9
OPINION
Page 4 .
Thursday, November 12, 1981
The Michigan Doily
_ _ _ _ __
__
.
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Feiffer
Vol. XCII, No. 55
420 Moynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
A~e' r
bvmr~tS of
t'nssirle
5asp
Editoriols represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Boord
Stockman's
M UCH AS THE White House
attempts to wash over Budget
Director Dave Stockman's remarks in
a magazine interview, Stockman's
comments stand as one of the most
scathing indictments of the ad-
ministration's economic policy.
Stockman made what have turned
out to be some very embarrassing
remarks about the administration's
budget and tax cuts in a recent inter-
view with a reporter for-Atlantic Mon-
thly. The White House is now claiming
that the remarks were made "off the
record" and that the article, which ap-
pears in the December issue. of the
magazine, "creates an impression that
is wrpng and grossly misleading."
The White House may have an
argument that the remarks, if really
made off the record, should not have
been printed. But now that the cat's out
of the bag, however, the weak defense
that the article creates a "wrong and
grossly misleading" impression, is
hardly sufficient to rescue the ad-
pminitration from this one.
It's very hard to argue that some of
Trojan horse
Stockman's statements have been
misinterpreted. How ambiguous, for
example, is Stockman's assessment of
the Kemp-Roth plan, which he said
"was always a Trojan horse to bring
down the top tax rate?"
What else could Stockman have
meant when he said the president's
budget cutting program was poorly
planned, hastily enacted and ignored
''blatant inefficiency" in the Pen-
tagon?
The troubling fact is that, as much as
the administration may wish to deny it,
some of Stockman's remarks, on the
record or off, are startlingly accurate.
It might just be their accuracy, in fact,
that has the administration so worked
up.
In the end, however, the White House
might just as well relax: Stockman
didn't reveal any great secrets in the
interview. As the recent unem-
ployment and Consumer Price Index'
figures testify, it is widely known that
the administration's economic
program was indeed poorly planned,
hastily enacted; and oblivious to
reality.
tNf
tIet on4
efi ine m
j of Isra e t
revert-ed
a
I l Y f I , ! " b r
p presqrve
pUOl 1.
d' : Ww17 lr+1G !mac 9 4trE i
SI brinc Cor*~ t'i
teee u '
LOb -
A'a'
r
a
.
- +
^ .
LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Witt's spitting column shows his
.
To the Daily:
Howard Witt should be
congratulated on his attempted
objectivity and self-applauded
avoidance of stereotyped "cheap
shots" with which he began his
appraisal of Tom Fous and the
College Republicans (Daily, Nov.
10). If only he could have
maintained such feigned fair-
ness!?
Mr. Witt no doubt wants us to
believe that Tom Fous so disap-
pointed him that his earlier
stereotypeswere proven correct
after all. He is proud of the fact
that he tripped up the Republican
leader over El Salvador and
Afghanistan.
But to jump from a few obser-
vations on Iran, arms, and ERA to
the conclusion that "Conser-
vatism and Republicanism are
philosophies for the old, the rich,
the powerful, and greedy" is to
insult both logical thinkers and
responsible journalists (not to
mention young Republicans).
Really, Howard! The
Republican Party is certainly not
without flaws, but I will gladly
confess that I have voted
Republican more often than
Democrat, and I am not old, not
rich, not powerful, and (I hope)
not greedy. I don't even wear
Izod shirts.
Mr. Witt wants us to believe
that he has thought about some
things far more than TomFous,
but Witt's concluding comments
make his other judgments
suspect and tarnish the
credibility of the Daily's editorial
page (or does it claim to attempt
to discuss opposing viewpoints
fairly?).
I would ,like to know the full.
context of Tom Fous' remarks to
Witt. Maybe Fous has not thought
enough about some important
issues, but I ,truly wonder it
Howard Witt has, either. 4a*-
I'll be glad to think along withl
you, Howard, but I'll wear a rain-
coat. After you spit on men
perhaps we can discuss some
things intelligently and maturely.
-Andrew Bartelt
November 10
. . one-sidedness...
Pictures of Bro dke
POOR BROOKE. A New York
justice dismissed her attempt to
bar further use of nude pictures taken
of her when she was 10 years old.
But that's not why we should pity.
Brooke Shields. We should bemoan the
fact that her ,mother chose to exploit
her 10-year-old daughter simply to ad-
vance Brooke's career. Six years ago,
Shields' mother agreed to allow
photographer Gary Gross to,
photography her daughter in the nude..
Since that time, Shields 'has appeared
in at least two sexually suggestive
films.
Now, Shields claims, the pictures
will cause irreparable harm if
released. Fortunately, New York
Justice Edward Greenfield didn't
agree. He said Shields' "personal em-
barrassment and the anticipation of
the reaction of her friends is not tan-
tamount to irreparable harm."
Shields and her mother have chosen
to climb the ladder in the entertain-
ment field like many other performers.
Both Marilyn Monroe and Suzanne
Somers, for instance, posed nude at
some time in their careers to get
ahead. As these women did, Shields
must also suffer the embarrassment of
having the photos released.
True, it is unfortunate that Shields'
mother exploited her 10-year-dld
daughter in this manner. But neither
woman has complained about the
lucrative movie contracts that have
appeared in succeeding years.
Unfortunately, Brooke; that's show
business.
To the Daily:
As a member of the College
Republicans I must take excep-
tion to the one-sided, derogatory
comments in Howard Witt's
recent column (Daily, Nov. 10).
His article was well con-
ceivedrrelatively well written,
and, although biased in its
presentation, presented a view
of the College Republicans. This'
article, however, is a scandalous
attempt to smear the -College
Republicans and its hardworking
president, Tom Fous.
We are a new organization on
campus. To have 150 people come
to an organizational,-meeting is
nice to see, but, it should not be
blown out of proportion. It should
also be noted that the College
Democrats are organizing this
year.
But the part of the article I take
exception to the most is Howard
Witt's xinference that we, as-
College Republicans, are caught
up in the worship of money and
exploitation and that we're agog.
(his word) with the glitter and
sparkle of the Reagan ad-
ministration.
The Reagan administration's
"glitter"' comes from the return
to respectable deference for the
office that Mr. Reagan holds and
the "sparkle" is the initiative and
belief that our economy can and
will turn around under the
present policies.
Maybe Tom hasn't thought out
all the ramifications of his
feelings, but I certainly have felt
and continue to feel that within
the framework of the Republican
party, I can most effectively
work for the improvement of life
for all people. This may sound
altrustic. Maybe it is, but, I
wouldn't be in the program I am
in here at the University if I
weren't a bit altruistic.
Howard Witt says, "Maybe I
should have spit on them when I
,had the chance." Maybe he
should have, because now we
know to wear raincoats when in
the presence of narrow-minded
people like himself. A little saliva
never hurt anything except pride,
although it does show the base
mentality that would contem-
plate political statements like
that.
It is my sincere desire to help
people. I feel College
Republicans is a viable means to
doing just that. I sincerely hope
that Howard Witt and the
editorial staff of the Daily will
stop being as one-sided in their
political views and open up to the
diversity of ideas that abound on
this campus. At least we don't
have the desire to spit on Howard
Witt or the paper that printed his
opinion.
-Karl J. Edelmann
November 10
Daily review
v ,
y' "
.. Marxist slant....
grdossl
To the Daily:
The MFA acting students were
deeply shocked -to find our views-
grossly misrepresented in the
Wings "review" (Daily, Nov. 5).
While we are not taking issue
with the review of Wings, as that
is the personal obinion of the
reviewer, we are nonetheless
dismayed that the review served
as a forum for erroneous infor-
mation regarding the Michigan
Ensemble Theatre and its
relationship to. the MFA acting
program. Since none of the MFA
students were contacted or con-
sulted before the original
"review" appeared, we feel the
responsibility, as a group, to
respond and set the record
straight.
The following is a list of correc-
tions and/or clarifications of
points made in Anne Gadon's
review:
" MET was created as a
separate entity under the
auspices of the Professional
Theatre Program like the Best of
Broadway and Guest Artist
Series. The MFA program is in no
way connected with the MET.,
Occasionally a department i
student is offered a role, but.
MFA students entering the
program were m'ade fully aware-
that while there was an oppor-
tunity to perform with the MET,
there was no guaranteed casting.
This policy is the same at othert
schools offering an MFA degree,
such as Yale and Julliard.
*While we are grateful that;
concern was expressed regarding
our performance opportunities,
or "lack of them", statements l
regarding what is normal
procedure in a program such as
ours should not be made
unless the information is verified.
MFA students at,the University
have the opportunity, as of now,
to do more outside theatre work
than at any other reputable MFA
program in the country. First
year students at Yale; NYU, etc.
cannot audition for roles their fir-
st year and by the third year may
only perform small roles in the
'professional productions. We are
unfair
to perform. The "informal chats"
which were dismissed as incon-
sequential in the review are
anything but. They serve as a
chance for student and
professional to talk about the ac-
tive, alive* process of creating
character, role, play. Osmosis is
vital to the theatre.
" Theatre people, much the
same as doctors, and more so
than intmany other fields, must
constantly practice their craft.
The two theatre instructors *ho
missed a few classes early in the
semester made sure that they
were covered by competent
professionals like themselves.
Can we ask our faculty not to con-
tinue to grow and learn if we as
students expect to gain
something from them?
In the year since Walter
Eysselinck arrived at the
University we have witnessed the
creation of a Professional
Theater Company and a Master"
of Fine Arts Program in acting.
Let's not kill it before it has a
decent chance to survive and
grow. MET is less than a year old
while the MFA program has been
in existence three months. To
malign a program in its infancy
is irresponsible.
The contention that MET
benefits no one is unsubstan@
tiated.
We need positive_ imput to con-
tinue to grow and change. It is un-
fortunate that Ms. Gadon seemed
predisposed to dislike both play
and program. A true lover of the
Theatre, whether actor,
technician, or critic, must also
have a profound respect for it.
-Gregg Henry
Michael Goldberg
Margaret Gonzales
Carrie R. Goldstein '
Gwendolyn Y. Ricks
Paul Eblen
van Dirk Fisher
Mary Jo Czernik
November 10
(Editor's note: In the March
25, 1981 edition of the Daily,
University Theater Department
To the Daily:
We are writing in regard to
Howard Witt's narrowminded ar-
ticle (Daily, Nov. 10) dealing with
the College Republicans.
His slanted Marxist inter-
pretation of Republican policy
reveals a dangerous political.
naivete. This type of shoddy
journalism is.typical of the Daily
Opinion Page.
Witt is an ideological reject of
the lingering 1960s liberalism so
prevalent on this campus. His
McCarthy-like attacks on the
College Republicans reveal a
paranoid fear of America's rejec-
tion of unrealistic liberal policies.
Witt's simplistic view of
foreign policy typifies the
strategies that led to blatant
failures during the Carter ad-
...loftineSS...
To the Daily:
Regarding Howard Witt's
column of November 10 in which
Witt advocated expectoration on
one's political adversaries:
ministration. President Reagan
has already demonstrated his
prowess as a tough and resour-
ceful world leader.
We reject Witt's asinine in-
sinuation that the Repubican
party belongs to the "old, th'e
rich, the powerful, the greedy".
The Republican party and its new
conservatism are waves of the
future. The Reagan ad-
ministration offers hope to all
working. Americans. Lower
taxes, controlled government
spending, and restrained in-
flation appeal to every level of
American society.:
We only regret that Witt did not
in fact have the courage to spit on
us at the last College Republican
meeting. This act would have
revealed a crude and truly
ignorant state of mind, un-
becoming of even the most objec-
tionable liberal Democrat.
-Chris Blunt
Phil Gaglio
November 11
hostili
mn rho nnitxi