lMiritan Daitl
Eighty-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom

Nuclear
By HARVEY WASSERMAN

420 Maynard St., An
Thursday, September 16, 1976
Edited and managed by student

In Arbor, MI 48109
News Phone: 76
s at the University of Michigar

D '
eposit-return lease.
In a last ditch effort to assure that o Returnable bottles are fa
millions of cans and bottles continue
to end up in and along the ditches They are environmentally s
of all our state's roadways, .Coca- courage littering, provide
of-Uand allstte rodwa, Coca with modest income whenev
Cora, 7-Up and all the other big soda body has thrown some out
pop companies are launching a sig- dow,, preserve resources and1
nificant propaganda drive against re- er than disposables.
turnables.
The truth is, the soft dr
A polyminute commercial recently ples' information being sprea
broadcast on AM radio station WJR and to be espoused in ever
was a fine beginning example of the quantities as Novembertdraw
kinds of things the soda people are is mostly out and out lie
trying to make the public believe. truths and out-of-context p
They may well succeed. The commer- sations. If prices do go up
cial was a long line of authorative only be because desirouse
sounding facts and figures, promising profits they raised them, w
the consumer that if he votes throw- institution of non-disposab:
aways out of existence, long lines at good excuse.
markets, much higher pop prices and Oregon has already pa
unemployed toss away makers' work- throwaway bottle ban an
ers draining the economy will be a working out very nicely. On
ghastly way of life. An undertone to trip there, no cans or bottle
the mindzapping pro-disposable com- sort were spied along the h
mercials that are just starting up is save for a rare exception
that these containers are so much Moreover, the throwaway1
more convenient. A trip to the store, not in the least visibly affec
is quite frankly, an incredible pain state's economy and soda p
in tender parts to the average cola
fan generally as competitive a
fan.
where. Most of all, resources
We cannot afford to go on crush- ing conserved. Oregon is an
ing what retrievable disposables there able example for Michigan1
are, and mixing them into new super- We fully support the instil
highways. Cans are even more pre- a throwaway container ban i
clous. Though both bottles and cans gan, and strongly ply the c
and recyclable, far more people just to most critically scrutinize
chuck them rather than directing 7-Ups et al.'s upcoming prop
them to reclaimation centers. How .millions of dollars on which1
long can we dig up raw resources sending In their last despe
for only ephemeral use before scat- tempt to protect their own
tering the things all over the place, interests.
to rot, (excepting glass) never to be Their drinks may be wo
utilized again? but some of their motives ar
ST4FF WRITERS: Leslie Brown, Paul
Marybeth Dillon, Ernie Dunbar, He
hardt, Jeff Frank, Cindy Gatziolis,

First of a Four Part Series
IN THE FALL of 1966, the Fermi nuclear
power in Monroe, Michigan almost
4-0552 caused a major catastrophe. I was Edi-
torial Director of the Michigan Daily at
n the time, but never heard a word about it
until 1973.
When I did hear about that accident, I
was also being introduced to the fact that
the utility where I now live in Montague,
Massachusetts wanted to build a giant nu-
clear plant less than four miles from our
r communal farm. Instinctively we reacted
ar super-.negatively to the proposals, and a solid
throways. year of study did nothing to dissuade our
und, dis- instincts. Our group now works full time
children against nuclear power just as many of
ver some- us worked full-time against American in-
the win- volvement in Vietnam.
look nic-
ink peo-
d around ...
r greater
ws nears,
araphra-r
, it willl
of more
sing the
ales as a '
assed a
d it is
a recent
s of any
ighways
or two
ban has
cted that Lejol/
rices are The first major action in the movement
as else- came on February 22, 1974 - Washington's
are be- Birthday. On a cold, moonless night, Sam
admir- Lovejoy, 27, slipped onto the Montague
Plains and knocked over a 500-foot weather
voters, tower. The tower was there to check wind
tution of direction for the proposed nuclear plant.
n Michi- Anyone building a nuclear plant is re-
onsumer quired to have a year's data on wind di-
Coke's, rection at the site, basically so that the
paganda, authorities will have a rough idea which
they are way to try evacuating people should there
rate at- be a major disaster.
hoggish Lovejoy tipped over the tower basically
as a protest, but also as an attempt to de-
)nderful lay construction. He figured that by disrupt-
e not. ing the flow of data he might cause a kink
in the licensing procedure.
HE WAS not a secret saboteur, however.I
Campbell, After disengaging three guy wires and
nry Engel-
Don Mac- sending the tower crashing to the snow,
, Pat Rode, Lovejoy ran to the nearest road and flag-
ged down a police car. He told them there
was something wrong with the tower and
that he wanted to talk to the local police
t . chief.

power:
After some fast talking, Lovejoy man
aged to convince the officer on duty that he
had in fact destroyed the tower. The of
ficer, Sargeant Donald Cade, actually re
fused to believe Lovejoy until he sent a
cruiser to the site. "My God!" radioec
one of the officers, "A plane musta hit
the tower!." Lovejoy broke up laughing
and challenged them to find the airplane.
Lovejoy was eventually charged with
"willful and malicious destruction of per-
sonal property," a five year felony. He
pleaded not guilty and six months later
stood trial, defending himself.
Lovejoy's basic defense was that top-
ping the tower was not only not malicious,
it was in fact his duty. Nuclear power was
so dangerous, he said, that anyone acting
to stop it was in fact acting in self-defense
and in defense of the community.
TO BACK UP his case, Lovejoy called
as witnesses Dr. John Gofman and Dr.
Howard Zinn. Dr. Gofman is one of the
world's leading nuclear chemists. He
worked on the Manhattan project, which
developed the atomic bomb, and made
pioneer discoveries in atomic research
without which nuclear fission could not
have developed to its present level.
Dr. Gofman is also a medical doctor,
and has done extensive research on the
effects of radiation on the human body.
With Dr. Arthur Tamplin he co-authored
Poisoned Power, one of the seminal tracts
on the dangers of nuclear power plants.
As one of the world's most respected
scientists, Dr. Gofman's decision to testi-
fy at Lovejoy's trial was not to be taken
lightly. Unfortunately, presiding Judge
Kent Smith ruled that Gofman could not
testify in front of the jury. Gofman could
talk into the record as a basis for fur-
ther appeal. But Smith ruled that unless
Lovejoy could prove that he had personal
conversations with Gofman before toppling
the tower, Gofman's testimony on the dan-
gers of nuclear power could not be consid-
ered strictly relevant to Lovejoy's state
of mind at the time of the deed.
Lovejoy argued that by reading Gofman's
book he had indeed "talked" to him. But
Smith didn't buy it, and Gofman therefore
testified to a full courtroom but an empty
ury box.
A SIMILIAR FATE awaited Howard Zinn,
professor of American History at Bos-
ton University, and a leading expert on
civil disobedience. Zinn testified at length
o the validity of conscientiously breaking
he law, to the long string of American po-
itical activists who have done it to the
iltimate betterment of society as a whole.
Again the jury was not allowed to hear
he testimony. But Zinn's rap was so mov-
ng that at one point Judge Smith leaned
over and asked to have a few words with
Zinn in private. Later Zinn said the Judge
iad asked to join him for dinner.
Finally, Lovejoy took the stand himself,
md for a day-and-a-half told the jury (now
allowed to be present) how and why he

he new

LEAKIk)& ROM TIRE
OVR - "c<
1iT CWI~ M R00C~e 14 t 7

ietnam

had toppled the tower, and why he felt
that nuclear power was dangerous enough
for him to risk a five-year prison sentence
trying to stop it.
After seven days of exhausting court-
room drama, the trial came to an unex-
pected conclusion. Judge Smith discovered
a fatal flaw in the indictment. Lovejoy

growing number of nuclear opponents, with
remarkable success. In the spring of 1974,
a poll of the town of Montague showed the
population to be 3:1 in favor of the plant.
Six months later the ratio was less than
2:1, with the precinct where the plant was
to be located voting heavily against. Some
four hundred voters had changed their

had been charged with destroying "per- minds in half a year. A subsequent poll of
sonal property". But the utility had paid surrounding towns showed many of them
In the spring of 1974, a two to one, with the precinct
poll of the town of Jonta- w hlere the plant was to be o-
gue showed the population cated voting heavily against.
to be three to one in favor Some four hundred voters
of the plant. Six months lat- had chasged ther minds in
er the -atdo ias less than half a year."
..,...... """i':i :ti:::t:::}:"::i ::":i :'::.:::"i i :ss ! ':i "}:"::':"7::":"i}}:" :S'ra:"t" :'::.! i:}":::}' l::: ::'}:":":'..:i"}a g:":: :::::::".'J..: !:: JJ:::.

taxes on the tower as "real property"; in
Massachusetts an entirely separate sta-
tute governs the destruction of "real prop-
erty". Lovejoy had been charged with the
wrong crime, and the Judge set him free
without sending it to the jury.
As it turned out, a poll of the jury re-
vealed that they would most likely have
acquitted Lovejoy anyway. The prosecu-
tor, they agreed, had failed to prove that
Lovejoy was "malicious".
DESPITE THE LEGAL technicalities,
many observers of the trial felt that Judge
Smith had become quite sympathetic to
Lovejoy's act, and that he was more than
happy to let him go on the technicality.
Indeed, Lovejoy himself argued strenu-
ously against it, very much wanting to be
acouitted by the jury rather than by the
Judge.
The Lovejoy trial served as a catalyst
for the growth of an anti-nuclear movement
in western Massachusetts. It was front-
page news in the local papers for a full
week, and the testimony of Dr. Gofman
apparently convinced quite a few area
residents to be at least concerned - if not
opposed - to the coming of atomic reac-
tors to the neighborhood.
In the months that followed a strong
grassroots organization developed. An edu-I
cational campaign was carried out by a1

overwhelmingly opposed the project, and
even pro-nuclear observers conceded that
Montague itself would soon join them, de-
spite promises of jobs, tax breaks, and busi-
ness benefits.
Perhaps most devastating of all, the
utility building the plant announced on the
day of Lovejoy's acquittal that they were
delaying construction by four years. They
cited economic factors, but Lovejoy's sup-
porters like to think the company was more
than a little nervous about what they might
run up against when the bulldozers start-
ed approaching to the site.
In fact, they are now getting a preview
in Seabrook, New Hampshire, where the
first mass civil disobedience actions in the
history of the American environmental
movement are now underway.
Harve} Wasserman was Michigan Daily
Editorial Director 1966-67. He has
tanght history and journalism at Hamp-
shire College in Amherst, Mass., is an-
hor of Harvey Wasserrnan's History of
the United States published in 1972 by
Harper and Row. He lives on an organic
farming cornmune in Massachusetts and
ih in Ann Arbor to show Lovejoy's Nu-
clear War, a documentary about the
anti-nuclear power movement of the
1976 Ann Arbor Film Festival award for
best documentary.

Editorial Staff

Lachlan.hRich Ovshinsky, Jimn Powers,
John SchwartBs
Business Staff

I

Rob Meach um ...............
Co-Editors-in-Chief

Bill Turque

leff Ristine .................. . . Managing Editor
Tim Schick . . ................. ExotJv Editor
tephen Hersh ............... . . Magazine Editor
ob Meachum ............ ... Editorial Director
ois Josimovich ....................Arts Editor
TAFF WRITERS: Susan Ades, Dana Bauman,.
Michael Beckman, Dana Bauman, James Burns,
Jodi Dimick, Elaine Fletcher, Mark Friedlander,
Tom Godell, Kurt Harju, Charlotte Heeg, Rich-
ard James, Tom Kettler, Chris Kochmanski,
Stephen Kursnian, Jay Levin, Ann Marie Lip-
inski, George Lobsenz, Pauline Lubens, Teri
Maneau, Maureen Nolan, Mike Norton, Jon
Pansius, Kim Potter, Cathy Reutter, Ann Marie
Schiavi, Karen Schulkins, Jeff Selbst, Rock
Sobel, Tom Stevens, Steve Stojic, Cathi Suyak,
Jim Tobin, Jim valk, Margaret Yao, Andrew
Zerman.
Sports Staff
il Stieg ........ ..Sports Editor
tich Lerner ... ........ Executive Sports Editor
kndy Glazer ............ Managing Sports Editor
ick Bonino Associate Sports Editor
IGHT EDITORS: Tom Cameron, Enid Goldman,
Kathy Henneghan, Scott Lewis, Rick Maddock,
Bob Miller, John Niemeyer, Mark Whitney.

Beth Friedman ...............Business Manager
Deborah Dreyfuss ...........Operations Manager
Kathleen Mulhern .........Advertising Manager
David Harlan.................Finance Manager
Dan Blugerman..................Sales Manager
Pete Peterson ...........Advertising Coordinator
Cassie St. Clair............ Circulation Manager
Beth Stratford Circulation Director
Photography Staff
PAULINE LUBENS . ......... Chief Photographer
SCOTT ECKER. Staff Photographer
ALAN BILINSKY ....... Staff Photographer
TODAY'S STAFF:
News: Lani Jordan, Ken Parsigian,
Jeff Ristine, Karen Schulkins, Jim
Tobin, Laurie Young
Editorial Page: Tom Stevens, Rob
Meachum
Arts Page: Lois Josimovich
Photo Technician: Pauline Lubens


Students

pin

down

'the Prez'

(Continued from Page 1)
such plans.
Q. People who thought they
were doing-the right thing, we
that supported the war in Viet
Nam until there were innocent
children dead, were doing the
wrong thing, not the people
that deserted.
A. Well that's a matter of
personal judgment and opinion
and...
Q. You pardon, Nixon and then
let people ...
A. I just respectfully disagree.
Q. I just wondered how you
justify the fact that you vetoed
56 bills since you've taken of-
fice and considering that num-
ber one, many of those were
appropriations for jobs, for edu-
cational programs, for health
programs and number two, that
you are an unelected president
whose's in effect destroying the
will of our duly elected repre-
sentatives.

rI,
/J
1. s 1) .

A. Let's take the last point
first. The 25th amendment which
was approved as an amendment
to the Constitution was followed
precisely and after a very
thorough investigation by the
House Committee on the Judici-
ary and the Senate Committee
on Rules and Administration -
both heavily dominated by the
maiority party - my record
and my life really was investi-
gated by some 400 FBI agents,
probably the most in-depth in-
vestigation of any American, I
was approved 93 to 2 by the
United States Senate and about
390-something to 45 or there-
abouts in the House of Repre-
sentatives - the precise proce-
dure permitted by the Consti-
tution was followed.
n. Do you think there's any
chance for any change, any sort
of progressive change that's go-
ing to help the people of this
country to take place if there's
a Republican president in of-
fice vetoing everything that the
Democratic Congress is trying
to do?
A. Let me just take the sec-
ond part of the question. I have

So my batting average is not
as high as those two former
presidents. I can justify - I
did and I still can - every
single one of those vetoes and
it is interesting to note that
out of the 57 - and one hasn't
really had an opportunity to be
acted on by the Congress, so
we'll take 56 - 42 of those
have been sustained by a Dem-
ocratic Congress. Again under
a procedure which was incor-
porated rineourhConstitution at
the time of the first one (veto).
So those vetoes certainly had, I
thing, a very beneficial impact
and I can take one instance, an
illustration that Congress in 1975
passed a housing bill that was
a bad bill in many, many re-
spects.
And after it was vetoed and
the veto sustained they came
back and worked with me and
my people in the Office of Man-
agement and Budget and HUD
(Housing and Urban Develop-
ment) and the net result was
that we came out with a rea-
sonable and constructive piece
of housing legislation. So what
the veto really is for, such as
Mr. Roosevelt used it and Mr.
Truman used it was to get the
Congress to stop passing bad
legislation, and gives the Con-
gress and the president an op-
portunity to come to a construc-
tive compromise. They did it.
I did it. And I think the coun-
try's better off.
Q. Mr. President, your ad-
ministration, in the wake of the
end of the war in Viet Nam and
things that both Democratic and
Republican predecessors have
done, has confronted a massive
array of economic problems
and vou've managed over the
last two years to reduce iinem-
olovment inconsistently. but a
considerable amount, and vou've
ranaaed to reduce inflation
from 11 and 13 ner cent to the
amonnt it was during the John-
son administration. Are you
confident that vour second ad-
ministrntion will be able to con-
tin"e this nrooress on both
frnnt and ifs nn ovon think vol

six per cent. We expected it to
drop further in calendar 1977
and as I recall the projections
we've always been high so the
projections in my own mind
will be better. By 1978 the rate
of inflation will be between
three and four per cent. Now
that is more managable - it's
not as good as it was during
President Eisenhower's time
when it was 1.2 per cent for an
eight-year period on the aver-
age or it won't be as good as
it was during the limited time
that President Kennedy was
president but it's a downward
trend where we want it down
to somewheres around three per
cent, hopefully less. Now, can
we do all the other programs?
I recommended in January of
this year in my State of the Un-
ion as well as in my budget
proposals what we call catastro-
phic illness coverage for those
people who are on Medicare -
about 25 million of them total-
lv on Medicare and three mil-
lion are victims, tragically vic-
tims of what is called a pro-
longed or catastrophic illness
where burden of hospitalization
and medical care - few if any
families in this country can
sustain. And we submitted a
nrogram even in this coming
buidget year, for fiscal '77, a
catastrophic program. If we
cou'ld do it in fiscal '77, we cer-
tainlv can do it as we move
ahead in '78 and '79.
Q. Are you confident that
you will he able to keen the rate
of inflation under control in
snite of perhaps contrarv ef-
forts on the cart of the Federal
reserve Boards who screen the
economy?
A. I'm very satisfied, frank-
lv, with the monetarv policies
of the Federal Reserve Board.
They're keening their rate of
rnwth of the money suonly.
between four and seven ner
cent -- they varv it accordinq
to the circuumstances - I think
th'v meet monthly for that
n'urnose. And thev have varied

coordinated with our financial
plan.
Q. The Chicano population,
the Mexican race, has a tre-
mendous unemployment rate -
higher than what the govern-
ment states. What's your posi-
tion in relation to the Chicano
population in general a n d
what's being done about unem-
ployment in cities like Detroit
where minority people . . .
A. Well let me first take a
program that doesn't relate to
employment at the present time
but it does relate to the poten-
tial for Chicanos as they go
through the educational process
- the bilingual language pro-
gram . .
Q. This University has a rot-
ten bilingual program . . .
A. I can't pass judgment on
the bilingual program at ev-
ery University or every school
system - all I'm saying is
the federal government ap-
propriates about 100 million
dollars for a bilingual pro-
gram and I think the Presi-
dent has to rely on the suc-
cess of a program - on the
people that administer it.
But let's talk about the job
program for the minorities.
The unemoloyment figure
last was 7.9: roughly seven
and a half million neonle un-
emnloved, RR million em-
ploved but the minorities. nar-
ticiularly the blacks. the block
vo'iths T should say - it was
about 40 per cent - far too
high and t think something
has to be done about it and I
n"nv have somethine to say
about that this evening.
0. Tn resnonse to a recent
wn"'stion on Congresswoman
Tplla Ah7uuo's amndment to
th Crivil Piqht's Rill of 1064
wl' ich wo'ld naranteP civil
r&ats to cav neonle. vo were
n-ot-d as saving: "T recounize
thiS is a verv serio'us orohlem
in oir so-iety and T've alwavs
tried to be an understanding
n--son as far as neonlP are
rn-Prned who are different
th1-n nvsalf. That does not

I answered questions and the
question was raised.
Q. Okay. Well I've got two
questions about that: first of all,
will you support Ms. Abzug's
amendment and would you
please elaborate on what you
mean by the 'problem,' as you
see it.
A. Well first, the amendment
is something that is going
through the legislative process
and not having seen the exact
amendment I don't think I
should comment on it one way
or another. If and when it gets
to the White House, and I'm
president, I'll pass judgment on
it. But I think it's unwise for me
to commit myself to any amend-
ment I haven't seen or read. I
think that would be irresponsible
to do otherwise. When I answer-
ed this question I was respect-
ing the views and the lifestyle
of the person who was asking
the question.
Q. But is it a problem?
A. Well it appears to be a
problem un the minds of a good
many Americans. It isn't a prob-
lem that I think a president
should
Q. You mean United States
people?
A. Well I'm talking about
215 million Americans. There
seems to be a problem but
I'm not going to categorize big
groups unfairly-I try to be
very judicious and very un-
prejudiced in my attitude. I
was and I will.
Q. Mr. President, current U.S.
policy is one that excludes homo-
sexuals from entering into this
country. However, some gay
women and men have been able
to enter this country, but only by
hiding the gayness from U.S.
officials and here on this cam-
pus and other campuses there
are gav students and professors
who live in constant fear of
being deported if their gayness
should be made public. In view
of the Helsinki agreements,
which guarantee freedom of
travel between countries and in
view of the American Psychia-