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


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.

November 10, 1986 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-11-10

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



Page 4

Monday, November 10, 1986

The Michigan Daily

1. 1

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Vol. XCVII, No. 48 420 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.

Assist Frelimo

P9, PueC*j aNSER
INt' Sr \,


:1 70

LCMS 10W, C'

Mozambican President Samora
Machel gives the illegitimate
Mozambican National Resistance
(MNR) or Renamo the breathing
room it needs to become 'more
established with Washington and
Pretoria. The South African
regime established the MNR to
oppose the popular Mozambican
Liberation Front or Frelimo
government-the guerrilla force
which won independence from
white minority rule. Currently, the
MNR is supplied by South Africa
to keep pressure on the Marxist
anti-apartheid Frelimo government,
but since the decision by Congress
in Febuary to; fund Jonas
Savimbi's right-wing,
counterrevolutionary force in
Angola, MNR has begun lobbying
in Washington for support.
Before his death President
Samora had managed to improve
relations with the Reagan
administration to the point where
foreign aid was considered.
Republican Senators William Roth,
Jr. (R-Del.) and Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) fought against the
package; in a personal letter to
President Reagan, they
condemned any assistance to the
governments of Mozambique,
Angola, or Zimbabwe. The policy
of opposing governments in the

developing world because of their
socialist ideologies rather than the
amount of popular support they
possess is unacceptable.
Typically, the U.S. government
chooses to aid anti-communist
guerrillas who have no popular
support and could not exist without
the foreign aid.
It seems likely that MNR forces
are linked to Jonas Savimbi's Unita
organization in Angola. Both
groups enjoy regular deliveries of
munitions and military hardware
from South Africa. They have
shared a public relations firm in
Washington and Frelimo has some
evidence of arms shipments from
Angola to the MNR. The U.S.
funding of Unita is anti-democratic
and any funds for MNR would be
an increase in pro-apartheid
spending on the part of the Reagan
Congress must resist the
lobbying efforts of groups such as
the Heritage Foundation, Free the
Eagle and the Conservative Action
Foundation, which are responsible
for aid to Savimbi and the current
effort to fund the MNR. The
United States needs to recognize
and assist the popular anti-
apartheid governments in Africa.
The ideology under consideration
is not Marxism, but the legitimacy
of the apartheid system.







BUG helps computer users


Looney Moonies

anti-communist, non-profit
organization run by the Reverend
Sun Myung Moon and his
Unification Church is recruiting
highly influential and respected
American citizens. Here at the
University CAUSA partisans are
soliciting petition signatures with
the call "sign against communism."
The basic concepts of the
CAUSA organization seem
appealing: establishment of a
world democracy ("all mankind
should be united, for we are all the
children of God," CA USA Lecture
Manual) and an end to Western
submission to the communism.
CAUSA, however, is intricately
related to the cultlike Unification
CAUSA International, founded
by the Reverend Moon, invites
members of the retired military
community, scientists, and leaders
of mainstream religious
organizations to educational
conferences and seminars.
CAUSA pays for the conferences,
including the travel expenses of the
participants. The conferences,
often held in famous cities, lure
many participants with the offer of
free travel and expense paid trips.
CAUSA apppeals to many
mainstream religious organizations
by offering their representatives
scholarships and lucrative financial
contributions if they affiliate
themselves with CAUSA. A
member of South Carolina Citizens
for Morality attended an all-
expense paid trip to Washington
DC. CAUSA officials asked if a
finnancin~l contrihlin rnnld benefit

fundamentalist circles, is
attempting to establish its
credibility in mainstream and
conservative spheres. It hopes for
acceptance as an independent
organization with peaceful and
non-religious goals by
establishing, for instance, a board
of advisors that consists of retired
ambassadors, ministers of various
denominations, and distinguished
military officers.
Materially, the Unification
Church pays for most CAUSA
events and projects. It is therefore
unrealistic to believe that since
Moon is financing CAUSA that
CAUSA will not in some ways
propagate his personal beliefs.
Also, it is not possible to separate
the history of CAUSA from the
life, experiences, and beliefs of
CAUSA calls for a world united
under one governmeIt. Moon, the
founder of CAUSA, sees himself
at the head of that government. He
believes that he is the second
Messiah and that from him will
come the perfect race that neither
Adam and Eve nor Jesus Christ
could produce. 4,000 of his
followers demonstrated their belief
in Moon by submitting to his
choice of a marriage partner in a
mass marriage ceremony at
Madison Square Garden. Moon is
also a criminal, convicted by a
U.S. court on charges of tax fraud
in failing to report interest on
nearly $2,000,000.
It is scary to think that citizens of
the United States would support in
any fashion an organization that
suggests the disestablishment of

To the Daily:
Normally, one would hardly
be delighted to know that there
was a bug in any computer
system, but the University of
Michigan has a BUG to be
proud of-the Blind Users'
Group, an organization of
people committed to making
computers accessible to all
members of the University's
disabled community. Started
this year with LSA senior
Doug Thompson as president,
the group has meetings once a
month during which new
technology is demonstrated and
ideas are exchanged.
A variety of ways currently
exist in which computers have
been modified for use by those
with visual handicaps. For
those with somesight, there
are computer terminals with
large screens where the letters
can be adjusted to a desired
magnification. Other users
find one of a variety of voice
synthesis systems to be useful:
these can read any specified
amount of information, from a
single letter to an entire page,
that appears on n computer
screen. While' ke synthesis
has a long way to,- 'Fore the
sound reproduction is as, clear
as that provided by, say, the
phone company's Directory
Assistance, most of these
systems use stored rules of
English pronunciation to
provide a reasonably accurate
idea of the contents of an MTS
file or a microcomputer
spreadsheet. There are even
computers that can convert
printed words into speech.
Examples of all these machines
are currently available on
campus, either at NUBS or at
the Graduate Library.
Despite technological
advances, however, there are
still significant problems
facing visually handicapped
computer users. Some of the
last BUG meeting was spent
discussing the problem of
providing complete, current
documentation of software to
users-documentation that can
be confusing even to those
with full vision. There is also
the problem of reaching all
potential users of this
technology. A white paper on
general suggestions for
improving service is being
developed by BUG members
for presentation to the
Consortium for Enabling
Technology, a state-based
group concerned with helping
th rlia lklrl lea r - - n .t -

Peaceniks miss the

point on arms control


To the Daily:
In the October 22 issue of
the Daily, Professor
Skolimowski wrote an "Open
Letter to Reagan," asking that
he reconsider his position on
SDI (the Strategic Defense
Initiative) at Reykjavik,
Iceland. The letter, however,
was falacious and displayed a
lack of intelligence and
The letter says, "We want
peace; and that means
disarmament and not testing
and implementing new
weapons." I suggest to you,
ladies and gentlemen, that
equating peace and disarmament
is a foolish thing to do.
Simply take into consideration
the fact that since World War H
Europe has had its longest
standing peace ever, even
though the United States and
the Soviet Union have carried
out an arms race of incredible
proportions and instituted the
doctrine of mutual assured
destruction. If you are to make
any such rash equations, then
you must equate peace with the
arms race and mutual assured
destruction and not with
The letter stated, "...we (the
United States and Soviet
Union) have to learn to make
judicious compromises." If
Professor Skolimowsky has
any concept of what occured at
Iceland, they would see how
ridiculous this statement really
is. At Iceland, Reagan and
Secretary-General Gorbachev
worked out an agreement to
limit and reduce the number of
nuclear arms on each side.
Gorbachev, however, attached
an additional stipulation to this
impending agreement -- a ten
year ban on the testing of SDI.
What, I ask, was Gorbachev
prepared to give up for this
additional American
concession? Even if he had
agreed to place the same ban
upon his own SDI program,
such an agreement would not
have been acceptable. The
United States is so
technologically advanced in
n- rnn- :- - ...: A . Cnx-:P.

it needs an agreement badly.
When its failing economy and
military expenditures (14-20
percent of its gross national
product compared to 7-10
percent of that of the United
States) become too much to
bear, the Soviets will beg us
for an agreement. That
Star Wars ft
To the Daily:
Your editorial on
October 15 entitled "Star
Wars Summit" was yet
another example of the
Daily's intolerance to ideas
that fail to conform to its
liberal yardstick. Not only
are the editors of the Daily
unwilling to accept that the
idea of Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD) is a
failed doctrine, they state that
the Strategic Defense
Initiative (what the Soviets
and media refer to as Star
Wars) "..is unreasonable to
people who have no interest
in a first- strike against the
Soviet Union..." It was,
also stated that the Strategic
Defense Initiative,"...implies
the possibility of winning a
nuclear war." These two
statements belong either in
Pravda or a novel, as they
are excellent examples of
Contrary to the Daily's
position, there exists a
distinction between defensive
and offensive weapons. That
distinction is based upon
whose hands such weapons
rest in. A machine gun in
the hands of Mother Theresa
is far less menancing than
the identical weapon in the
hands of Abu Nidal. The
idea that SDI is a "first strike
package" morally equates the
United States with the
Soviet Union. The fallacy
of that statement is blatantly
apparent, but since the Daily
obviously requires a remedial
course in history, may I
suggest that they interview a
fellow journalist by the
name of Nicholas Daniloff.

agreement, ladies and
gentlemen, will be based not
upon one of the Soviets'
"judicious compromises," but
upon the terms the United
States dictates to them.
-Giles D. Caver
October 22
es are wrong
nations. The Daniloff affair
is just another example of
why America needs SDI.
The idea that the Reagan
Administration believes that
nuclear war is winnable
because of its refusal to 4
"give up" SDI is also
nonsensical. When did
trying to protect oneself
against an aggressor become
an act of "aggressive
militarism"? Since the mid
1960s, the United States has
decreased, unilaterally, the
total megatonnage
(destructive capability) of its
nuclear arsenal by more thahq
30%. Is this the action of a
nation that believes a nuclear
war is winnable? The
answer is no. If the
Pentagon was so bent on
conquest, why did it fail to
employ the monopoly it
possessed on nuclear
weapons from 1944 to 1949
against the Soviet Union?
Might it be that the q
Pentagon was not then andts
not now led by a Dr.
President Reagan was
infinitely wise in his refusal
to bow to Soviet demands on
SDI. It is more important
to insure America's security
than it is to sign an
agreement with Mikhail
Gorbachev, an agreement
that the Soviets would
violate, just as they have
violated every major arms
control agreement they have
ever signed with the United
States, including the 1972
Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty
which the-United States is
currently observing. But
these facts are irrelevant tod

and more productive, and we
encourage any interested fully-
sighted or vision-impaired
people to attend our next
meeting on Monday,
November 10, at 7 PM in
room 3909 of the Michigan

Union and to watch for
announcements of our future
meetings. For more
information, contact Dough
Thompson at 763-8702 or
through the $MESSAGE

system on MTS.
-Jane Berliss
-Doug Thompson
-Jim Knox
-For the Blind Users'
November 6

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan