ford has proposed statehood for the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico. Statehood for this Carib-
bean island is a request that must emanate from the
Puerto Ricans and not from the Presidency, especi-
ally a presidency occupied by a lame-duck presi-
dent.
It seems that Mr. Ford has forgotten that state-
hood is supposed to be for the benefit of a certain
region and not for the benefit of those in Wash-
ington.
There are several reasons why the President might
have proposed statehood. As an outgoing president,
he lacks the time to presently undertake anything of
lasting significance. At this late juncture in a presi-
dent's term, important attention is focused on how
the administration will be portrayed in the history
books. And beginning a drive for statehood will get
at least honorable mention from any historian if state-
hood eventually is granted to the island.
Could Jerry Ford do such a thing? No individual
is above the desire for personal gain, but the Presi-
dent has shown himself to be a man of principle
during most of his days in the White House and so
I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this
count.
IT COULD BE INSTEAD that Puerto Rican state-
hood was mentioned to communicate to Castro that
the U.S. means business in the Caribbean. Castro has
been giving active support to those Puerto Ricans in
favor of independence. The statehood proposal could
have been a message that Cuba should not meddle
in the internal affairs of an American territory.
But the President should not find the prospect
of independence so threatening if that is what the
majority of Puerto Ricans desire.
A public warning to Castro would have been much
more effective than a proposal for statehood. Presi-
dential pressure for statehood is an implicit badmouth-
ing of Puerto Rican independence, something which
is a genuine option for the Puerto Rican people.
A third possibility is that the statehood proposal
was designed to protect multinational corporate in-
terests on the island. Through governmental efforts,
Puerto Rico has attracted substantial amounts of
investment.
AN INDEPENDENT Puerto Rico could mean high-
er corporate taxes, greater wages for labor and per-r
haps even nationalization. But the state of Puerto Rico
would ensure security to the many firms with opera-
tions on the island.
Lastly, it is possible that an independent govern-
ment would ask something in return for the use of
military bases operated by American armed forces.
Since the military now operates the bases on good
terms, independence is a threat whereas statehood
would guarantee the military easy access to the bases
in .the years ahead.
The problem with all these reasons for statehood
is that they come from Washington and not from
San Juan. Statehood for a region not wanting it wreaks
more of colonial annexation that of freedom and
democracy.
Let the Puerto Ricans vote. If a majority opt for
statehood, then and only then will it be time for the
President to ask for public and congressional approval
of such an idea.
Stephen Kursmnan is a Daily Editorial Page staff
writer.
{ S THE FATEFUL inaugural date
- approaches, both President Ford
and President-elect Carter are busy
with their separate tax cut proposals.
Having committed the political sin of
losing, Ford carries little weight with
the overwhelmingly Democrat - con-
trolled Congress, who will most likely
sniff smugly at the outgoing admin-
istration's proposed $12.1 billion cut
and proceed according to their own
reasoning and fancies.
Carter, on the other hand, has
brought the coveted White House back
into the Democrat fold and so the
ephemeral position of the Democrat
messiah has befallen to him. Hence.
while the new adinistration's ac-
tual program, like all concrete po-
litical proposals, will create dissent
and eventual amendment, the new
Congress will probably take Carter's
tax reduction/reform package as the
Photography Staff
Pauline Lubens............Chief Photographer
Brad Benjamin........... Staff Photographer
Alan Bilinsky................Staff Photographer
Scott Eccker.................Staff Photographer
Andy Freeberg ............. Staff Photographer
Christina Schneider........Staff Photographer
Editorial Staff
Rob Meachum...................Bill Turque
Co-Editors-in-Chief
Jeff Ristine......... ....Managing Editor
Tim Schick................... Executive Editor
Stephen Hersh ...............Magazine Editor
Rob Meabum ............... Editorial Director
Lois ,Joslmovich.................. ArtsEditor
STAFF WRITERS: Leslie Brown, Tom Cameron,
Ernie Dunbar, Henry Engelhardt, Rob Evan,
Jeff rank, Cindy Gatziolis, Enid Goldman,
Mike Halpin, Kathy Henneghan, Geoff Larcom,
Scott Lewis, Don MacLachlan, Rick Maddock,
Brian Martin, Bob Miller, Brian Miller, Billy
Neff, John Niemeyer, Eric Olson, Dan Perrin,
Dave Renbarger, Pat Rode, Cub Schwartz,
Errol Shfman, Tom Shine, Jamie Turner, Mark
Whitney, Greg Zott.
Business Staff
Beth Friedman.............Business Manager
Deborah Dreyfuss ......... Operations Manager
Kathleen Muhern ... Assistant Adv. Coordinator
David Harlan.................Finance Manager
Don Simpson...... .:........... Sales Manager
Pete Peterson ..........Advertising Coordinator
Cassie St. Clair.Circulation Manager
Beth Stratord............. Circulation Director
Weather Forecasters
Mark Andrews .................... Mike Gilford
Sports Staff
Bill Stieg ..................Sports Editor
Rich Lerner........... Executive Sports Editor
Andy Glazer ............Managing Sports Editor
Rick Bonino ........... Associate Sports Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Tom Cameron, Enid Goldman,
Kathy Henneghan, Scott Lewis, Rick Maddock,
Bob Miller, John Niemeyer, Mark Whitney.
STAFF WRITERS: Leslie Brown, Paul Campbell,
Marybeth Dillon, Ernie Dunbar, Henry Engel-
hardt, Jeff Frank, Cindy Gatziolis, Don Ma-
Lachlan. Rich Ovshinsky, Jim Powers, Pat Rode,
John Schwartz.
Editorial positions represent a
consensus of The Daily Editorial staff.
base upon which to build. Indeed, the
project has become a joint effort be-
tween Carter's staff and the leaders
of Congress.
Looking at the shape of taxes to
come, it seems that a temporary tax
cut or rebate will be combined with
a permanent revision, (downward of
course), f the tax rate. Jobs-crea-
tion programs, however, remain at
the t6p in Carter's mind; tax cuts
will therefore be limited so the budg-
et deficit stays within reasonable
bounds. Thomas Lance, Carter's
choice for budget director, limits the
combined amount of new spending
and tax cuts to about $15 billion,
a figure widely used by most people
discussing tax cut proposals.
ACCORDING TO THE University's
Research Seminar for Quantita-
tive Economics (RSQE), the group
engaging in economic forecasting,
even such a cut will have little ef-
fect on real GNP growth and unem-
ployment. In fact, we can count on
it only for buying time. That group,
headed by Professors Harold Shapiro
and Saul Hymans, recommends an
immediate cut in taxes of $10-15 bil-
lion followed by a more carefully con-
sidered program of tax revision and
new spending to provide the final
stimulus necessary for full recovery.
We respect RSQE's very informed
opinion and accept it. However, the
new executive should give more con-
sideration to the actual composition
of the entire package. A tax rebate
pumps money into the economy im-
mediately and would provide quick
recovery, but a large one would shock
the economy when stability is need-
ed. Public works programs can pro-
vide jobs while at the same timej
completing worthy projects for so-
ciety, but they take an abominable
amount of time to get started, and
usually have their full impact long
after they are needed. Permanent tax
cuts provide long-term stimulus to
tle economy, but they are very hard
to revoke when restraint becomes
necessary.
The President-elect must find a
happy balance between these; present
unemployment and general sluggish-
ness may be the problems to today,
but tomorrow holds a different tale.
TODAY'S STAFF:
NEWS: Susan Ades, Jay Levin, J e f f
Ristine, Tim Schick, Bill Turque
EDITORIAL PAGE: Mike Beckman,
Elaine Elsen, Stephen Kursman, Jon
Pansius, Lisa Zisook, Rob Meachum
PHOTO TECHNICIAN: Scott Eccker
Monopoly: A game of life
By MARK BLACKBURN
Pacific News Service
IS MONOPOLY a monopoly? Ralph Ans-
pach, a free-enterprise economist with
no liking for giant firms, is in the final
stages of a three-year battle to prove it
is-and shouldn't be.
If he wins, one of the world's best-
selling proprietary board games will be
in the public domain like checkers. If
he loses, he will have to find a new
name for a game he developed and mar-
keted called Antsi-Monopoly - or go out
of business.
A decision is expected in the next
few weeks from U.S. District Judge Spen-
cer Williams, in whose court here both
sides recently presented four days of
evidence and argument.
Anspach, whose game turns Monopoly
upside down, has long contended that
Parker Brothers - a General Mills sub-
sidiary which owns Monopoly - seeks
to crush him the way Standard Oil stamp-
ed out its competitors.
AN ECONOMICS PROFESSOR at San
Francisco State University, Anspach sees
himself as a man fighting for a princi-
ple.
A year ago, he says, he turned down
an offer by General Mills to buy him
out for $500,000.
"I assure you, don't think it wasn't
nice to be rich for a day," he said.
"You can put $250,000 in blue chip stocks
and retire. But there are things more
important than money-like integrity."
At that point, Anspach's lawyer, John
Droeger, who would have split the mon-
ey with him, dropped out of the case
under pressure from his partners.
ANSPACH'S STORY BEGINS in 1970,
when he started to accumulate business
games to play with his nine-year-old
son William. After playing Monopoly,
Anspach said, he sometimes criticized
the oil companies for anti-trust viola-
tions.
On one occasion, "William turned to
me rather aggressively and said,nWell,
what's wrong with being a monopolist
anyway?' " he testified.
Irked by this heresy, Anspach began
looking for a business game based on
anti-monopolistic principles. Unable to
find one, he, William and other family
members designed their own.
In it, players, .instead of cornering
the market in real estate as in Monopoly,
act 'as anti-trust lawyers and seek to
break up conglomerates with such names
as Stundart Oil, IPM and Fort Auto.
USING A BOARD like Monopoly, play-
ers seek indictments rather than prop-
erty, build anti-trust cases rather than
little houses and hotels, go to court in-
stead of jail and collect $100 when they
pass Budget Bureau instead of "Go."
In 1973 Anspach put the game on the
market under the name Anti.Monopoly-
He has since sold a million dollars'
worth of sets, although much of the
profit has gone back into the business
and to fight moves by Parker Brothers
to force him to drop the name Anti-
Monopoly on grounds of trademark in-
fringement.
But along the way Anspach discov-
ered that Parker Brothers' version of
the origins of Monopoly was false. Like
a dedicated trust-buster, he began to
draw up his own charges of fraud and
anti-trust violation.
According to Parker Brothers, an un-
employed engineer named Charles Dar-
row invented the game during the De-
pression. Darrow, who has since died,
earned , millions in royalties from the
game after patenting it in 1934. Parker
Brothers has sold some 80 million sets.
TO COUNTER THAT VERSION, Ans-
pach produced nine elderly witnesses
who said they had been playing Monopo-
ly as early as 1920 on home-made boards,
many of which were entered in evi-
dence.
Monopoly, they said, had been a rage
in the 1920s and 1930s at some Ivy League
colleges, and in Philadelphia and even
Atlantic City, whose famed Boardwalk
is one of the most expensive proper-
ties in Monopoly.
Anspach's witnesses, some of them
still angry at Darrow, searched their
memories and reminisced about those
early days.
Everett G. Rodebaugh, a retired court
reporter, showed the court his own oil-
cloth board on which, he said, he had
been playing Monopoly since 1920..
DANIEL W. LAYMAN, a 1929 gradu-
ate of Williams College, recalled: "About
1927 I spent, a few days with (two fra-
ternity brothers) at their home in Red-
ding, (Pa.) and they said they had a
game they thought would interest me,
and they brought forth a home-made
board, which they called Monopoly," he
added.
"It was subsequently played in the
DKE fraternity house in Williamstown
in 1927, 1928 and 1929, and was played
only under the name Monopoly," Layman
remembered.
Deciding there was money to be made
out of the game, Layman copyrighted
a version of it under the name "Fi-
nance." It was not a great success,
however, and Parker Brothers acquired
it from his partners and still sells it
as a little-known companion to Monopo-
ly.
Dorothea Raiford, an elderly woman
from Northfield, N.J., recalled that she
and her late husband were keen play-
ers of the game on boards they and
their friends made between 1931-33.
1JER HUSBAND, she said, knew At-
lantic City and was the one who in-
troduced Atlantic City locations like
Boardwalk,-Park Place and Marvin Gar-
dens into the game Darrow later came
across.
One of the angrier witnesses was
Charles E. Todd, 80, a retired hotel
manager from Philadelphia. He said he
hpd taught the game to Darrow and
his wife Esther in 1933 and had given
him 12 copies of rules he had written
down at Darrow's request.
"He stole the game from us, you
might say," Todd testified.
After it was patented, he added, "If
theys(the Darrows) were coming down
the street and saw me, they would duck
into a -store or cross the road and go
someplace else. So they were on the
guilty side, I would say."
ANOTHER WITNESS, Willard Allphin,
74, recalled that in 1931 or 1932 he un-
successfully tried to sell a version of
the game, which he learned as a stu-
dent at MIT, to the Milton Bradley game
company.
Asked if he still played Monopoly,
Allphin replied: "That's a little bit of
a sore point. I haven't played since
the old days.
"I didn't begrudge Darrow his mil-
lions, but I didn't want to play the
game," he added.
Faced with clear evidence that Dar-
row had not invented the game as Park-
er Brothers had always contended, the
firm changed its tune.
THE NEW VERSION held that Dar-
row had merely patented some "im-
provements" on an earlier gamed called
the Landlord's Game, for which Parker
Brothers held patents dated 1904. and
1924.
In court, retired Parker Brothers
president Robert B. M. Barton aban-
doned the Darrow myth entirely. He
said he never believed Darrow had in-
vented Monopoly, since no game is ever
really new. He also said he had made
some inquiries into the game's origins
when he bought the rights and asked
Darrow if he could provide an affidavit
stating he had originated the name Mo-
nopoly.
In a letter dater March 21, 1935, Dar-
row replied: "I will sign a statement
or an affidavit to the effect that I nev-
er heard of any, game or pastime called
\ Tthsnoly prior to my own use of the
word in this connection."
Barton conceded that he had not ob-
ined such an affidavit from Darrow,
ht added: "If he was willing to make
that affidavit, we needed nothing else."
WHILE THE EVIDENCE a inst the
"Darrow 'myth" was convincinig, Ans-
pach's new lawyer,aBenjamin Dreyfus,
conceded that in the eyes of the law
it was not sufficient to prove fraud, and
dropped the charges.
But, he contended, the evidepce was
strong enough to prevent Judge Wil-
liams from granting Parker Brothers'
demand that Anspach call Anti-Monopoly
by any other name.
That issue - and Anspach's claim
to being a heavyweight trustbuster -
now rest of the niceties of trademark
law, and legal observers say it could
go either way.
Mark Blackburn is a former Reuters
News Service correspondent.
I 1
Letters to the
Letters:
The IRose Bawl
.etrogression
To The Daily:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED,
wish to express our concern
and strong disagreement with
a proposed amendment to the
U-M Regents' By-Laws on Non-
discrimination. According to a
story in the University Record
(Dec. 6), the amendment would
replace the specific categories
in the By-laws with the phrase
"any legally impermissible
characteristic or status". Elim-
inated would be specific refer-
ences to "race, sex, color,
creed" etc.
We consider such a step re-
trogressive and oppose the
amendment, as proposed, for
the following reasons:
First the proposed phrase
does not make logical sense.
What is "legally impermissi-
ble" is NOT the "characteris-
tic" or "status". Rather, the
apparent intent is to say that
it is legally impermissible for
the University to discriminate
because of certain character-
istics or statuses of a person.
More importantly, we op-
pose the amendment because
we feel it is absolutely essential
to retain in the By-laws spe-
cific mention of categories pro-
tected from discrimination. We
believe such specific mention
would (1) let affected persons
know they are protected from
discrimination; and (2) make
would be committeed to ob-
serve no more than what fed-
eral an dstate laws dictate. Ex-
cluded, for example, would be
relevant provisions in local or-
dinances, such as those barring
discrimination based on sexual
preference or marital status in
the Ann Arbor City Code. The
University's position is it does
not have to obey City laws.
Instead of substituting an ap-
parently general, yet in reality,
restrictive phrase, we propose
that the Regents amend the By-
laws to include, in addition to
the specific grounds prohibited
by state and federal laws, non-
discrimination based on sexual
preference or marital status.
Such an amendment as we
propose herein, would be en-
tirely consistent with recent
University practice. To illus-
trate:
In March 1975, the Regents
and the Graduate Employees
Organization (GEO) signed a
labor agreement which, inter
alia, barred discrimination
based on sexual preference.
In August 1975, the Regents
and UAW Local 2001 concluded
a labor agreement containing
a similar provision on sexual
preference, as well as a pro-
vision barring discrimination
based on marital status.
In July 1976, the University.
published its Graduate Student
Assistant Affirmative Action
sidered and placed without re-
gard to . . . sexual preference"
(Article VI, Sec. 1.0) and
-"The University . . . shall
provide equal opportunities for
employment Ifor all qualified
graduate students . . . without
regard to . . . sexual prefer-
ence" (Article VII, Sec. 1.0).
Also in July 1976, the Univer-
sity agreed in a contract for a
VD Program with the Washte-
naw County Board of Com-
missioners to ban discrimina-
tion based on sexual prefer-
ence or marital status, among
other factors, and take affirm-
ative action:
-"The University shall pro-
vide the services . . . to all
residents of Washtenaw Coun-
ty . . . or persons specifically
referred . . . without any limi-
tation to . . . sexual preference,
marital status" (Article 2);
"The University agrees it
shall not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for
employment related to this
agreement because of . . .
sexual preference, marital sta-
tus . . ." (Article 8) ;
-"the University shall take
affirmative action to ensure
that such applicants are em-
ployed, and that such em-
plovees are treated during
emnloyment, without regard to
their . . . sexual preference,
marital status . . ." (ibid.);
-"Th e University shall . . .
Daily,
mination based on marital sta-
tus.
Expanding the non-discrimi-
nation By " laws to cover sex-
ual preference and marital sta-
tus for the entire University
community would make more
credible the University's ex-
pressed positions as cited
above. For until the ban on,
discrimination on these grounds'
is applied consistently to all
members of the University
community, the University's
expressions of commitment will
not ring true.
In taking a progressive
stance on these issues, the Uni-
versity would not be alone.
The Michigan Student As-
sembly already bars all student
organizations at the U-M from
discriminating on the basis of
sexual preference. I
Other institutions, such as
UCLA and the University of
Cincinnati, 1?an discrimination
based on sexual preference or
orientation.
Furthermore. the national
AAUP has established that uni-
versities can be censured for
dliscrimninating on the ground of
spoial nreference.hDoes the
TT-M want to risk an AAUP
bl-kligtinq?
We helieve not, and wornld
brne that re,'son and ii +ire
will nre Tail. We seek -vnliit
not-ctinn from dwrirninatn,
r-1t',r than an a11 Qedly "l-
pn^^moaqsintx" rbra A w ^h
Shahin
To The Daily:
DAILY REPORTER
Jim Shahin's complaint ("Male
Reporter, Bumped from Chris-
tian Concert") doesn't deserve
much sympathy. Gleaning the
facts from the article, Mr.
Shahin went to review- Meg
Christian's concert of feminist
music and was told by a mem-
ber of her entourage that she
wanted to be reviewed by a
woman. Shahin grudgingly
agreed to this and a woman
friend took his seat to write the
review. Rather than join the
waiting line for another tisket,
he left, and later wrote the
article giving the impression
that he was refused admission
and that the concert was anti-
male, 'a "no-man's-land" in The
Daily's words.
As one man who attended the
concert I can say this was not
true. In no way was I made
to feel unwelcome. Meg Chris-
tian's songs and comments
were not anti-male. The good
feeling that was generatedhat
the concert wvas based on her
positive ideas about women's
problems and emotions, not on
any unfavourable protrayals of
men.
Every performers would like
to choose his or her own re-
viewer. It's no credit to Meg
dustcloud
pass threat
To The Daily:
To The Daily:
AS A NATIVE Detroiter and alumnus
of the U. of M. Medical School, I would
like to add my voice to the growing chorus
of those criticizing Big-10 football.
As the last few Rose Bowls have de-
cisively shown, it takes more than just
"three yards and a cloud of dust."
Possibly the concept of C.M.E. (con-
I WANT TO SEE the Michigan team
to be strong in all the departments of
modern football. USC knew that Michi-
gan could not present an actual pass
threat.
I am a Michigan '27 graduate when
Ben Osterbaan and Ben Friedman gave
the U of M team a perfect pass threat.