OPINION
Page 4
Thursday, October 23, 1986
:
k ._
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
T0
Ticket
policy
is
Vol. XCVII, No. 36
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board
All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.
Covert action
RECENT CIA INVOLVEMENT in the
Nicholas Daniloff spy affair and
the Eugene Hasenfus fiasco in
Nicaragua demonstrates that the
CIA's covert work often has the
effect of manipulating public
opinion in the United States. Since
a supposed foundation of
democracy is the free flow of
information, which allows citizens
to understand and participate in
politics, the CIA's covert activities
should be abolished.
Proponents of CIA covert
activities distinguish between the
collection of information and the
use of that information in
intervention. While one may
disagree with the CIA's uses of
intelligence information in
Nicaragua, Chile and Iran, there is
nothing inherently wrong with
covertly collecting information,
:k according to defenders of the CIA.
:XAdvocates of covert intelligence
gathering also argue that it is
essential to national security. They
say that it is necessary to have
inside information on what is
,happening in the Kremlin for
instance.
When the CIA seems to go too
far in unethical activities, its
apologists argue for the legislation
of restraints on the CIA instead of
the abolition of its covert activities.
k Lately, such semi-critics are not
-having much sway as the reign of
the CIA has been wide and free in
recent years.
In any case, it is impossible to
place restraints on covert activity
unless they are self-enforced by the
i CIA. To the extent that citizens
police CIA activities, those
activities are overt by definition.
As a branch of the government,
the CIA should be responsible to
the citizens. The Daniloff affair,
however, demonstrates that the
CIA is not accessible or
responsible to the public. Instead,
it manipulates the public in the
name of so-called national security.
By using the Daniloff affair,
branches of the U.S. government
concerned with national security
exaggerated the threat to the United
States and thus justified their own
existence.
When the Soviet Union detained
US News and World Report
journalist Nicholas Daniloff, there
was a knee-jerk patriotic response
in the United States. The Daniloff
case seemed to vindicate the red-
white-and-blue conservatives who
believe no peace with the Soviet
Union is possible. The United
States government said that
Daniloff was innocent and most of
the citizenry had no information to
doubt that claim.
Then Daniloff returned to the
United States. UPI reported that
he had indeed delivered documents
for the CIA to the U.S. Embassy in
Moscow on a clandestine basis.
Daniloff himself added that he
thought the CIA had used him
unwittingly to collect information.
The whole Daniloff flap turned out
to be the result of a mere covert
intelligence gathering operation
according to the Washington Post.
The CIA knew that the Soviets
had had good reasons to suspect
Daniloff. Instead of informing the
public so that citizens could make a
reasonable judgment on the matter,
however, the CIA let patriotic
fervor swell to a high pitch.
By protesting Daniloff's
innocence, the United States tried
to show that it was morally
superior to the Soviet Union.
Public opinion hardened against the
Soviets at the very moment the
summit was to take place. That
public hostility was caused by the
withholding of information by the
CIA and the Reagan
administration.
Probably the public never would
have learned about the CIA
connection if it were not for the
gradually increasing Soviet efforts
to expose Daniloff and the
probability that Daniloff would
speak out as he eventually did. It's
frightening to think that the CIA
carries out covert activities every
day, most of which the public
never hears about.
In the Hasenfus plane downing in
Nicaragua, France's terrorist
bombing and sinking of a
Greenpeace ship in New Zealand
and the Libya disinformation affair
there is a pattern. A so-called
democratic Western government
denies involvement with
wrongdoing only to eat its words
later.
In each case, what was supposed
to be a secret for so-called national
security reasons becomes exposed.
The government proves willing to
deceive the entire public for the
benefit of a direct Yankee role in
combat alongside the Contras, the
murder of an environmentalist,
efforts to confuse Qaddafi or the
cultivation of a single potential
intelligence source in Moscow, as
in the Daniloff case.
The costs of simple covert
intelligence gathering in the
Daniloff case are typical: the entire
summit between the superpower
leaders took the backburner for
several days.
Instead of covert intelligence
work, theUnited States needs
more overt academic and
intelligence work. Already, the
U.S. government does much overt
intelligence gathering which ranges
from translation of foreign presses
to satellite photography.
Funds for the academic study of
foreign countries should be
increased without strings attached.
This will gain the American public
better access to information and
perspectives to judge what the best
policies are.
There are those who would say
that the abolition of covert CIA
activities is a pipe dream.
Admittedly, this is so. When one
considers the reality of U.S.
intervention to support dictatorship
in the Third World in addition to
the government's policy of keeping
secrets from its own people, it's
clear that real democracy has a long
way to go in the United States.
By Marc Carrel
An article in the Daily last Friday,
concerning the record crowd that attended
the Michigan-Michigan State game in
Michigan Stadium, dismayed me a bit. It
was not the entire article per se, but rather
a quote from Ticket Manager Al Renfrew
that caused this dismay.
The article read as follows: "A new
ticket policy designed to keep non-
students out of the student section is
working well, Renfrew said. (Seating
cards) are great. They really have
eliminated many of our problems."
The article continued by saying that
studentshand non-students in the student
section have conflicted in the past because
students generally sit wherever they
please and non-students insist on sitting
in the seats that their tickets say. "The
Athletic Department," this article goes
on, "decided to eliminate the conflicts by
elininating non-students."
I was amazed by this article, because it
shows how out of touch the
administration is with this issue. As a
student who owns season tickets in the
student section, and who has attended all
home games last year, and so far this
year, I honestly believe the policy has
caused more problems than it has solved.
The so-called ticket packets are the
major problem. They are bulky and
contain an entire season's worth of tickets
in one set. One of their problems is that
Carrel, an LSA Sophomore, is a
Daily Staff Writer.
you cannot detach the tickets, and must
hand the entire packet to a ticket taker at
the stadium entrance. The packet says
that detached tickets will not be accepted.
My Michigan State ticket fell off
while in my back pocket during the
Florida State game. With a little piece of
tape I alleviated the problem, and the
ticket was taken like normal.
But, if I were to have lost the ticket,
the finder could have taped it onto his
pocket once inside the stadium, and pass
it out to someone through the fence for
them to get in.
That is just a minor problem. The
major problem with the packet is that all
your tickets are together, and to go to a
game you must bring them all. If you
were to lose your ticket stub at another
type of sporting event, you wouldn't have
to worry. But with this system there are
no stubs, just your remaining tickets. So
if you lose it, you've lost entrance to the
rest of the season's home games.
This is not as uncommon as you
might think.
Another problem that I have with this
policy is that it didn't solve the problem
of non-students in the student section.
Every game I've gone to so far this year,
people over fifty sit within twenty yards
of wherever I might choose to sit. They
have purchased student packets from
scalpers at the start of the year, and thus
probably gotten tickets cheaper than
regular non-student season tickets.
Anu they insist in sitting in the seats
labeled on their tickets, as they have
always done. But they are not the only
The Michigan Dai
unfair
ones. Many students who come in la
shove their way down the aisles an
violate the unwritten student code: "Firs
in the seat, sits in the seat."
This problem has been greatl
aggravated by the excessive crowds th
past several games, and the tight althoug
mostly uncalled-for security.
The Daily article repeatedly called the
area where students sit, the "student
section," not "student sections." If where
the students sit is one section, then why
does security stop people from crossing
neighboring sections to sit with their
friends? And why does the stadium
security insist that students.enter only a
the gate labeled on their seating card?
I don't know the answers to these
questions, but I'd like to find out.
This University is among a small
number of schools in the NCAA that
charges students to attend sporting events
of their teams. And not only do we
support our team with our excitement and
dollars, but we get hassled in the process.
I have a very simple solution:
Abolish the seating card. Make students,
show student ID to the people at the gate.0
This would alleviate problems that the
seating pass causes, as well as cut down
on the still high number of non-students
in the student section.
Further, keep the open seating policy,
and use security to secure the stadium,
not to kick members of a large group to
another section, because they happen to
have tickets with another section marke
on them. These steps would ma'ke th
game more enjoyable to students overall.
I ~.------ ii
'N 1)0O WE CALL T915 A
\IIIOLE LIFE ROLIC1Y2
5C AUSS IT tM16wRT 'AVE YOu1\WHOLE.
ItFE UEFoRE WE 14MOW IF IT WoIZs
\M A~ M S~N4
4
4
LETTERS:
Improve biking environmen
To the Daily:
Picture yourself flying over
the handlebars of your bicycle
and landing on the cement
sidewalk, or worse, in the mud.
Now, imagine the humiliation
you feel, because you can't ride
a bicycle correctly. Right?
Wrong. The University of
Michigan and Ann Arbor do a
poor job of accomodating
bicycle commuters, and
improvement must be effected.
Granted, much of one's
safety on a bicycle is one's
own responsibility. Proper
safety equipment and
observance of traffic safety
laws are a must when biking.
However, the biking
environment and automobile
traffic regulations are up to the
city and the University. I
encountered one of the
foremost obstacles in the
bicycle environment while
maneuvering around a crowd
are presently lacking.
Pedestrian traffic signs
frequently change from
"WALK" to "DON'T WALK"
in less than ten seconds,
making the pedestrian rush
across the street. On a bike,
this is somewhat difficult. Car
drivers compound this problem
by not giving pedestrians the
right of way. I was almost hit
by a car because I was stuck
with my bike in the middle of
the crosswalk when the
"DON'T WALK" sign came
on. In a city such as Ann
Arbor where people commute
by walking or bicycling,
pedestrians and bikers should
be given more time to cross
the street.
Biking is supposed to get
you from one place to another
faster than walking; this is
generally the purpose of
commuter biking. The crowds
of walking commuters tend to
day, I spent five minutes riding
behind walls of slow moving
people. On the bridge, I was
forced to walk my bike across.
After many similar instances, I
decided to follow out of the
way routes. If the University
would simply paint a bike lane
over well travelled pathways,
of better yet, install a separate
bikepath, bicycling would
become more efficient and
more enjoyable.
The University of Michigan
has done a very good job of
placing bike racks in all the
strategic places. However, the
number of bike racks is
insufficient for the growing
number of bicycle commuters.
In front of the C.C. Little,
North Campus bus stop, only
about one-half of the bikes
there can be locked on
designated racks. The other
half must be locked to fences,
signs, or at a different location.
W'inA2
whatsoever, and the sigtis,
parking meters, and trees -re
frequently occupied. Perhaps
some of the revenue obtained
through the Ann Arbor bicycle
registration could be allocate
for the purposes of new racks.
In 1984, there were 106.1
million bicycles in existence.
Of those bicycles, 1,000
resulted in fatalities, and
countless more in accidents. If
the University of Michigan and
Ann Arbor work together, a
safer and more efficient biking
environment will result. Wider
bike ramps and longer- lastin'
pedestrian traffic signs are
simple, but effective methods
to improve bicyle safety.
Special bike lanes and more
bike racks would make
bicycling more convenient.
These measures would help
reduce Ann Arbor's
contribution to the bicyle
fatality list, while at the same
:":... ..w.;:: :: >:::> > :::. :