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 20, 1986 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-10-20

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

OPINION

rjA

_

'Page d

Monday, October 20, 1986

The Michigan Daily

A

Pursell

responds

to

Daily Opinion staffer Peter Mooney
r: interviewed U.S. Representative Carl
Pursell (R-Mich) who is running for
reelection this year in the Second
District.
Daily: What is your impression of
your opponent, Dean Baker?
Pursell: Well he got endorsed by the
Democratic Socialists of America. There's
very little known about him. He's only
been here three years. He has no
legislative experience at the state, local or
Dialogue
federal level. He has no voting record. I
K know his position obviously on Contra
Aid bat he hasn't said much publicly on
other issues so I can't really judge. If he
took the socialist endorsement that would
imply that he may or may not be a
socialist, I don't know whether he is or
not. I have to wonder why he took the
socialist endorsement.
D: Are you campaigning actively?
P: We did the county fairs this summer.
We did the Peace march a couple of weeks
ago. I didn't agree with Ed Pierce's
(Mayor of Ann Arbor) proposal. He was
floating out a new proposal of unilateral
Edited and managed by stu
Vol. XCViI, No. 33
Unsigned editorials represent c
All other cartoons, signed articles, and lett

disarmament for the next three years for
the United States at the rate of ten percent
a year. I think that was a little bit
outrageous. I'm not for unilateral
disarmament and I don't think many
people in our district are. Multilateral
disarmament is appropriate but not
unilateral.
D: Do you think students voting for a
fellow student will hurt you?
P: Well I don't know what the voting
patterns of students were last year. But
roughly (I think) students are more
concerned with economic issues (based
on) the letters , information and
discussions we've had with students.
Cynthia (Cynthia Hudgins is Pursell's
Aide) and I went over and talked to the
Economic club at the business school last
year before graduation. I think they're
interested in their future job potential.
D: Do you see a conservative swing
among college students?
P: We have across the country. Reagan
did (well), even shocking me, because I've
been more of a Bush supporter than a
Reagan supporter over the years. At
colleges the Republicans are doing very
very well, they've probably got the
highest membership that I've seen in the
last ten years.
D: Where do you stand on the drug
issue and the bill recently passed in the
house?
P: I think nationally, with the deaths of
(Len) Bias and (Don) Rogers and some of
the other national figures who were

involved in drugs, I think it caused
national attention in the media. The
Congress focused on it and (has) put
together an omnibus drug bill... The bill,

Baker,
P: Yes I do; I do think so. I would
compromise in sensitive areas such as our
air traffic controllers. But I think the civil
rights violation is a basic issue,
personally I don't smoke and I don't drink
but I would be offended if someone told
me I had to take a drug test.
D: Your support of aid for the Contras
has been very controversial, particularly
in Ann Arbor. What is the reason for
your support?
P: I think the Contra aid is certainly a
controversial one like school prayer and
abortion. And in our district we did a
survey. I think it was something like 50-
50, like abortion no matter how you vote
you're going to make the other side
unhappy with your policy decisions. But
I think you've got to take the Nicaraguan
situation and look at it worl'dwide in
terms of communist expansion and what
they've done in Afghanistan and what
they've done in the Third World... So I
look at it in the larger global perspective
of foreign policy; that Marxism and the
Marxist regime is a military regime and a
totalitarian type government and Daniel
Ortega has made no bones about getting
all his military aid from the Soviet
Union... I never supported Somoza. I'd
hope that we can see a militarily moderate
Nicaragua. Hopefully the Catholic church
and other citizens leaders with the
Contadoras (a group of Latin American
nations seeking a negotiated solution)
could achieve a negotiated peace.
settlement at the table rather than war. I

think that's the best way out.
D: Haven't most of Nicaragua's
neighbors opposed U.S. aid to the
Contras?
P: Not privately they don't, they say so
publically because of their fear of
(Nicaragua). According to (Secretary of
State) George Shultz in some of our
private meetings, a lot of the leaders of
a lot of the other countries don't think
that Ortega's taking the country in the
right direction.... Through the Caribbean
Initiative we have been working with
other Latin American countries and we've
been having quite a bit of success with
trade and economic development. So I
think there is a better way; whether we're
going to have a war or not I don't know, I
don't think anyone can say.
D: Where do you stand on the issue of
sanctions against South Africa?
P: Well that's been a long term issue.
Bill Gray (D-Penn) who's been the leader
of the sanctions movement, when that
started about three years ago, they came
to me and I was one of four Republicans
who cosponsored that bill.
D: The (Ronald) Dellums (D-Calif.)
bill?
P: Yes , we had a voice vote on the
original Dellums bill, the original house
bill. But two years ago we (also) had a
sanctions bill which I spoke for, so the
house has really been the leader in
looking for alternatives to Constructive
Engagement, which I think is a folly and
a wasted effort on behalf of the president.

issues

4

Rep. Carl Pursell
if you break it down into its components,
says that money will be used to stop
narcotics trafficking, like down in the
Bahamas... Some people and I (included)
believe that the drug issue is so big that
we've really got a war on our hands that
could devastate our young population.
D: What about drug testing; do you
think it violates privacy rights?

0

dets at Tatly
dents at The University of Michigan

Wasserman

_

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board
ers do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.

You CAN "kvs TqE GREATEST ARMS
FERIN TRN'T CURTAIW!l
/

Meaningful disarmament

?'t t TAl/r19P lrIDl'kuJ /1

.L. tI- IU I

/ CUR~~'Y.

Ct'~r~iw' cuRtAlbI.
ftAi1N. / CRTAI*. - ~RTY*
p /.CU, rTR

THE UTTER FAILURE OF the
recent summit between President
Reagan and Soviet leader
Gorbachov highlights the falsity of
the administrations philosophy of
negotiation through strength.
There is absolutely no need to
increase or modernize U.S. nuclear
forces in order to have bargining
material with the Soviet Union.
Little in the Reagan
administrations approach
constitutes meaningful disarma -
ment: weapons or programs which
could be limited or eliminated
resulting in a decrease in nuclear
tension between the superpowers.
Strictly reducing the number of
warheads, though desirable, does
not necessarily reduce the risk of a
nuclear conflict.
The continued modernization of
U.S. nuclear forces provides
incentive for a continued Soviet
buildup, threatening the Soveits
with more dangerous, first strike
weapons and hinting that the
United States is preparing to use
them through devlopment of the
Strategic Defense Initiatve (SDI).
SDI-star wars-attempts to build
a shield against nuclear weapons
around the United States, so that a
pre-emptive nuclear strike could be
launched without the possibility of
retalition for the Soviet Union.
Since 1966 the number of allied
nuclear warheads in Europe (under
NATO auspices) has steadily
declined from 7,700 to the current
level of 4,900. Theatre deterrence
experts inside NATO usually argue.
that a minimum of 4,300 active
nuclear weapons is necessary to
provide deterrence. Due to the
condition of the present deterrent
forces it seems likely that the
European forces will fall below this
threshold statistic by the end of this
year, yet the Soviet Union
continues to add to its European
nnllP!1r tnpt-nile na n nne in

in 1979 along with Trident II (a
missile also sold to Great Britain),
that have drawn the largest Soviet
response in retaliatory deployment.
The newer weapons are more
accurate, faster, and more
powerful-a condition which
dramatically increases tension.
These missiles are capable of
striking the Soviet SS-20 ICBMs
(Intercontenential Balistic Missile,
typically aimed at mainland targets
in the United States) while they are
still in there silos, a surgical first
strike.
First strike weapons are being
placed in Europe, including
"backpack nukes," an
antipersonnel weapon designed for
use with conventional forces; the
neutron bomb, a first strike
weapon designed to annihilate only
people and leave cities intact; and
Trident II, an indetectable
submarine-based first strike missile
(SLBM) designed to eliminate
Soviet retaliatory forces. These
programs combined with similar
ones on the homefront such as the
MX, greatly enhance the risk of
nuclear war.
The very nature of first strike
weapons defies deterrence: if a first
strike stategy is being considered,
then deterrence has failed. The
deployment of clearly offensive
weapons is destabilizing. Systems
such as the MX and Trident II have
no deterrent value (as the
administration claims) in a world
where both superpowers possess
the capablity to destroy the planet
single-handedly; rather they fuel
the arms race and political tensions
by making plain the U.S.
governments contingency plans for
a first strike.
The Reagan administration,
while capitalizing on the political
benefits of having a summit
meeting before an election, is
movingawav fronmdisarmnment

I
I
6

ON TOO 6P iT'S5JU.ST A
($OOV. O FAM1Y TALES

I4ONl I WON
tT' A MSEL

/

f

- 3/j

C

l

It
a4

ft-

LETTERS:
Show consideration for the shanty

0

To the Daily:
The shanty in the Diag
is an active form of protest
against Apartheid. It is there
to draw attention to this
issue and ask for support.
Now, there are students who
ask for it to be dismantled,
and those who destroy it
themselves. The shanty
should be treated with
consideration for its builders
and supporters, and should be
looked upon and understood.
The little decrepit shack
of wood in the Diag has a lot
of meaning. It is a
representation of what a
family of South African
blacks are forced to live in.
It is sadly realistic, and I'm
glad that it's there. As we,
the students of the
University of Michigan, rise
in the mnrning- showeAr -et

shanty as a nuisance and an
eyesore. It is not
particularly pleasant to their
eyes. "That thing looks like
a piece. . . It looks like a
pile of rotten wood.",
someone told me. I think
that it adds to the diverse
atmosphere of the Diag.
And if the shanty is such an
eyesore, what about the
banners from the fraternity
rushes and other activities
still left in the trees? Some
of those that should have
been taken down weeks ago
haven't been removed yet,
and they certainly aren't
beautiful. Can't we be
bothered to put up with that
little shack, as blacks are
being tortured and killed in
South Africa? It is only a
minor favor to ask to try to
brima mnrP ntntin n o

cause them pain, and'only its
destruction will allow them
to feel better? Are they for
the system of Apartheid and
the suppression of blacks?
Don't they understand that
many people have to work
hard on the shanty to keep it
up, all because of them?
Don't they understand it?
I suppose that they have
no common courtesy. The
shanty, a symbol of the pain
of South African blacks, has
been through its own pain in
being repeatedly demolished.
Also, because those people
who dislike it feel that they
have the right to destroy it,
the shanty is being staffed
every day. Every time that it
has been demolished, it had
to be rebuilt to show
contempt for South Africa,
nr , o, n r t r. 'Ta

example is, if I were passing
out pamphlets in the Diag,
and someone who didn't
agree with me ran up to me,
grabbed my fliers, and
knocked me over, would that
be fair? That is simply what
is happening to the shanty.
It is silently and peacefully
protesting our government
and the government of South
Africa, but is being knocked
down for it.
So the next time you
walk through the Diag,
please have some
consideration. Don't destroy
the shanty or view it with
contempt. Instead, look at it
and wonder how President
Reagan has not passed
sanctions against South
Africa yet. Look hard at that
rotten shack and ask yourself

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan