100%

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

Share

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.

October 12, 1980 - Image 5

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1980-10-12

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

Iraq steps
up attack;
Iran vows
retaliation

From AP and UPI
BEIRUT, Lebanon-Iraq stepped up the war with Iran on
two fronts yesterday, broke relations with three cotuntries for
allegedly helping the enemy, and mounted what Iran
described as "savage" attacks "killing many women,
children, and old people and destroying thousands of
homes."
Iraq said it pushed tanks and troops across the rerun
River yesterday in a surprise attack aimed at capturing
Iran's major oil refinery at Abadan. It claimed Iranian
defenders fleeing "in chaotic retreat."
Iraq said waves of warplanes bombed and strafed Iranian
positions near Abdan as troops and Soviet-made T-62 tanks
crossed the river on pontoon bridges in a dusk-to-dawn offen-
sive that overwhlemed Iranian defenders.
IN A battle to win control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway at
the northern tip of the Persian Gulf, Iraq said 50 Iranian
soldiers were killed and 563 taken prisoner. It said only two
Iraqi soldiers were killed.
Iran said in a Tehran Radio broadcat monit'ored in London
that Iraq used ground-to-ground missiles, planes, and ar-
tillery to attack "defenseless towns." It said Iran hadn't at-
tacked "defenseless and innocent Iraqis" so far, but "will do
so in the future after having issued orders for evacuation of

targets"should Iraq's "inhuman attacks" continue.
MEANWHILE, IRAQ broke relations with three nations
and King Hussein of Jordan flew to Saudi Arabia amid signs
Arab governments are choosing up sides in the Persian Gulf
conflict, with the bias in favor of Iraq.
Baghdad broke off diplomatic relations with Syria, Libya,
and North Korea, accusing them of actively aiding Iran in the
fighting.
Political analysts said the move placed new strains on
Arab unity which already is showing signs of collapse under
the pressures of the 20-day-old war.
LIBYA, SYRIA, and Jordan are the only major Arab
nations to date to indicate open support for the
protagonists-Libya and Syria for Iran, Jordan for Iraq-but
their proselytising efforts are putting other governments un-
der strain.
Political sources said the "neutrals" may soon find it ex-
ceedingly difficult to maintain their position.
Hussein flew to Saudi Arabia for a two-day visit and talks
with King Khaled only hours after abruptly postponing-by
mutual agreement-a scheduled visit to Moscow.
POLITICAL SOURCES said he hoped to persuade the
powerful Saudis to support Iraq too, but it was difficult to
predict the results.

The Michigan Daily-Sunday, October 12, 1980-Page 5
Solar panels tested
on NorthCa

(Continued from Page 3
as the "project personnel," collecting
data and formalizing it into performan-
ce reports.
Sharon Wilke is a mechanical
enginerring student currently conduc-
ting research on the refrigerant
system. She said the manufacturers of
solar devices give information on
collector performance, but nothing on
the operation of the system as a whole.
Wilke is gathering data now so she can
make that performance evaluation.
"I've learned a lot," said Wilke of her
,work on the project. "It's like creating
your own lab experiment."
THE WATER-HEATING refrigerant

system is unique not only because of the
apparent contradiction between
refrigerant and heating, but because
the system uses no pumps to circulate
the refrigerant through the collector,
Liquid refrigerant enters the bottom
of the collector where it is heated by the
sun. This heat causes the refrigerant to
boil, and the combination of gas and
liquid in the system produces a "ther-
mal siphon" effect.
The gas leaving the top of the collec-
tor is directed to a heat exchanger
where, in the process of heating a flow
of water, it is condensed back into a
liquid. The liquid flows back to the
collector and the cycle is repeated.

-Paid Political Advertisement-

Casting a

Vote for Anderson

Reprinted with Permission from The Wall Street Journal of Friday, October 3, 1980

,

By ARTHUR SCHLESINGER JR.
As a lifelong Democrat, I have
been watching the Reagan-Carter-
Anderson contest with serene
detachment. Confronted with a real
Republican nominated by the
Republicans, a crypto-Republican
nominated by the Democrats and an
ex-Republican nominated by him-,
self, this Roosevelt-Truman-
Kennedy/Democrat doesn't see an
obvious way out. Any choice is
difficult, and political disagree-
ments in 1980 are not worth breaking
friendships over. -
I do not find it easy to abandon
lifetime habits of Democratic
regularity. But I cannot see tiiat on
his reqord President Carter has ear-
ned 20 more seconds-not to speak of
four more years-in the White
House. He has shown no steadfast
purposes either in domestic or in
foreign policy. This is the end of his
term, but no one yet knows the direc-
tion in which he wants to take the
country. He'alters course with every
prevailing wind. He has had half a
dozen anti-inflation policies. His
recent economic program is his
third in eight months. He has no
compunction about basing a policy
on premises he had grandly rejected
a short time before. Lacking any
unifying vision, displaying no in-
terest :in the way specific policies
relate to each other, he ad hoes it all
over the place, while the country
sinks ever deeper into the morass.
This waywardness is especially
disturbing in foreign affairs.
Yesterday's righteous dove has
become today's -ighteous champion
of limited nuclear war, the MX and
the Rapid Deployment Force. Mr.
Carter's rattled overreaction to the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (the
"gravest threat" to world peace sin-
ce 1945, he solemnly told us) hardly
inspires one to wish his finger on the
button for another four years. Sen.
Jackson has wisely warned us to
beware of born-again hawks.-

Incoherent and Incompetent
The Carter administration is not
only exceptionally incoherent. It is
also exceptionally incompetent.
("Although he is a poor hitter, he is
also a bad fielder.") Tom Wicker
has accurately written that Mr.
Carter's record of ineptitude stands
unmatched since Warren G. Har-
ding. One of Carter's few accom-
plishments has been the
rehabilitation of Gerald Ford:
depicted by night-club .comedians
four years ago.as a stumbling buf-
foon, now elevated by the really im-
pressive bungling of his successor
into beloved elder statesmanship. n
Incoherence and incompetence;
might not be decisive
disqualifications if Mr. Carter
showedny signs of learning from
his blunders. Quite the contrary, he
gets worse every year. At this rate
one shudders to think what four
more years might do to the republic.
Experience is a meaningless claim
unless it implies a capacity to grow.
* Instead of learning from error,
Mr. Carter digs in all the deeper,
withdraws all the more from face-to-
face argument and attacks the
motives of his critics. Underneath
that brittle mask of control one sen-
ses an uptight and agitated psyche,
filled with repressed anger and,
venom. His meanness of spirit and
heart-has come out in the campaign,
expecially in the pattern of cowar-
dice displayed in his flight from
debate and- in his truly Nixonian
facility for piously saying nasty
things while piously denying that he
is saying them.
His abiding theme is self: the
justification of self, the celebration
of self, the substitution of self )my
sincerity, my piety, my never lying
to you) for discussions of direction
and policy. Re-election would come
as the ultimate vindication of self
and very likely produce a dangerous
euphoria. The most deluded people
in this campaign are those liberal

Democrats who think that effort on
Mr. Carter's behalf would be repaid
by presidential attention to their
concerns in a second term. As he
would attribute defeat to their in-
iquity, so he would attribute victory
to his own virtue; and he would pay
them no more heed after the election
than he did before the convention.
Mr. Carter's dismal presidency of-
fered the Republicans a splendid op-
portunity. Typically, they have bot-
ched it. With their genius for self-
destruction, they have found the one
man capable of convincing the elec-
torate that he is even more in-
Board of Contributors
I do not find it easy to
abandon lifetime habits of
Democratic regularity. But I
cannot see that on his rec-
ord President Carter has
earned 20 more seconds in
the White House.*w
coherent and incompetent than Mr.
Carter. Before the campaign began,
a sort of case could be made for Mr.
Reagan. There might be an advan-,
tage, it could be argued, in replacing
a tense; unstable, -unpredictable'
President by an affable, relaxed, in-
dolent 70-year-old with an accom-
modating personality who talks wild
but doesn't (or at least as governor
of California didn't) do much about
it. This was the theory of Mr.
Reagan as a kind of sub-
Eisenhower.
But Eisenhower concealed
astuteness and craft under surface
imprecision. Mr. Reagan, it is
evident, is shallow all the way down.
His incurable penchant for gaffes
almost ruined him until his staff put
him under virtual house arrest and
sealed him off from the press.
Irresponsible babble might not have

mattered in the White House in a
time like the 1920s'. It will not do in
the dangerous 1980s. Even in the
1920s, as Calvin Coolidge used to
say, the first lesson a President has
to learn is that every word he says
weighs a ton.
The single argument seriously ad-
vanced for Mr. Carter is that Mr.
Reagan would be worse. We must;
return the President with all his in-
firmities, we are told, because
otherwise America will start sen-
ding troops all around the world. The
last time we heard that argument
was in 1964, when people returned
Lyndon Johnson in order to avert the
escalation of the war in Vietnam. Or
we must rally around Mr. Carter to
save the Supreme Court. This is
a more substantial argument. Still,
the basic issues about the reach of
federal power have long since been
resolved, and a Senate Judiciary
Committee led by Sep. Kennedy and
(we trust) Sen. Bayh will be as
capable of stopping bad appoin-
tments as it was when Mr. Nixon
came up with Judges Haynsworth
and Carswell. Who can really know
what the difference would be bet-
ween this demonstrably poor
President and this speculatively
hopeless aspirant? "Sir," said Dr.
Johnson, "there is no settling the
point of precedency :beteen a louse
and a flea." ,k f
So we are left with John Anderson.
Mr. Anderson is another one of those
twice-born fellows. In public
discourse he is often preachy. In
private he seems a talker rather
than a listener. Yet he is not without
humor, and he is a man of high in-
telligence. He rivals Mr. Carter in
command of detail and, unlike Mr.
Carter, sees particular policies as
part of a larger framework. His
foreign policy is sober and realistic.
He is, moreover, a man of authen-
tic independence. In a time when the
country has moved to the right, he
has moved to the left-not very far

left, but definitely to the left of Mr.
Carter and Mr. Reagan. His plat-
form lacks the boldness of new ideas
that has marked some other third
party efforts in American history,
but fit is unfailingly intelligent and
thoughtful. Organized labor still af-
fects to see Mr. Anderson as the
right-winger he was when he first
entered the House. Yet he is the only
one of the three candidates with a
Rooseveltian belief in affirmative
government. Long before 1980 Mr.
Anderson said of Mr. Carter's
demagogic assault on the Roosevelt
tradition, "He campaigned against
Big Government and he has planted
the seeds of doubt in the minds of the
American people on the ability of.
government to solve problems. It
may be almost something that
comes back to haunt him." People
change and grow. The absurd con-
stitutional amendment Mr. Ander-
son proposed declaring the U.S. a
Christian republic is as relevant to
his present views as Hugo Black's
membership in the Ku Klux Klan
was to his work on the Supreme
Court.
Would Mr. Anderson .make a good
President? One is reminded of the
old case: Two friends meet after
many years; one 'sks the other,
"And how is your wife?"; he replies,
"Compared to what?" Compared to
Mr. Carter, a demonstrated failure,
and to Mr. Reagan, a monumental
gamble, Mr. Anderson looks pretty
good.
Guilty Party
But he has little chance of win-
ning. Can a lifelong Democrat sup-
port him at the risk of electing Mr.
Reagan? The ,Carter people are
already trying to set up disaffected
Democrats as the guilty parties if
Mr. Reagan should win. This black-
mail can be ignored. If Mr. Carter
loses, there is only one man to
blame; and that is himself. If after
four years in the White House, with
all the resources of incumbency, he

has miserably failed to win the con-
fidence of the electorate, and even of
fellow Democrats, he is the guilty
party. The invocation of 1968 is
irrelevant. Mr. Carter is no Hubert
Humphrey, and Mr. Reagan, even if
he is no Eisenhower, is presumably
not a Nixon either. And the worse
Mi'. Reagan looks, the more Mr. An-
derson will draw disaffected
Republicans as well as disaffected'
Democrats.
Some think that a vote for a man
who, is not likely to win is by
definition a wasted vote. This is
surely wrong. A vote for Mr. Ander-
son is the only way to rebuke the
major parties for offering us Mr.
Carter and Mr. Reagan. Brooks
Hays, for many years a
Congressman from Arkansas and
the best of political raconteurs, tells
of an aged woman he encountered
when running for re-election. "I
hope you will vote for me," he said.
"Nope," she replied. "Why not?" he
asked. "I don't vote," she said. "I've
never voted in my life." "You mean
that you are 86 years old and have
never once voted? Why in the world
not?" "Because,": the old woman
replied, "it only encourages 'em."
If most Americans wearily accept
the choice between Mr. Carter and
Mr. Reagan, it will only encourage
the major parties to believe that
they can get away with nominating
third-raters in the future. Non-
voting is no remedy. The best way to
discourage the major parties from
imposing such ridiculous alter-
natives on the country is to register
a mighty outpouring of popular
disgust through the Anderson-Lucey
ticket.
Mr. Schlesinger is Albert Sch-
weitzer Professor of the
Humanities at the City University
of New York, winner of Pulitzer
Prizes in history and biography
and a member of the Wall Street
Journal's Board of Contributors.

., {'
1
i
i
.

t

AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 1980, between
(hereinafter "Lender") of__
NATIONAL UNITY CAMPAIGN FOR JOHN B. ANDERSON, ("National Unity Campaign"),
3255 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007.
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the Lender understands that loans to the National Unity Campaign are
under 2 U.S.C. sub-section 431(8) (A), limited in amount to $1,000.00 per individual in the
total amount of contributions, including loans, cannot exceed $1,000.00,
WHEREAS, the Lender desires to aid the National Unity Campaign in its efforts by
lending its funds,
NOW THEREFORE, the Lender and the National Unity Campaign agree as follows:
1. Lender shall lend National Ufnity Campaign to be used in
any lawful manner consistent with the objectives of the National Unity Campaign.
2. The National Unity Campaign agrees to repay Lender the full ,
plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum upon receipt of Federal funds for which it may
be eligible pursuant to Section S-9004 of the Federal Election Laws. Lender understands
and agrees that repayment of the loan amount shall be solely from Federal funds paid to
the Campaign after the general election and then only upon the Campaign achieving
5% or more of the national popular vote in the Presidential election of 1980.
Further it is understood and agreed that repayment from post election Federal funding
is as follows:
1. Loans made by banks,
2. Debts owed vendors,
3. Loans made by individuals.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day first
above written.
NATIONAL UNITY CAMPAIGN FOR
JOHN B. ANDERSON
By
As Agent for National Unity Campaign
for John B. Anderson
Lender
Address:

1 *
I Anderson Facts I
1 1
1 1. Fact: Anderson has received from the Federal Election Committee a
1 ruling that he will receive the following funding AFTER the
1 election if he receives the following percent of the total
I popular vote in all states: 1
1 Dollars For Per Cent
1 $ 3,094,736 5%
1 6,533,333 10 I
1 10,500,000 15 ;
1 14,700,000 20
1 19,600,000 25
1 25,214,400 30
1 29,400,000 35 I
1 .
1 2. Fact: Anderson is not rich and has no collateral to he has not re- 1
1 ceived substantial bank loans.
3. Fact: Individuals cannot give or loan the Anderson Campaign more 1
than $1,000 each. 1
1 4. Fact: Many Americans support Anderson but cannot afford to make
1 a large contribution.
1 Show your support! Lend John Anderson up to One Thousand 1
1 Dollars and be repaid after the election. Would you rather risk I
your money or risk 4 years of another incompetent President? U
1 Send your check for $1,000 or such lesser amount you choose to: 1
1 The National Unity Campaign
1 (Anderson National Loan Committee) 1
Sc/o Jon H. W. Clark I
1 Fisf t at nal. .ii.dina

I

I

I

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan