Page 4-Thursday, July 13,;1978-The Michigan Daily
rmichigan DAILY
Eighty-eight Years of Editorial Freedom
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI. 48109
Vol. LXXXVIII, No. 42S News Phone: 764-0552
Thursday, July 13, 1978
Edited and managed by students
at the University of Michigan
Military shell game
wastes tax dollars
THE LATEST evidence of the Penatgon's para-
noia of a Soviet sneak attack is a new plan to
hide long range missiles. Under the plan, ap-
propriately dubbed a "shell game," land-based
Minuteman III missiles would be shuffled around
to various silos in the U.S. Thus, the plan goes, the
Soviet Union could never pinpoint the missiles'
location, which would deter them from attem-
pting to stage a sneak attack. With this bit of
chicanery, officials say they can ward off the
Soviets until we develop new, more powerful
missiles in eight or nine years.
We can't help but marvel at the ingenuity and
complexity of the Pentagon's new plan, but
there's at least one non-technical flaw: it's going
to cost taxpayers $10 billion. Why, when big
government finds critics in every quarter, do the
same citizens and politicians seem so willing to
stand by as defense expenditures continue to soar
to outrageous heights?
With the Republicans favoring a 33 per cent in-
come tax cut, and an increasing number of
Democrats are joining the tax relief bandwagon,
it is clear that the federal government is being
asked to spend money more cautiously. And the
most sensible place for austeiity begins with
completely unreasonable U.S. defense spending
which continues to grow, heedless of economic or
humanitarian considerations.
We hope that policy makers in Washington paid
some attention to reports coming out of the recent
international disarmament conference at the
U.N. If military swindles like this one continue to
be treated seriously there can be little hope for a
realistic rational disarmament policy.
The shell game is a product of war game
strategy played by a gaggle of generals with real
money, and we simply cannot afford the waste.
These military leaders who are still looking under
their collective bed for Communists may be
skillful strategists, but they are too myopic to
wield control over large sums of money, money
badly needed by more mundane, socially oriented
federal agencies.
a
0
N0
M NL'ff t,.0
1 l N

Taking to the street
By MITCH CANTOR beatine of an eight-mile run. But I do feel gre

'at an

With each step a sharp pain rakes my side, my
skeleton jolted by a sharp electrical shock.
That's how I feel after the fifth mile or so when I
try to run long distances. I have never gone more
than eight miles, and I have this sinking feeling that
I'm never going to make it to nine. Every time I suit
up in my gray sweatshirt (which is plastered to my
chest with sweat on hot days), shorts and Adidas
running shoes, I tell myself that Iam not going to let
anything stop me from completing ten miles. But
the same thing happens every time: if I should hap-
pen to make it past the fourth mile, I begin to feel
very complacent, and convince myself that to go
four more will be sufficient.
I originally started running this spring with
serious aspirations toward the 1979 Boston
Marathon. I had talked to several acquaintances
who'd lasted all 26 miles 385 yards, and each
assured me that if I could train myself to run 16 to 18
miles, my adrenaline would pull me through the
rest of the grueling race.
But after nine weeks of run-whenever-there's-
time training, I am finding that my limbs are more
strong-willed than I am, that "mind over matter" is
only a phrase.
The problem with which I am now faced is why I
still run - or try to run - long distance. As I said,
my chances of lining up in Boston next spring seem
pretty slim, and despite what I tell myself, I still
have not adopted the right attitude. I know that I've
many things to do each day, and that most have a
higher priority than running. With this in mind, I
don't feel as bad about not having a regimented
schedule of daily running.
My gravest fear is that I am subconsciously run-
ning to be part of a nation-wide fad. I would like to
believe that I run because it makes me feel good.
The only problem is that it doesn't. I've always had
terribly flat feet, and though I've never been slow, I
don't believe they were fashioned to take the

hour after I run. So that must be it: I run to feel bet-
ter an hour later.
I'm glad I founda reason for my habit, for the one
thing running isn't is fun. As a matter of fact, it's
damn boring. I run through a beautiful suburban
area with plenty of trees and flowers, but after a
while it just gets routine.
My gravest fear is that I am
subconsciously running to be part
of a nationwide fad. I'd like to
believe that I run because it makes
me feel good.
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if I could at least sing
while I was running. But I tried that once and nearly
fainted from lack of air. (Too bad; I would've cut
quite a figure trotting down sidestreets bellowing
out "Running on Empty.")
Anyway, I've pretty much resigned myself to the
notion that I'll just continue to run haphazardly. The
only problem with that is if I don't take running
seriously, I may transform into one of those portly
45-year-old men with a bald spot who jogs a mile
each day and thinks he's doing well.
No, I definitely don't want that. So to avoid the
perils of middle-age, I'm afraid I'll have to endure a
little more pain; it's time to stretch my legs again.
And by the way, just in case you're wondering,
today is the day I'm going to go more than eight
miles. It's in my bones.
"
Mitch Cantor is a Daily reporter who
writes between runs.

Health Service Handbook

By Sylvia S. Hacker
QUESTION: I am a very healthy 20-year-old
woman. I want to be sterilized. I have heard that it
might be hard to find a doctor who will do the
operation because there is no reason for it, other
than that I hate children and don't want any. Is this
true?
How much would such an operation cost? And is
sterilization 100 per cent foolproof?
ANSWER: A regular contributor to our column,
Dr. Barbara Adams submits the following response
to your question:
In a world of contraception now ruled by pill
paranoia and histories of IUD indisposition,
sterilization (tubal ligation in women) appears to be
an almost-perfect form of birth control. It is safe
(virtually no complications in the hands of a
reliable surgeon), reliable (100 per cent), and
nearly hassle-free'(veterans of the procedure claim
that it only hurt at the beginning when they laughed,
and can point only to a one-inch, indiscernible scar
as a result of the latest surgical instruments being
used). When compared with the cost of other
methods over the long run, tubal ligation is inexpen-
sive too - about $300 doctor's fee plus $800 to $1000
for covering a one to two night hospital stay, lab
fees, anaesthesia, operating room, etc.
For some people, sterilization is certainly an ideal
method of contraception, but for many it has one
major drawback - irreversibility. Even with the
current advancements in gynecologic surgery, a
woman who has undergone tubal ligation must con-
sider her options for childbearing to be closed. But
we all change, and even the most strongly held
beliefs may be jarred loose by constant bombar-
dment of new experiences and new ideas, par-
ticularly in college and in graduate school. Many
important life-style decisions change when a person
meets his/her life-mate and suddenly must account
for a second person's tastes in the calculus of hap-
piness.
For all these reasons, many gynecologists (and

procedure to young, unmarried patients. To be sure,
this is a value judgement on the doctor's part, just
as much of medical practice is value-laden. Most
physicians would be much more comfortable urging
such a patient to preserve his/her option to change,
and for the short term, to use the safest and most
reliable, reversible contraceptive method con-
sistent with one's tastes and motivation.
LETTERS TO THE DAILY
Regression in
Golden State
To the Daily:
The "Tax Revolt" in California was a losing
proposition for the workers in the opinion of the
Socialist Labor Party.
Had sup-orters of California's Proposition 13 of-
fered a barefaced plan for putting thousands of
workers out of work, cutting back essential social
services, and depositing a few extra billion dollars
in the pockets of capitalists and big landlords -
they would probably have been booed off any public
platform.
Yet that was the essence of the proposal millions
of California workers endorsed recently when they
voted for Proposition 13, the property tax relief
measure now threatening the nation's most
populous state with economic and social regression.
In the final analysis, the tax revolt can only serve
the capitalist class. Its goals are working-class
disunity, cutbacks in the services workers need, and
higher profits for capitalists. Workers can only geta
bigger share of the "economic" pie by organizing
into class conscious industrial unions and pressing
forward for higher wages and eventually the
establishment of a Socialist society based on
production for use. Tax reforms will only