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


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.

April 20, 1980 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1980-04-20

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


Page 4-Sundgy, April 20, 1980-The Michigan Daily

0 1
.r 4F Ur
t t 9a I tj
Ninet4v Ve.ars ()/* Editorial Freedom


Vol. XC, No. 160

News Phone: 764-0552


l . L1

ri , C9',zo


Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Anderson: A challenger to
the Republican mainstream

IF r
tom' l T'ASA
cw p i K



AaL17 G r h TA

I t16fE
I~' pR3M



BY THE TIME Michigan's voters
cast their primary ballots, John
Anderson ,may no longer be actively
seeking the Republican nomination.
But at the moment, we are safe in
calling the Illinoisan by far the most
attractive of the GOP possibilities.
Anderson has been the subject of
much scorn and derision on the part of
his GOP opponents for holding
positions that fall short of traditional
conservative reasoning. To the extent
that those accusations are correct -
and many of his stances justify them -
we applaud Anderson.
The congressman first wrested his
way into the political spotlight with his
"50-50" plan, which would impose a 50-
cent tax per gallon of gasoline and
simultaneously cut Social Security
taxes by 50 per cent. The philosophical
thrust of the proposal is at the heart of
Anderson's appeal; it would bolster
energy conservation, while giving a
break to the poor.
Anderson's liberalism- on social
issues further sets him apart from -
and above - his distressing opponents.
He is a long-time civil rights advocate.
He backs the Equal Rights Amen-
dment, and supported the extension of
the time limit on its ratification. On
abortion, he is pro-choice, and he sup-
ports federal funding for women who

cannot afford them. He is far more
cautious and concerned about the en-
vironment than the other Republican
candidates are. And who can forget his
stand against the New Hampshire gun
lobby, alone among the candidates of
either party?
With regard to leadership qualities
- intelligence, tact, depth of thought,
and articulateness - Anderson has no
Republican peer.
Congressman Anderson has aptly
been called an anomaly for his many
liberal stands on social issues, which
loudly clash with other, less attractive
elements of his voting record. He
comes by his party affiliation honestly,
notwithstanding the snide remarks
from Ronald Reagan and the others.
He supported America's presence in
Vietnam virtually to its very end, he
voted for the B-1 bomber, he supported
the drastic and dangerous Kemp-Roth
tax cut bill, and his consistent support
for corporate power on labor-
management issues is truly appalling.
Still, as compared to the frightening
demagogue who leads the Republican
race, and the pale shadow from Con-
necticut who can only mimic the front-
runner, Anderson looks like a beacon
of hope. If he opts for the independent
route, he may yet win our vote in

, lk)C -




\y_ V



On hostilities

toward Israel,

T 141W w

Ken nedy: A champion of
the left at, the right time

As a citizen of Israel, a democratic, and
pro-Western country in a region where there
are few democracies and where there is
little love for the West, I have been astonished
by the never-ending stream of articles (in the
Daily and in other Michigan newspapers)
vilifying my country. I must admit that I find
it difficult to explain both the evident
obsession with Israel and the hostility
directed against her in a country whose
journalists and intellectuals are supoosed to
value freedom and liberty.
Is this hostility the result of Israel's small
size and population? Then why not pick on
Singapore or Jamaica? Is our warm climate
to blame? Then why not attack Greece or
Cyprus? Is it our wicked policies? Well, of
course, we are no saints (a country ruled by
saints has not yet been established on this
earth), but are there no greater sinners?
What about the Soviet Union, whose 50 million
Moslem subjects are denied their religious
rights, whose Christians are so cruelly
persecuted, and whose dissenters are put in
psychiatric hospitals or in
concentration camps (though the mass
slaughters of the 1930s and 1940s seems to
have come to an end).
WHAT ABOUT CHINA, now the darling of
the American intelligentsia, which has
obliterated Tibet and is a model totalitarian
state? Why' not denounce the Turks for
oppressing the Kurds, the Egyptians for
discriminating against the Copts, the Syrians
for their oppression of the Druse, the
Vietnamese for expelling their Chinese
citizens? What about the British, whose
overtly racist policy on immigration keeps
out Pakistanis and Indians? The list of wicked
nations is almost endless. Why then do
Americans pay so much critical attention to
Israel, a virbrant democracy (with two legal
Communist parties) possessed with the skill
and guts to defend herself against a host of
enemies, all authoritarian regimes hostile to
everything America is said to stand for?
I don't know the answer, though in my more
pessimistic moods I attribute the swelling
hatred of Israel to the old-fashioned but never
quite buried views that Jews really shouldn't
be allowed to defend themselves, that they
really shouldn't be allowed to have a country
of their own, and that they, of all the peoples
of the earth, are doomed to eternal
persecution without recourse to resistance.
And what is this if not good old anti-Semitism,
which Herzl believed (correctly in my
opinion) cannot and will never be eradicated?
One has only to glance at the anti-Israeli
diatribes emanating from Moscow and from
the United Nations to see how eagerly the
enemies of the Jewish state draw upon the
rich European anti-Semitic tradition. The
elders of Zion, once reported to have
convened at the ancient Jewish cemetery in
Prague, now consult in Tel-Aviv. But nothing
else has changed.
Whatever the source of the wave of anti-
Israeli sentiment, let me make a few points
which I hope will illuminate certain aspects of

By Ezra Mendelsohn

the problem. The state of Israel w4s brought
into being by the Zionist movement, which
was one form of Jewish nationalism and
which was born in Europe in the late
nineteenth century. Zionists disagreed on
many things, but they all believed that there
was no future for Diaspora Jewry. They
believed that the only way Jews could protect
themselves against anti-Jewish violence, and
preserve their own rich, autonomous culture,
was within the framework of their own
independent country, to be established in the
land of Israel (Erets Yisrael in Hebrew,
Palestine in English).
IN THEIR ANALYSIS they were in basic
agreement with other national movements
then emerging in Europe: those of the Poles,
Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks, Rumanians,
Serbs, Greeks, etc. All of these movements,
argued that in a world conspicuously lacking
in international brotherhood, mutual love,
and absolute toleration, nations were obliged
to take their destiny into their own hands and
protect themselves against both violence and
coercive assimilation. And can anyone'doubt,
in light of the Jewish experience between
world wars in Eastern Europe, during World
War II, in the modern Middle East, and today
in the Soviet Union (and tomorrow in
Argentina, perhaps, or Quebec) that the
Zionists were right?
It is worthwhile to remind the Jewish
readers of the Daily, whose admirable
youthful idealism leads them to scorn the
"Jewish establishment" and identify with the
"third world," that not long ago the majority
of the Jews of Europe and of the Middle East
were a poverty-stricken, humiliated, and
oppressed people, subject to brutal assault
and to discrimination of every kind. They
were, in short, an oppressed minority, and
Zionism was their national liberation
movement. The best, the most courageous,
and most self-sacrificing of them (including
my father, who lived through the horrors of the
revolution and civil war in the Ukraine and
went to Jerusalem in 1921), went to Palestine
and devoted themselves to building roads,
draining swamps, and creating a society in
which they could be masters of their fate.
I am far from believing that all their
dreams have come true. But I do believe that
they were heroes, men and women in whom
all Jews (and not only Jews) should take
pride. Israel today is a troubled and divided
country, but it is a country where Jews can
live, if not in complete security, at least in the
certain knowledge that they can defend
themselves and raise their children as Jews.
And that is something.
NOW I AM well aware of the fact that Israel
has neither solved the "Jewish question" nor
normalized the Jewish condition. I am
equally well aware of the fact that the
Palestinian Arabs regard Zionism and Israel
with hostility. I believe that the Palestinians
should live in an Arab country, and not under


'Jewish rule. And if they are willing to accept
the partition of Palestine (and I mean all of
Palestine, including Jordan) into two
countries, one Jewish, the other Arab, then let
them open negotiations with Israel in the
same spirit that has guided Sadat.
Egypt, after all, got back all of Sina
(including invaluable oil reserves and regions
such as Yamit, where Israeli settlements had
been established). There is no doubt that the
Palestinians, if led by a Palestinian Sadat,
will come out as well. If the Palestinians want
to encourage the more hawkish elements in
Israel to continue their policy of settlements
in the West Bank (which I believe is
misguided) let them continue to say "no, no,
never." I doubt if the results will be much
different from those obtained in 1948 or 1967.
However, neither America. nor anyon
else has the right to insist that Israel accept
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLOY
state on the West Bank. The PLO, after all, is
an organization dedicated to the annihilation
of Israel as a Jewish state. Would America,
negotiate with an organization dedicated tg
her destruction, let alone allow such an.
organization to establish a hostile, armed
state on her border? Let us recall John
Kennedy's much applauded reaction to the
Cuban missile crisis, remembering too that
Havana is much further from Washington.
than East Jerusalem from West Jerusalem.
And even if some people cherish the illusion
that the establishment of a PLO state would
bring stability to the Middle East, diminish
Soviet influence, and keep the oil flowing,
such illusions cannot serve as the basis for a
rational policy.
FINALLY, I WANT to enter a plea for de-
mystifying the Israeli-Arab dispute. Israel is
a state like all others (although I happen to
think it is better than most). It has its good
people and its bad, its good leaders and it*
bad ones. Yes, it has' relations with Soutfi
Africa, but are there not black states in Africa
and Arab states as well that have such
relations? Israel makes mistakes, but as we
approach her 32nd year of independence I do
not doubt that she is here to stay.
We live in a topsy-turvy world, in which
black civil rights leaders-pupils of Martin
Luther King-can sing "We Shall Overcome"
with Yasir Arafat, the leader of an
organization which takes pride in murderin
children, and in which all principles a.
forgotten in a mad effort to appease the Soviet
Union and keep the oil flowing. In this kind of
world who can blame Israel for wanting tg
remain strong and able to defend herself?
Who can blame her for not wanting to be a
second Czechoslovakia? Americans, and not
only Jewish Americans,.should applaud her
determination to survive and flourish.
Ezra Mendelsohn is a senior lecturer at
Hebrew University, currently here on
sabbatical as ti visiting associate professor
of history.

THE DAILY strongly supports Sen.
Edward Kennedy of Massachu-
setts for the Democratic party
nomination. Kennedy has served 18
honorable years in the Senate, and
presents an excellent alternative to the
dismal prospect of another four years
of inept management under incumbernt
President Jimmy Carter.-
It seems that the biggest issue of the
Democratic campaign to-date has been
that of Kennedy's character, as
reflected in public concern about the
Chappaquiddick incident. The question
of character, though, would seem to be
resolved by the simple facts of his
voting record during his tenure in the
Senate. With few exceptions, Kennedy
has stuck to a liberal, socially-
conscious line of action, even as it has
become tougher and tougher for a.
legislator to vote progressively.
Carter's rhetoric and the nation's
Cold War paranoia have engendered a
hawkish, pro-draft registration mood
from coast to coast; Kennedy has stood
against it. Economic problems have
bred a tight-fisted, socially regressive
attitude toward blacks and other
minorities over the nation; Kennedy
has remained committed to socially
progressive ideas and legislation.
The courage the senator has
displayed in consistently pressing
leftward as political forces attempt to
push him toward the right would seem
to lay to rest the issue of his integrity.
The clamor over Chappaquiddick
has obscured the issue that we believe
ought to be the focus of the Democratic
campaign: Carter's overwhelming
incompetence and poor judgment in so
many matters, foreign and domestic,
over his 39 months in office.
Carter injected a refreshing and
needed note into the 1976 campaign
with a call for including human rights
considerations in America's dealings

overseas. Why, then, only a few years
later, was he embracing President
Park of South Korea, Shah Riza
Pahlavi of Iran, and Anastasio Somoza
of Nicaragua as friends and allies? J
Domestically, the-victim of Carter's
ineptitude has been the very quality of
American life. After viciously
attacking his predecessor for allowing
a 4.8 per cent inflation rate to prevail
nationwide, Carter has quadrupled
that figure.
Unemployment is on the rise. Big
business is being forced to shut down
plants. The nation has no unified
energy program. The economy
appears to be headed for a recession.
Surely, the time has come to give
another Democrat a chance.
We cannot call Edward Kennedy a
perfect candidate. His
recommendations for wage and price
controls might only lead to more
problems, and his proposed largesse
with welfare monies might prove to be
too extreme for the '80s. Furthermore,
we have serious problems with Senate
Bill 1722, a revision of the federal
criminal code which Kennedy
sponsored as chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee. The lengthy,
comprehensive bill has some good
provisions that would streamline the
judicial process, but also quite a few
that can only be described as
repressive and contrary to the spirit
(and perhaps the letter) of the Bill of
But Kennedy's shortcomings are
trifles on a scale with Carter's. He has
compromised his principles orily on a
few bills in the Senate, while Carter
has completely revised his politics to
conform to political pressure, draft
registration and all.
It would be deeply antithetical to
America's best interests to leave the
reigns of power in the Georgian's
hands any longer.

Q: Gay men often use "pop- few drinks
pers" (amyl nitrite) during sex. A: You
Are these devices safe? recent rel
A: Amyl nitrite is a drug in of studies
vapor form (not a device) that is relationsh
prescribed for persons with sumption
angina chest pains associated tack or
with coronary heart disease. It heart dise
relieves the pains by relaxing One suc
smooth muscles. by Harva
It is also used by some persons, sity resea
both hetero- and homosexuals, to a Novem
achieve an extra "flush" during Journal of
orgasm. This flush is a sensation Associatio
of warmth from the opening of alcohol
the blood vessels. Also, blood
pressure is lowered.
Possible side effects of amyl
nitrite are headache, nausea,
dizziness, fainting, rapid heart
rate, nervousness,paleness, and
a cold sweat. More severe reac-
tions can occur, especially with
larger doses, or in combination married m
. +I.--A-.._-^-,_-1n nronarv

' give orgasmic, rush

... w

s every day?-
have probably heard
ports on national news
that found an inverse
ip between alcohol con-
and having a heart at-
dying from coronary
h study was conducted
rd and Boston Univer-
rchers and published in
ber, 1979 issue of the
4 the American Medical
on. They examined the
consumption of 568

coronary heart disease. The most
surprising finding, however, was
that the non-drinkers were a
significantly greater risk than
those who consumed moderate
amountsof alcohol.I
Another study conducted at
Kaiser-Permanente Medical
Plans in northern California
showed drinkers have fewer
heart attacks than abstainers,
and the heaviest drinkers to have
the fewest heart attacks of all.
However, the researchers were
quick to point out that the heavy

that the adverse effects of alcohql
should be considered whe
making a decision whether an
how much alcohol to consum4.
These effects include its potential
to aggravate otherqmedical con-
ditions such as epilepsy,
diabetes, and pre-existing cardio-
vascular disease; its potential to
harm the developing fetus; apd
its association with violence and
accidents, particularly automo-
bile accidents.
More research is needed t
determine exactly the relatior
ships between alcohol and heart
disease and to sort out sother
medical, lifestyle, and per-
sonality factors. But the recent
studies do provide a reasonable
amount of assurance ' to those
persons who have abstained from
alcohol only because they fear
harmful effects on the
haa.., hof nnh l .n nrl

Health Service

nen who had died from
hart disease and the

drinkers were the likeliest to be
hospitalized for other reasons.

............... . ..,... sx.....,,"x,...,.,...,..v:.::v.:sw.., ... _ _ ".v .:a.:,o-xsaaach:::..akxckx":wacawxm. uwr.^trxw. zef. tews' .':'+xav.r;4ua ca :.:e+..,xtc ;.: rhvwc;r.+:axtx"xaiz+c:' : ahnz:.kY:ktR::'\+htik .. S{. 'ti S.:y.'# ::: # :"'.:iv}:ti. ".S+st

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan