A OPINION _ Page 4 Tuesday, November 23, 1982 The Michigan Daily s On what to do when the wind blows 4 By David Spak I can only imagine one horror worse than a nuclear war-surviving it. When people discuss the nuclear arms freeze or civil defense, they focus on governmental or societdl concerns. Government officials ask questions like, "How do we know the Soviets will abide by a freeze agreement?" or "How can we prepare for the aftermath of an all-out nuclear war?" THE EXPERTS almost always talk about what they think will or won't happen to our society after nuclear devastation. Military people talk in terms of "us" (Americans) against "them" (Soviets). Others try to estimate how many millions will die or how many millions can be saved with a civil defense program. What is missing in all this rhetoric is what will happen to me-one individual-if the world blows up and I don't go with it right away. I've searched for someone to tell me what will hap- : pen to me if I live through a nuclear attack. Recently, I found that someone. RAYMOND Briggs, an English author, has written a book called When the Wind Blows (now available in Ann Arbor). Briggs' book examines how a retired English couple hastily prepares for the aftermath of an impending nuclear attack. James and his wife Ducks read all the gover- nment pamphlets on how to prepare their home for the holocaust. James puts up a crude blast shelter and Ducks gathers supplies, including two weeks worth of fresh water. They scramble to put their important papers, such as birth certificates, in a box for safe-keeping, as recommended by one of the pamphlets. "I wonder what would be a safe place?" James asks. The attack comes and goes in a manner of minutes. James and Ducks survive and dutifully spend the first day after the attack in- side their lean-to. The next day, they both wake up with headaches. Leaving their little hideout to explore the rest of their retirement village, they find their water supply has evaporated, all power is shut off-all their links with the outside world are dead, "all dead," as Ducks says. Soon James and Ducks are dead, too. BRIGGS TELLS his story in cartoon form. And strangely enough, that only makes his book more emotionally powerful. The slow and painful deaths are not only described with wor- ds, they are visually portrayed. You get to see James and Ducks get sicker and sicker. Perhaps the only comparable experience would be to view films of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those films reveal the pain caused by massive radiation burns and radiation poisoning-pain that can only be relieved by death. That may be Briggs' shining achievement. He is able to show with unmistakable clarity the suffering inflicted upon the survivors of a nuclear holocaust. By demonstrating the sheer madness of trying to prepare for a nuclear war, he shows that there is simply no surviving such an event. Not for a single individual. Not for a society. Those who argue that we can either win or survive a nuclear war are deluding themselves and are trying to delude everyone else. THE FOLKS in the White House and the Kremlin should read When the Wind Blows. If the "powers that be," as James calls them, could only realize what a nuclear war would mean, maybe they could look past their mutual mistrust and come to terms. I'm probably deluding myself by believing that any amount of books, cartoons, and films depicting the horrors of nuclear holocaust- let alone one book by one author-could have that kind of impact on those who control the means to destroy us. After all, the Reagan ad- ministration has waged a propaganda war against the nuclear freeze campaign. And the Kremlin has hardly been the most receptive group to new ideas. So what am I left with? Hope. HOPE THAT, for whatever reason, the "powers that be" put an end to nuclear mad- ness. Or hope that I'm underneath the first bomb. Spak is a Daily staff writer. Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Wasserman 0 Vol. XCIII, No. 65 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Doily's Editorial Board OUR NSW IRILLIANIT FLNWTo YRoT-Cr THE N\X ISTo BUNCH THEM AD CLOE TOC Th Selective recall REMEMBER all the sweet-talk from the administration on the wisdom of local control? Remember New Federalism, and its praise for the ability of state and local governments to make sounder, more cost-effective decisions than the federal gover- nment? James Watt doesn't. Watt's Interior Department recently put out some rules on coal mining which are anything but the New Federalist ideal. The rules subtly change the way the coal mining game will be played in the West, but the change is important. Un- der Watt's new order, the Interior Department will no longer be bound by the opinions of regional panels in deciding how much federal land is to be leased for development. Watt's motivation in changing the rules seems consistent with his past action on resource management. The goal of the changes is to dramatically increase the speed at which the tremendous reserves of Western coal are exploited-no matter what the cost to the environment. Since state governments and agen- cies representing regional interests are somewhat less fond of the destruc- tion of their locales than Watt, they have been resisting the Interior Depar- tment efforts. The Interior Depar- tment's solution to that problem is straightforward: The coal rules are an attempt to eliminate another hurdle from the paths of the resource ex- ploitation interests. But what ever happened to New Federalism-or to Watt's often-touted commitment to local control of federal lands? It seems to have been replaced by "more important" priorities, such as strip mining. Watt is exercising some pretty selec- tive recall here-and whatever he selects to recall somehow winds up screwing the people he is supposed to serve. -ME SOVIET MSSL WILL ALL B kAIME AT TIDE9 !'A SPOT ND LOW EACVN OT~dER UP' GUI VPA1AMOUGNyI\T UP w (C> - / 3 {kN THEN\X RSE V-koN TNT ASHES IZE(NDy To TAL1ATE 0 WT1' S~ ATWS- L~~ ' CA~f/? LETTERS TO THE DAILY: 4 1 "I HAVE HERE IN MY HANP - Regent chatty, rude, irresponsible . er n i es ._ r ' -- d,3 , .,; f,. t ' ,',- m :h .. '. , , /3 f- 2 J Y N . Y f , f¢ ,; y ±'.. ' ! y a. ! ' j ! ,f T' \ ,t t . 'X : < .' r$7 hr r y l '' "r : . ' ,tip k Y .+' s * y l 77f fi i :' / To the Daily: Today I attended the public comments portion of the meeting of the Board of Regents. At this monthly meeting many students took advantage of their once-a- month chance to let the Regents know how they feel about their University, its direction, its pur- poses, concerns about rising tuition costs, a decline in minority enrollment, and other pressing issues. To my great surprise and distress, Regent Deane Baker stood up halfway into the hour to chat with friends in the hallway (making it difficult for some of us to hear what was being said in- side). I find that kind of behavior ex- tremely rude and irresponsible. At any other meeting where con- stituents address their elected of- ficials, the least of the respon- sibilities of these officials is to listen to what the people who elected them have to say. I realize that whether or not a Regents are seated or not is not a guarantee that they are listening, but the least they could do is pretend. -Janny Huisman November 18 The facts on porn 4 Legislating morality :. r'9 r ,,' / /r. °r "V, i } ,: j1 ,j"6 s . f To the Daily: Mr. Coatney's article of Nov. 20 ("Porn: Real men don't read smut"), concerning the "evils" of pornography is quite distur- bing. The Moral Majority men- tality that his article reflects has plagued civilization throughout history with its dangerous assumption of its own in- fallibility. The essential corruption of his argument is contained in the statement: "Many people believe that it is wrong to legislate morality. Yet inherent in the con- cept of making laws is imposing a standard of beliefs." This statement portrays Mr. Coat- ney's ignorance on the subject of liberty and on the Constitution under which he lives. Were Washington, Frankin, Hamilton. and Madison so morality have no place in the formation of laws. Of course individual liberty must be limited to the point that one man may not infringe upon the rights of others. This validates the nation's laws prohibiting child pornography and other forms of pornography that causes harm to the people involved in their making. Unfor- tunately Mr. Coatney's argument sinks to the depths of ludicrous demagoguery when he categorizes 'PG-rated movies" with the "murder of women for sexual pleasure." It is true that there are isolated individuals who are adversely af- fected by pornography, but Mr. Coatney's solution is far worse than the problem. There are, and always will be, many aspects of our society that prove dangerous To the Daily: The article by Chris Coatley on Saturday's opinion page ("Porn: Real men don't read smut," Daily, Nov. 20) was full of in- nuendo and emotional calls for morality, but very little fact. The fact is that in Denmark, where pornography was legalized in 1967, sex offenses against children dropped 85 percent in the period between 1967 and 1973. The rate of incest dropped to 0 percent in tha~t same period. In West Germany, where por- nography is generally available, a study showed that the rate of sexual crimes against children dropped 50 percent since the time that the pornography laws were relaxed. In Japan, the most common element in pornography is the depiction of rape, yet the rate of rape in the United States is 1700 percent higher than that of Japan. It has been shown, in controlled studies, that women become sexually aroused from viewing pornography - even violent por- nography. This does not mean that women want to or would respond to actual acts of this sort. It does mean that pornography, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The problem is that por- nography orerotica is a matter of taste. To lump Playboy, which is a highly tasteful magazine, with "depictions of gang rape, snuff films, genital mutilations, etc." seems to me quite unfair. But that is not for me or Chris Coat- ney to decide. Who decides what is tasteful erotica and what is dangerous pornography? I wouldn't want Chris Coatney or religious fanatics like him deciding that for me. The evidence from all sources is dramatically clear: Por, nography does not, per se, en- courage sexual violence. We may: not like that fact, it may seem; illogical. But rather thari ignoring it or trying to discredit it as Mr. Coatney does, let us try to understand what it means. -Sidney Schipper November 20 :. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . _ , . , ,. « . ,, . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .