vol_2_no_1 by Michigan Review

THE

~~',

'\~ ,.

]l\jIT TI ©rnJ TI @£ Jill

EVIE

. We seek the truth, and will endure the consequences.

Vol. 2, No.1

_. Ann Arbor, MI

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • I

Samuel Blumenfeld

Will Johnny Ever Read?

ROTC

Facing the Firing Line

Illiteracy has now joined unwed Brent Haynes tion Program responded to critics, saying; "That's their opinion, they're motherhood, herpes simplex, and budget deficits as one of the nation's This is the first in a series of three arentitled to it and I respect it ... I insoluble problems that get periodic ticles on ROTC at the University of would hate to see a ' campus where attention in the media with the usual Michigan. one group or another because of becall that something be done about it. liefs ... are not allowed to say what . Americans, however, are already Already this. semester a number of they want." Courte stated further that paying an, army of over two million demonstrations have been held pro"people need to be heard" and demtestin~ military research and ROTC onstrations achieve a lot of good. teacbers who supposedly are doing something aOO\it" lt. They Clfe ,'~e , . ' QQ ·the~,UgfM camp.us: B~t f:{O'1C,ad~'",:,: "" Courte added,"r would be con- , ~xperts and professiorials, with colmiriistrators 'and students are uncernedif we didn'thave a v~riety of lege degrees and certification. We daunted, and despite the efforts of opinions on this campus, if we didn't have a universal compulsory educaprotestors, ROTC ,a t the University is have demonstrations." tion system that costs taxpayers over growing steadily. CoL Robert Coulter, USMC, chair$100 billion a year, created to ROTC opponents, many ot whom man of the U of M Navy ROTC beguarantee that everyone in America want to eliminate the U of M ROTC , lieves that opponents would at least learns to read and write. So we have have been vocal in their protests. But soften their criticism if they had a teachers, we have schools, we have what does the ROTC administration better understanding of the NROTC laws. We have mo~e educational think of its critics? Officers from curriculum. "We don't teach people each of the three branches of service how to go for' the jugu~ar. " The research than we know what to do with . But the system evidently offered similar comments. NROTC curricl!lum, says Coulter, Lt. CoL John Courle, Commander includes electronics, management, doesn't work. In fact, among people who have of the U of M Army Officer Edutaand leadership, 'a nd most imporhad as much as 12 years of schooling, there is an ever-growing population of functional illiterates-people who • cannot read training manuals, books, magazines, or product labels written above a fourth- or fifth-grqde level. working for constructive change on Some parents have gone so far as to both of these fronts . sue public school systems for graduThis issue marks the return of The Most of our articles will be of an ating their children without teaching Michigan Review. After a long suminformative nature, although every them adequate litercy skills so that mer, it's time to begin again the task issue will include an editorial statethey can get jobs. Experts' estimates of publishing The University of ment representing the unanimous of the extent of functional illiteracy Michigan's alternative voice. Our opinion of The Review's editorial among our adult population range nameplate is not, the only change you board. We also intend to print book from 25 to 50 per cent. will notice this year. The paper's new and movie reviews, opinion colMy own introduction to the readeditors have deCided to change the " umns, sports features, student polls,' ing problem began in 1962 when format of The Review as well. and interviews. Watson Washburn, who had just First, we hope to avoid being little Some things haven't changed. As founded the Reading Reform Founmore than a "thinkpiece,j and inalways, The Michigan Review is to be dation, asked me to become a stead focus on issues of concern to distributed free of charge to University students and mailed to contributmember of his national advisory University students and alumni. We council. Washburn, a distinguished still intend to present thought-proing subscribers. We encourage stu, voking articles on issues of national dents to submit articles for publicaand international importance; howtion and look forward to providing a See Johnny, page 2 ever, we will place a greater emphaforum for opinion and discussion at sis on student and local issuesthe University of Michigan.

W' e re Back'

tantly "responsible behavior." Captain Dan Lord, an officer in, the Air Force ROTC program wonders if ROTC critics are being as tolerant of him as he is of them. If students want to protest to show their displeasure with the military, he says, that's their right. But · Captain Lord then asks whether they are granting him the <same freedom hei8 giving them. ". can ' 1ive ~ith them, they should (be able to) live with me." Captain Lord also believes that military critics are a vocal minority. and that the majority, though silent, supports the military. CoL Coulter thinks that many anti-military protestors are protesting just to participate in something. He adds that the objections raised by military antagonists are "usually not strongly based in reason or fact." CoL Courte insists that ROTC performs a crucial function by providing an officer corps that is representative of American society by drawing its students from the general university population. ROTC programs nationwide provide more officers than each of the military academies. Courte says that ROTC opponents should realize that the only alternative is an inbred officer corps-officers issuing only from the military academies. The advantage of ROTC, says Courte, is that it provides military training within a regular academic environm~nt.

Along the same lines, Col. Coulter says that an ROTC program in an

See ROTC, page 10 Brent Haynes is a junior in LS&A majoring in Philosophy. He recently transferred from George Washington University.

., ,)

page 2

NOVEMBER, 1983

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

......•••..••....•.•.••..•. ..............•• ...•..... .....•..................•.....•....•...•.......•....••......................••........•.....•.................•..•...... ~

Private Sector Charity

Johnny .''J

From page 1

Edwin Feulner This year, thanks to the generosity of Chevron USA, one of those naughty oil companies at which so many potshots were aimed just a few years ago, people in dozens of U.S. cities will get free medical screening tests. The million-dollar program is one of several "health fair" programs administered by the nonprofit National Health Screening Council for Volunteer Organizations. The Chevron minority "l>ealth fairs" are aimed at the American Indian, Latino, Black and Asian American communities. Similar efforts, funded by other large corporations, are tailored to older Americans, students and others who might not get to see a doc(or if the doctor didn't come to them. I bring this up not just to give Chevron and the other "health fair" sponsors a well-deserved pat on the back, but also to suggest, as I have before, that voluntary organizations might be better able to meet many of the public's needs than big government. In 1982, for example, the various health-fair programs provided free check-ups for an estimated 800,000 people. The dollar value of the health screening tests provided in minority communities was estimated at $100 million alone: The actual dollar cost - all of it raised priv~tely - was just a tiny fraction of that. Since there's no formula I know of that might predict what a similar government-run program would cost, I won't attempt to do so; I think we can all agree, however, that it would cost plenty. Moreover, most of us also will agree that some of the. things government has been doing lately would be better left to someone else-or better left undone. Doing good deeds for others, what the Biblical Hebrews called a "mitzvah," is one of those things tl:J.at to a large degree would be best done by the private sector. Even in these hard times, the private sector has shown itself up to the task. In fact, according to figures compiled recently by U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, 1982 was a record year for U.S. charities, despite the recession. In all, the U.S. NEWS tabulation said, charitable contributions exceeded $59.9 billion last year, up 11.8 percent from the year before. For example: 23 donors gave $33 million to the Texas Heart Institute

in Houston for additional facilities; a Michigan foundation contributed $2.3 million to find jobs for young people in 11 . states; and an anonymous woman recently donated $14,000 to food banks for unemployed workers in Pennsylvania's depressed Beaver County. People donate to charities not because they get a tax break, but because they see a n(;!ed, as was obviously the case with an anonymous benefactor in Indianapolis who put $7,000 in Salvation Army kettles during last year's Christmas season. Even in Detroit, where unemployment stood at 15 percent in December 1981, United Way contributions were up 2.5 percent last year. Doing good deeds has always been a part of the American fabric. If the good-hearted feds in Washillgton would just step aside, a lot of people will be pleasantly surprised at the willingness and ability of the American people to give each other a helping hand. ~ Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation, a Washintan-based public policy research institute.

New York attorney, had become concerned about the reading problem when he discovered that several of his nieces and nephews, who were attending the city's finest private schools, were having a terrible time . learning to read. He found out that they were being taught to read via the "look-say" method, a method that Rudolf Flesch had exposed and denounced in his book, Why Johnny . Can't Read. . Flesch had written the book to explain to a somewhat baffled public why more and more primary-school children were having enormo~s difficulties learning to read. .Flesch went on to explain that from about 1930 to 1950, beginning reading instruction in American schools had been radically changed by the professors of education from the traditional alphabetics-phonics method to a new whole-word, or hieroglyphic, method. Written English was no longer taught as a sound-symbol system but as an ideographic system,. like Chinese. By the 1940s, schools everywhere .. were setting . up ' rerrteaialieadirtg departments and reading clinics to handle the thousands of children with reading problems. In fact remedial teaching had blossomed into a

MUSKET. SOPH SHOW· MEDIATRICS· TRAVEL LAUGH TRACK. SOUND STAGE • COMEDY COMPANY. VIEWPOINT LECTURES • SPECIAL EVENTS • IMPACT PANCE • GRAPHIC ARTS HOMECOMING • MICHIGRAS • MINICOURSES

whole new educational specialty with its own professional status, and educational research on reading problems had become a new growth industry. Researchers, seeking the causes of growing reading disability, began to develop a whole new lexicon of exotic terms to deal with this previously unknown problem: congenital wo;d blindness, word deafness, developmental alexia, congenital alexia, congenital phasia, dyslexia, strephosymbolia, binocular imbalance, ocular blocks, dyslexaphoria, ocularmanual laterality, minimal brain damage and whatever else sounded plausible. What . were the cures recommended for these horrible diseases? Life magazine, in a major artiele on dyslexia in 1944, described the cure reco~mended by the Dyslexia Institute at Northwestern University for one little girl with an IQ of 118: thyroid treatments, removal of tonsils and adenoids, exercises to strengthen her eye muscles. It's a wonder they didn't suggest a prefrontal lobotomy. In 1969, the National Academy of Education . appoi~ted . a . blue-ribbon c<:>mmittee 'o n R~Qing:' to .·study the nation's illiteracy problem and to recommend ways to solve it. "We believe," wrote the committee, "that an effective national reading effort should bypass the existing macrostructure . At a minimum, it should provide alterntives to that structure . That is, the planning, implementing, and ; discretionary powers of budgeting should not rest with those most likely to have a vested interest in maintaining the status qUQ, especially given their unpromising 'track record.' " What the committee was telling us, in effect, is that the greatest obstacle to literacy in America is our own educational establishment and that if we want to achieve real education in our country, we shall have to circumvent that establishment . American News Service

• UAC is the student rtI'I programming department providing entertainment and culture for the students of the University of Michigan • UAC 763-1107

., ,~

,. __. ...." . ,...."'~''''d ..~~''\.. ''''.~,.' ._.,........,...,ffTOV.<·....·t''..-'••,.,.,q;\ll.~._~"JIIf'

.....

~~~4"'

NOVEMBER, 1983

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW page 3 . .......•..................••..•...•...............•... ..•..•...••..••. .....••.•...•.••.......•..•••••.•••.. .....................•........................................... ,----~-

THE MICHIGAN

REVIEW PUBLISHER Douglas A. Mathieson EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Theodore H. Barnett EXECUTIVE EDITOR James P. Frego ASSOCIATE EDITOR Peter Bauer STAFF: Jon .A.smundsson, Jane Beck, Jim Boyd, Wendell Deaton, Christine Dobday, Kevin Douglas, Brent· Haynes, Sue Hoffman, Laura Keldon, Mark Kulkis, Joe McCollum, Raj Patel, Hemant Pradhan, Fred Robberts, William Smith, Alok Somani, Mark Vanzant, Ann Yardley CONTRIBUTORS: Samuel Blumenfeld, Mark Edward Crane, Edwin Feulner, Val GolovSkoy, Steve Kelley, John Trever PUBLICITY: Dawn Otten, Jean Lesha HONORARY ADVISORY BOARD: C. William Colburn, Peter Fletcher, Paul W. McCracken, Stephen J. Tonsor . SUPPORTERS: Gerald R. Ford, Russel Kirk, Irving Krlstol, R. Emmet Tyrrell SPECIAL THANKS TO: The American News Service; H&Z Typesetting, Ann Arbor; The Foundation for Econ9mic Education; The Heritage Foun~ation; The Leadership Institute; The Reason Foundation The Michigan Review welcomes and appreciates letters from readers. Letters for publication must inctude the writer's name, address and telephone number. We also welcome the submission of articles. All work will be reviewed by the editorial staff and considered in light of its structure and content. All articles and letters must be double-spaced. We regret that we are unable to acknowledge or return any unpublished material. Those interesfed in submitting letters or articles should send them to:

The Michigan Review Suite One 911 North University Ann Arbor, MI 48109 The Michigan Review is an independent student-run journal at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.. The Review is in no way representative of the policies or opinions of the administration, and accepts no money from the University.

SPECIAL FEATURE lif'i"

Who Pays Corporate Taxes? David Kaufman

sents errors on the side of being too small because of the exclusion of banks; nevertheless, it is a close and convincing approximation. Those individu&ls who are considered members of the "public" are the ones hurt by the corporate income tax and the ones who would be helped by its repeal. Included are individuals who own stock, participate in a pension or savings program and hold insurance policies (i.e. the average wageearner). ' How was the PISE determined? Using data concerning the three aforementioned mutually-exclusive segments of the economy, one can determine the number of top ten shareholders who are "public" for each company. "Public" refers to any holder whose stock is in tum held by "small" individuals. Excluded are families like the Rockefellers and the Morgans. Included are arrangement~ such as mutual funds (assumed to be mainly publicly held), pensions,

dustry as a corporation, obtaining a weighted average for the economy. Doing this would not be entirely accurate because compensation for omissions would not be made. Because companies hold interests in other corporate entities, a procedure to determine the total PIS for a single firm is difficult. At the highest level, for example, commercial-banking firms are 59 percent publicly held. But it does not end there. The weighted average of all three groups is 51 percent publicly held and another 51 percent of those are publicly held. Permeating this down for four levels of ownership for the industrial and diversified-financial groups reveals even more impressive results. Respectively, the PIS is 90 and 84 percent. Co'mmercial banks are permeated down only two levels because they are so "publicly" held initially and advancing farther would cause data overlap to become a major unmeasureable problem. A full 90

Recently, the federal government has focused on spending and tax proposals. A novel approach, not given serious consideration, is the abolition of the corporate income tax. Some have come out in defense of such a proposal, but often without the facts to support them. Douglas A. Mathieson's piece in the March, 1983 Michigan Review adds little to this scholarly debate. Without sufficient evidence, he concludes-that this tax is "both unfair to the poor and taxpayers," as well as "dangerous" to the economy. However, Mr. Mathieson does arrive at the correct conclusion; repeal this tax. To obtain an accurate picture, one should look at the owners of coorporations and individual income taxpayers. Who own these corporations? By using data concerning the Fortune 500 largest corporations along with p 50 thhe tto 50 .dc.omrnife.r:~afl:?a,~~i~. g,.,~,J.l?", :~.p.'.1?4e,7,.,~~~~e8""_i,,~2~,"'r,!,~\<~z~~!~~~n.~;,.,.:11I.i.~.~e~c~_. ~~i~1.~$"tW.Wi1'i ))"~pr ,t e op· . Ivers li;U-Ulaft<nm()()m~ '.. 'lhillns,·lnsuranCe'companleS:;"ttfi.tv@.-'''''''anKr.l''C'' " . ., ..' . '-" panies, a clear picture can be drawn. sities, foundations and governmental this. permeation method, because for The 1980 ranking (published in 1981 trust organizations. One fault of the the first two little overlap can be -the most recent available), together proposed PISE measure, which founet, demonstrating an accurate with additional resources, allows one causes it to measure too low, is the PIS )l1easure. These results are then to discover the identity of the share- exclusion of banks. These and other weighted according to the quantity of holders in these companies. Only the large asset holding organizations are their assets or sales and a new PISE top ten from each financial listing largely public. Corporations with un- for the entire economy is calculated have been chosen, along with the top clear orientations were also ex- to be 89 percent. Cross comparisons twenty manufacturing, (industrial) cluded. The major point is that those can be made between assets and firms. A complicated paper chase, individuals with huge assets were sales in orde.r to reveal an aggregate resulting from the fact that some not considered and "small" individ- measure for the economy as a whole. firms own stock in others (especially uals were focused on instead. (see table, page 11 ) banks, insurance companies and After proper delineation, one can . mutual funds) has not been investi- determine, for each top ten compa- II. CORPORATE TAXES. gated but rat~er compensated for. ny, how many shares are "publicly' AdditioJ;lally, it is important to rear \ Each of these top ten represents a held and what percentage that repre- lize who pays federal taxes and what clear majority of the assets involved sents out of the top ten shareholders. amount corporations pay. Those indiin the top 50: commercial-banking,- This ratio can then be multiplied by viduals who make an adjusted gross 60 percent and diversified-financial, the assets or sales for a specific firm income (AGI) of over $50,000 repre50 percent. The top twenty industri- revealing a weighted total of the sent a mere 2.3 percent of all returns als represent 70 percent of the top 50 number of sales for those combined filed, and yet they pay an enormous in sales. companies to obtain a "public invest- 28 percent of the income tax in this ment share" (PIS) index. country. Moreover, those classified 1. CORPORATE OWNERSHIP . Startling results become evident. A as "average," referring to an AGI in With a proposed PISE value (public full 59 percent of the commercial- the range of $15,000-50,000, pay 60 investment share for the whole econ- banking firms are publicly held, percent of the income tax, while they omy) of close to 90 percent, the long- along with 47 percent of the industri- repiesent only 38 percent of the held pre-conceived notion that large als and 43 percent of the diversified- number of returns. It is not the "rich" corporations are closely held by ~ financial. But these initial PIS's do who pay most of the taxes, but those few affluent individuals is destroyed. not go far enough. A measurement in the middle. Cumulatively, those To be sure, it is true that large por- for the ecnonomy as a whole must be with AGIs of up to $50,000 pay 72 tions of some corporations are held defined. If these three segments of by individuals or families.. In one the economy are representative of See Taxes, page 11 instance, 49 percent of the financial the whole, and the top ten corporaDavid Kaufman is a junior majoring in company H. F. Ahmanson is held by tions of each one representative of all Economics am! Political Science. He is that familys interests. Far from the of them, then this method is an accuthe Assistant Editor of The Michigan standard, however, this type of .rate one. One could simply repeat Journal of Political Science. ownership is rare. The PISE repre- )his insightful method, treating an in-

page 4 I.

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

NOVEMBER, '1983

Laissez Faire!

Capitalism and the JJRobber Barons" T. H. BARNETT ---Once upon a time, before the turn of the century, capitalism had free reign and wealthy industrialists roamed the land. But there was much competition between the greedy "Robber Barons, n and they saw that this was bad, for it undercut their profits. And so the clever among them came to a simple conclusion: "To make still more money, we must band together and no longer wage economic war." An agreement was then made between the powerful industrialists. They swore to abide by the rules of their "trusts" and collectively raise prices, without fear of competition. For many years thereafter, the giant trusts raised prices and cheated the farmers and small businessman who depended on the availability of cheap oil, steel, and railroad service. And there was much suffering. But the evil reign of the capitalists was shortlived. For a group of wise and good men, who worked for the federal government, saw that things were not so good. In order to cut back the power of the dangerous trusts, they created the great web of regulations that have lived on to this day. And the trUsts were broken, and fair prices were once again paid l:;~. . fJlL---

Or so the story goes. We've all heard it before. Free enterprise does not work; "Remember the Robber Barons!" But as is so often the case, what politicians want us to believe and what is actually true may be two very different things. So it is with the myth of the Robber Barons. The true! story is much more believable. The late 1800's" were indeed a less regulated era. But the so-called "Robber Barons" did not rule the land. Consider, for example, the history of the railroad industry. By 1870, cOD;lpetition was spreading like wildfire. Hundreds of small railroad companies offered farmers and businesses service in a multitude of forms and prices. If a suitable rate was not available nearby, one could ship goods by river to a more distant connecting line. Prices were certainly not uniformly low across the country (remember that this was an era of considerable westward expansion). but the overall trend showed a steady decline in railroad rates. From 1870 to 1887, average rates dropped from $19 per 1000 ton-miles to $8.50. In order to' bolster their declining profits, the railroad magnates did in fact attempt to form "pooling agreements" and raise prices collectively. But these attempts at collusion were a consistent failure. Whenever members managed to establish a minimum rate (as the Eastern trunk lines did in 1877). one or more of the industrialists would "break the rules" so as to make a quick profit. That is to say, they would simply lower their prices and attract dissatisfied customers away from the other colluding lines.

"Insofar as railroad men did t'hink about the larger theoretical implications of centralized federal regulation, they rejected the validity and relevance of Darwinian analogies and the entire notion of laissez faire." Gabriel Kolka

As time went on, and prices continued to drop, the larger railroads began to panic. Consider this description of the situation given by Gabriel Kolko in Railroads and Regulation: Between May and November of 1885, when the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce held hearings, dozens of key railroad men were called to testify or give statements to the Committee ... Disagreements appeared on specific problem~, but the principle of federal regulation was accepted as the only possible alternative to the chaos in the industry. As one railroad president bitterly declared: "The point reached since the beginning of 1884 in the prevailing contagion of depression and loss, from the effects of ruinous rates, which wet.: uncontrollable from a lack of adequate protection of railroad interests in the past, is not to be remedied by waiting upon 'the survival of the fittest.' This misapplied phrase of the scientist cannot furnish appropriate data in any recognition and adjustment of di(ficulties which may attend the . commercial aftairs of a people.' "

The railroad magnates' disgust with the free market system grew as their profits continued to drop. In 1882, Albert Fink, vice-president of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad told the House Committee on Commerce that ... The first step ... should be to legalize the management of the railroad property under this (pool) plan .... It can be clearly shown that it is absolutely required for the public interest. The great defect in the present plan, and its great weakness, is that the co-operation of these railroad companies is entirely voluntary, and that they can withdraw from their agreements at pleasure.

These words hardly reflect the attitude of a ruggedly individualistic capitalist. The wealthy industrialists of the late 1800's were not all opposed to federal regulation of

their businesses. On the contrary, many saw that the establishment of mandatory price floors would guarantee profits. Also, it was a well-known fact that if small competitors were forbidden from offering lower prices, many would be driven out of business. If a company has nothing to offer but lower prices, it will lose out to its larger competitors. The only true monopoly is a coercive monopoly (i.e. one that excludes competition by force). Only government legislatipn can create such a monopoly, for only the government can legally employ force to achieve its ends. In the absence of State protection, capitalists must always anticipate the possibility of competition, and therefore maintain lower prices and better service. For that reason, we find that many of history's "great industrialists" were outspoken advocates of regulation, and sworn enemies of laissez-faire capitalism. It is indeed unfortunate that the term "free enterprise" has come to be associated with the success of the Robber Barons. Capitalism does not imply monopoly, but government regulation does. The history of the late 1800's confirms this .conclusion. The railroad magnates, the meat packers, the steel and oil barons all stood to gain by the introduction of federal regulation into their industries. If this claim seems incredible, I would suggest that you study the works of Gabriel Kolko (specifically The Triumph of Conservatism and Railroads and Regulation) and Yale Brozen for further substantiation. You may find that the truth .is very much at odds with what you learned in Introductory Economics. ~

Ted Barnett is a senior in Computer Engineering and Editor-in-Chief of The Michigan Review.

- ' - <~~ "'>"""""'<>'~'''''_''''''''''~='''''_'~_'''~ilWiil;JI''''lilll'~~W;m!~

NOVEMBER, 1983

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

page 5

............•......•......................•.••.•...••. ..•.......•••....•.. .•.....••.•.......•.•.••.•....... ..••.....••..•............•..........•...•.•.....•••••••....•...•.. ~

A Gmne of Uneven Odds " ~"' Val Golovskoy This sports term, denoting the complete advantage of one team over another, comes to mind in an analysis of recent facts about cultural and academic exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. Last year, the Soviet press enthusiastically reported the first direct television broadcast Moscow-Space-California . Five hundred thousand young Americans, participants in the festival "Music, Education, Technology," which was held near Los Angeles, took a televised tour of Moscow and saw and heard Soviet singers and rock groups. According to the report of the newspaper Soviet Culture (September 14, 1982), the Los Angeles company Unison Production, which organized this broadcast , transmitted a "musical greeting" to a small group of youthful activists, especially invited to the Moscow television studio ... Thus, a half million freelyassembled Americans and a few dozen painstakingly chosen Soviet Komsomol members - such were the results of the first game or, rather, of the first direct television transmission between America and the Soviets. The reports of the new cultural initiative of Armand Hammer, who together with Jerry Weintraub organized an export-import concern, indicate that the game of uneven odds will continue unabiited. Soviet party ideologues are no~ so stupid as to allow their people to become freely acquainted with American films, television programs, and rock groups: after all, that would strike a crippling blow to the long years qf effort by the machineries of propaganda to represent America as a cultural desert. However, one can foresee the complete success of the other part of the new Hammer Production in the importing of cultural output from the U.S.S.R. to the United States. The Oscar award and the commercial success of the film Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears have whetted the appetites of Soviet cinema organizations. Just this September the New York movie theater Embassy, which specializes in showng Soviet movies, released ten new films from the U.S.S.R. Nevertheless, the chairman of the Soviet Goskino (the State Film Agency) FUip Yermash, in an interview to the weekly Literary Gazette (August 25, 1982), complained about the lack of "reciprocity" in contacts on the part of the Americans: "We could buy more American films, but there is no reci-

procity". . .. The -Soviet film boss warned: "We do not want to buy films, even much-vaunted ones, of morally unhealthy content." Answering the question as to why American films are rarely shown in the U.S.S.R or are released there after many years, Yermash stated that the United States does not sell socially critical films or asks too high a price for them. As an example, he cited the film West Side Story, bought just recently for only $80,000 dollars and shown in the Soviet Union nineteen years after its American premiere! The Soviet official forgot to mention that such socially critical films as Three Days of the Condor, The China Syndrome, and Kozerog-l are being shown in the Soviet Union right now, and the Soviet press does not miss an opportunity to use these pictures for purposes of anti-American propaganda. However, according to the Associated Press, Soviet audiences ' are waiting out long lines in order to see these films (San Francisco Examiner, August 24, 1982) . I will also add that in Moscow there is no movie theater similar to New York's EmbassY_ ,Moreover, in · ~YAmerican .... cities dOzens of new Soviet films are shown, without any control whatsoever, for Russian emigres. This is socalled "non-commercial" distribution, but tickets are sold at four to five dollars apiece, and the lion's share of the profits winds up in the coffers of Soviet organizations. These are some of the facts about contacts in the cultural sphere. But perhaps academic contacts are developing more favorably for the Americans. The newspapers have reported several times that in exchange for American historians and linguists, Soviet nuclear physicists and , electronics specialists come to the United States ... At the University of California at Berkeley, I spoke with a young philologist who had recently returned from Moscow after a ten-month academic stay. He told me of the supreme efforts Soviet officials undertook in order to prevent him from carrying out the work he had planned:they kept materials from him, did

See Uneven Odds, page 11 Val Golovskoy is a former Soviet film critic and was the editor of the newspapers Cinema Art and Soviet Screen. He is currently a doctoral student and teaching assistant in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literature at the University of Michigan.

Freshman Poll Jon Asmundsson An informal poll of 80 University of Michigan freshmen revealed a not entirely surprising diversity among the incoming class of '87. Although final figures are not yet available, the freshman class will · be ma~e up of approximately 4,900 students. Seventy-four percent of those polled did not 'belong to a political party. Of those who did claim party membership, 12 were Republicans, '] Democrats, 1 Libertarian, and 1 Communist. One ideological freshman said that although he does not belong toa political party, he is an advocate of "anarchy with ' a smiling face." Opinion on two major campus issues-military research and the Ann Arbor marijuana law - is clearly divided. .

Q. Approve or disapprove of military research at the University? . ,i '. ' " ". '~·"'.:" "",~' 39"" Approve - 33% Disapprove 28% No opinion Q. Approve or disapprove of the lenient Ann Arbor marijuana law? 76% Approve 12% Disapprove 12% No opinion

The average time students said they spend on homework per night was 3.3 hours. The extremes were two students who work an average of 6 hours a night, and another student who claims to work zero hours a night. Sixty-eight percent of the freshmen polled were not involved in extracurricular activities. The favorite extra-curriculafS among those polled were intramural sports, various clubs and organizations, ROTC, and student government. Eighty-nine per. cent of the freshmen polled think the Upiversity and Ann Arbor offer enough activities to make daily life interesting, while 11 % did not. When asked if the Greek system was a positive influence on the University community, 61% replied yes and 24% replied no. Fifteen percent had no opinion. In addition, 27% of the freshmen polled are considering joining a fraternity or a sorority. Finally, a cursory examination of the Freshman Record reveals.that the predominant interests are siding, music, computers, dancing, golf, and . people. z:!.

Jon Asmundsson is a freshman Honors student in LS&A .

On academic questions the University of Michigan is rated fairly well by freshmen.

Q. For what reason did you chose the University of Michigan? 34% Academic 19% Financial 15% Live in Michior Ann Arbor 13% Reputation 12% Backup school 7% Special programs Q. How would you rate your . professors on the average? 55% Good 33% Excellent 6% Mediocre 6% Bad Q . . How would you rate .your teaching assistants on the average? 53% Good 16% Excellent 16% Bad 12% Mediocre 3% Very l?ad ' , ',

>','

page 6

NOVEMBER, 1983 '

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

, •••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••.• •..• ,••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••. ! •••••••.•••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.••

THE

,~., .

MICHIGAN

REVIEW liTo compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propogation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

What Thomas Jeffer~on wrote some 200 years ago still stands true. The Michigan Student Assembly is a clear example. We believe that the MSA has lost sight of its true purpose. We object to the Assembly's practice of making political statements in our name and using our student fees to fund a variety of .political groups. This is not to say that,We do not see a role for student activism - we simply feel that is not within the MSA's proper jurisdiction to decide what kind of ideology students should support. The basis for our objectiori is not the fact that most of the activist groups are l~ftist in nature, nor is it merely a question of money (although $20,0'00. is a sizeable sum). We are more concerned .with the principles at stake. Should we be compelled to pay for the furtherance of ideas to which we may be totally opposed? Should the MSA endorse, in our name, rallies and forums on specific political issues? Certainly not, if our . right to make personal choices is to be respected. What then is the role of the MSA? The Assembly should restrict its activities to affairs that directly affect student life. Campus security is 'a legitimate co.ncern. The quality of teaching is also important. These two issues alone deserve the MSA's full attention. Instead, valuable time and money is wasted while Assembly members debate, for example, the importance' of ,endorsing a student "peace vigil," or the Libby's boycott. \ If individual members of the MSA wish to endorse a specific ideological cause, then they are free to do so-with their own resources. If a University student wants to support an activist organization, then that student is free to donate his or her time and money directly. Why must the MSA pretend to speak for all of us? We look forward to the day when the MSA is once again a legitimate representative body and,we hope that the members' individual political ambitions will not deter them from making these important changes.

The opinions expressed in this editorial represent the unanimous opinion of the editors.

An Open Letter to Gary Jensen:

letters Congratulations for your courage and perseverance in producing a conservative journal on the Ann Arbor campus! The emergence of such a publication is to be welcomed not . only in and of itself, but also because it offers some badly needed diversity of opinion within the University community. Sincerely, Steven E. Civiletto, M.D. LSA, '72 To .t he Principals of Right "Reason": I sidestepped Issue One because its stance to me was known, but when your Number Two came out/ I failed to note the tone. I sat down at my desk and then began to read your paper but very soon, to my dismay, my interest seemed to taper. Although I centered the Review within my line of sight, its articles invariably jerked and slanted to the right. My preference for balance was met with absolute, which. led me to conclude that I should{ not remain a mute. I believe (and thus this mode I chose, although I ;lm not deft) in straight;out argument, you/d claim, "We/re rjght!" and who/d be left? I ~now that you can counter that "The bad guys do itt too!" but blast and bias do not really change a point of . view. A leaning column may bear some weight but isn/t really strong and while two wrongs can/t make a right, two writes can make it wrong.

I do like your questionnaire, but I would have preferred a "fill-in-theblank" format. Here are my answers: I) How doyou solve famine in an underdeveloped country? Answer: Keep socialist imperialism out of the Third World. 2) How do you improve relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union? Answer: The same way Prime Minister Chamberlain improved relations between England and Nazi Germany. 3) How do you tell a liberal from a conservative? Answer: Liberals sling mud while conservatives use reason, Earlier in your letter, you implied that only the rich ' benefit from improvements in the stock market. The fact is, since the major investors are pension funds and insurance companies/ anyone with an insurance policy, a pension, or a bank account benefits from improvements in the stock market. How else does one explain the effects of the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929?. Sincerely, Norman Hines Reaganism- You have two cows and you mistake them for horses at a press conference. Buckleyism - You have two cows and you hire 32 people to care for them and then write exhaustive columns about what a botheration it is, Tip O/Neilism- You have two cows and you outweigh both of them. Cordially,

Greg Hilliker Ann Arbor, Mi.

Scott Salowich U of M Junior Ann Arbor, Ml

•

T '

• _____

•

- -~.~- --.- ,-,, - •• -

. . . . . . . . . . """"-, _WO'~~_rK\'<_~~

.""' THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

NOVEMBER, 1983

page 7

............. , ..................................................................................................................................................... ......... . ~

Thank you for the free . "advertisement" you gave to my new "report" in the March issue of your magazine . Unfortunately, you managed to get the title, the topic, and most importantly, the point of my writing entirely wrong. I have never written a report called "Who Needs the Wheel, Anyway?" I did once write an article entitled "Robots and Jobs: The Doubtful Outlook," which appeared in a booklet called Going for Broke. The would be satirist who composed your mock "ad" obviously did not understand my article - if he or she ever read it. Your ad-writer assumes that I have an "anti-technology" bias, as do others who criticize me without bothering to read or understand what I have to say. I have nothing against socalled "high technology." Opposing technological advance is rather like opposing teenage sex: you can be against it if you want, but it will happen whether you like it or not. . The point of my "Robots and Jobs" essay was merely to demonstrate that the employment potential of the emerging robotics industry has been grossly overstated. The facts show that here in Michigan, robots will cost more jobs than they will create. These facts should be carefully considered, especially since business and industry leaders are asking for public funds to stimulate the spread . of robotics, on the grounds that new jobs will be created. Had your ad-writer taken the time to read my essay carefully, he or she would have discovered that I did not argue against the robotics industry per se. Instead, I argued that the State of Michigan should hot spend $200 million to develop the industry, as planned by then-Governor Milliken. Ample private capital was, and still is, available for this purpose. I suggested that state funds be directed towards training and employment programs for workers who will be replaced by robots. You may view

~ ~~ J'

~ ~~

Technologically yours, Roger Kerson Congratulations for discovering ''The Truth about Love Canal" (Michigan Review, March 1983}. Eric Zuesse must indeed be a "rare and determined"reporter, for he must have actually gone to Niagara Falls, New ':(ork to finQ it The role of the School' Board and the government in the Love Canal disaster are quite common knowledge there. The rest of the story, which Mr. Zuesse and his colleagues have never reported is also aU too apparent. I think, before you claim to know the whole truth, you should visit the area yourself. I've been there enough to set the scene for you. Niagara County is riddled with over 300 "closed" chemical waste landfills just like Love Canal. None of them are lined; and, since they are set in dolomite or cracked shale - permeable rock - geologists suspect that all of them are leaching

KNOCK \1 Oft,S(1.tI\ ...

~ ~ ~'

this as mindless left-wing sentimentality, but I see it as hard-headed economic sense. Human considerations aside, Michigan simply can't afford to have any more people on the unemployment rolls. There is no point in arguing over whether or not we should have new technology; obviously, we are going to have it. Public debate should focus on who is going to pay for new technology, who is going to control it, and what problems it will be used to solve. The simple-minded outlook suggested by your satire avoids careful consideration of these important issues. I do have a new report coming out, by the way. It's called "Who Needs Republicans, Anyway?" I'll send you an autographed copy, if you like. I'd . \:.>e delighted to have you write a critique-or a satire-of this report, but I would respectfully suggest that you read it before doing so. .

, ;~:s~~

~yz.-m-' y?-Q~'l<' II

--- ._ , :

_- ~~_.,

~ ~s \,\,\~ ~ f~Ootl路c:.ONTROL PRO~aC'T 1 e~\.utae

TO PRO'tac.T U~ ffiOtA ~ . or \.OW-fJR\c.a, \o\iJ~路QUAl.\iY GQOt)~",,r'

"'"'\,

Reprinted by permission of John Trever, Albuquerque Journal.

(even 'without interference from the a neighborhood and college two blocks away. . School Board) . There are four that residents are particularly concerned It is too bad the government had to about because they are near populatake legal action to get Hooker to tion centers, the Niagara River, and clean up the mess it made quite the county drinking water supply. legally, It's too bad; but the chemical They are known to be leaching dioxindustry , proving again and agaJn in, PCBs, and an array of hazardous that it can't be trusted with its own compounds. They are owned by products, has shoved the public Hooker Chemical Company. "against a wall, the only way out In 1978 the federal EPA and the being through government regulation . State of New York filed suit against C6rtllalf)f, .'.. Rooker to fore:e "remedialactiori"to contain the wastes at the Hyde Park, Linda Kendall 102 St., "S," and "N" landfills. The Hyde Park case has been closed (the settlement was not satisfactory to the residents affected); the others are In regards to your publication, and pending. your response to a letter by Gary JenI would like to point out, here, that sen in the issue for March.- 1983: I you have screamed "Laissez Faire!" in agree with Gary Jensen's comments, the upper left hand corner of the if I might take issue with his somepage on which the Love Canal article what heated language, his points are is written. Are you kidding? Niagara well made. I take issue, and strongly County is a hopeless mess because resent the implication that anyone the chemical industry, given free who holds his views might be considrein, used the cheapest means of disered a communist; the use of the title posal-landfilling - to get rid of its "comrade" Jensen, hurts far more than very dangerous waste. It was not it helps your cause. I am sorry to see profitable to research the possibility such an attitude represented at the of groundwater contamination, so no University of Michigan. one did. Now the industry is claiming ignorance as its defense; and Phylis Floyd pointing to the fact that it never The Hopwood Room violated any regulations! University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI Hooker Chemical, not ~he only party to blame at Love Canal, remains an example of industry violat(Editor's note: Ms. Floyd's letter was ing the faith of the public. Love sent to us on University statiqnary bearCanal was threatening public health ing the letterhead of the Hopwood before the School Board touched it; Room. We are sorry to find that an emand to boot, here's some more examployee of the University of Michigan ples of their "ignorance": at the "S" would take advantage of her position to area, hazardous chemicals were make a personal comment.} dumped into loose solid waste that was acting as a bank of the Niagara River , just a few hundred yards above ' the county's drinking water In charity there is no excess_ intake pipe; at Hyde Park, dioxin and - Francis Bacon PCBs were dumped into a pit with a creek running through it,flowing to

, ~: :;,

.,~,~,,,.,,,,_.'."'''''''''' ''''''' '''' '''''''''' '_'';<','"~" V'''-''''''''''''"''' '''''''-''''''''''''''_,,_

page 8

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

NOVEMBER, 1983

..... .....•.•.•••. .......••.....••. ....•....•.......... .•.....•••.•.•.• .....•••...••.•.••.•.•••..••.•...........•...•.... ......•.• ............•..•.•.•• •• .......•.....•..••. , ~

• Liberals waste their money on video games. Conservatives waste their money on video arcades.

A Field Guide to American-- Voters

• Conservatives believe that liberals are merely conservatives with no sex appeal, job, or taste in clothing. Liberals believe that conservatives are liberals whose "correct" ideas are suppressed by those of their evolutionary forerl!nners. • Conservatives ~believe in freedom of religion, as long as everyone is Christian. Liberals believe that God sees and hears everything except . what occurs in public schools.

HEMANT A. PRADHAN Just what are the differences between liberals and conservatives? • Liberals receive most of their information regar'Jing new and innovative means of energy from such notable experts "as Jane Fonda and Bruce Springsteen. Conservatives c<>nsulteven more reliable authorities: the ' patrons of these innovative means of energy, who incidentally claim . that plutonium improves the memory. • Liberals tend to enroll in makeshift exercise courses that require no diet, provide the "finest" ,of music, while instantaneously reducing the waistline. Conservatives play less ,strenuous games such as golf, in order to preserve that most prominent status symbol.

Conservativ~s

believe that Ted Kennedy is an agent of the Kremlin out to take over America. Liberals believe that the Soviets were invited into Mghanistan, only the Afghans were uncourteous hosts.

lAISSEZ FAIRE

• Liberals, claiming to be "open-minded," respect and admire all "new and innovative" ideas, except those proposed by conservatives. Conservatives travel in order to expose themselves to new ideas and international culture, but are thoroughly outraged when this international culture moves into their n:ighborhood.

_ WESTERN LIBERALISM, edited by E.K. Bramsted and K.J. Melhuish. ", . , a riveting coUection of excerpts and speeches from the greatest leaders of that glorious, freedom-loving movement kr,)Own as classical liberalism. With this book you can tra! yourself to an exotic libertarian feast." - Roy A. Childs, Jr, (quality pb, SlOp)

William ·Smith

MSA Watch:

Mary Rowland related functions. She also said she considers herself to be heavily involved in activist activities.

William A. Smith is a senior English major preparing (or Law School.

....

•

• Conservatives Were outraged by the Soviet attack on the Korean jet, because its loss caused a slump on Wall Street. Liberals were also appalled, mainly because the noise of the crash disturbed a whale.

• Liberals sometimes believe that the best way to formulate a "matu: e" analysis is through "adult" magazines. Conservatives condemn these publications as immoral, until they profitably invest in the publishing companies.

Last year, Mary Rowland and her "It's Our University" party won the Michigan Student Assembly elections. The IOU party formed here in Ann Arbor with the idea that students had a right to direct the University's budget themselves. In a recent interview with Miss Rowland, the following ideological and practical goals were discovered: - Although she says she no longer has any particular ties with the IOU party, she does agree with its platform of student involvement and direction of the University budget. She also said she hopes the party will continue and become more important in the running of the university. - Rowland said her goals for the Michigan Student. Assembly were to make the council "more efficient and effective." When queried as to whether "effective" meant estranging the growing number of conservative students, who do not want the MSA heavily involved in political activism, Miss Rowland said that she personally hoped to make the MSA a forum for more than just University-

• Conservatives avidly study the anti-materialistic philosophies of men such as Christ, while simultaneously attempting to capitalize on every fi nancial opportunity. Liberals, while labeling these conservatives as "grubbers," choose their collegiate majors in areas such as the History of Psychology in Ancient Babylon, and then blame society for the fact that they are unemployed.

$16.95

.. _ ECONOMICS IN. ONE, LE$SON ~y Heruy HuIltt. Classic primer on the

principles of the tree matket economy and the dangers of government intervention , Discusses minimum wage laws, rent control. tariffs, unions, price ' fixing, inflation, etc. in "n easy-to-understand style . (2l4p)

5~.95

_ SWEET LAND OF LIBERTY? by Heruy Holzer. The constitution's promise to protect individual rights is sabofaged by its supposed guardian, the Supreme Court. Holzer examines the assumptions underlying Supreme Court decisions in 60 major cases, and their effect on individual rights. (hd, 224p)

514.95

MARKFTS AND MINORmES by Thom.u Sowell. SoweU demonstrates the at-best-futile and at-worst-devastating effects of government attempts to aid the advance of ethnic or racial minorities. (136p)

$8.95 $13.50

_ 11IE OMINOUS PARALLELS: The End of Freedom in America by Leonard Peikoff. What is required to turn a country into a total dictatorship? How did the Nazis accomplish it? It is happening here' Peikoff argues that America today is moving toward the establishment of a Nazi-type d ictatorship in the not-too-distant future . Introduction by Ayn Rand . (hd, 394p)

516.95

TOMORROW, CAPITALISM by Henri Lepage. Already a bestseUer in Sweden and France, this book details the recent " revolution" in economics toward a free market orientation. Lepage, a French journalist, surveys such trailblazers as Milton Friedman, Gary Beck, Ronald Coase, and members of the Public Choice school who have reshaped the science of econoritics into a coherent, comprehensive approach to the study of human problems, (hd, 265p)

$14.95

FOR A NEW LIBERTY by Murray N. Rothbard. Already a classic, the best modem defense of individual liberty . .A biting attack on the legitimacy of the state, with numerous criticisms of government intervention. Offers marlc.et solutionS to many social and economic problems and presents a " revisionist" interpretation of foreign policy and the origins of the cold war. (pb, 325p)

$6.95

AnAS SHRUGGEp by Ayn Rand. The "philosophical" novel that served as a major catalyst for the post-World War II revival of libertarian thought. Defines a new ethics of rational self-interest and provides a philosophical foundation and moral defense of rational individualism and laissez faire capitalism. (l084p)

, $4.95 $22.50

Sub total ______

Please clleek the titles (lfld seI1d th is entire ad to

LAISSEZ FAIRE BOOK SERVICE DEPT. 1'1", 206 Mercer St., New York , NYlOOU PQST AGE -- Add $2.25 for postage and handling on all orders . .... . ......... . . . $2.25 ._________ TotaL ___ _______ Name Address _ -- ----------------------------------------_---------------.______________________________________Zip ______________

City / State

Please prepay and aUow about 3 week s for delivery

"" "."'.''''','''.,= ''''''.'''''''''''''...,,,:.,-"'''_ .,,.,.,.,_ _''''.~~_\~M''.'''~--

NOVEMBER, 1983

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

page 9

...........•.......••.......••........................ ..... ...•••.•.....•....•....••....••...••....••••.•••...•.•••.•.•••.••....••. ............................. ............ .

c u

Book Review

Decentralizing Atnerica Mark JefforyKulkis _ Megatrends

by John Naisbitt 290 pp. New York: Warner Books. $17.50

The inside-cover blurb of the bestselling non-fiction book Mega trends, proclaims the book to be "the challenge, the means and the method to better our lives .... a must for everyone who cares about the future." Does the book really live up to that bold procalmation? Definitely not. But Megatrends does make a bit of interesting reacij.ng, in the same sort of way that The Book of Lists was interesting. Megatrends was written by "social forecaster" John Naisbitt, thairman of the Naisbitt Gro'up, a Washington, D.C.-based research and consulting firm. The introduction to the book is intriguing. describing his research techniques and giving out little, juicy tidbits· of information which hint at some major revelations later in the book. Naisbitt's research technique is this: he has researchers located throughout the entire country, whose jobs are to read localpewspapers and determine what sort of topics and stories in the papers get the most space (in actual II of lines) per day. Naisbitt reasons that, because there is only a limited amount of space in a newspaper, the most popular current topic will dominate the most space, and as new topics arise, they will slowly squeeze the old ones out, line by line. Naisbitt's researchers compile their information and put out a quarterly "Trend Report," which lists topics receiving the most newspaper coverage around the country. In other words, the reports show what sort of "trends" are taking place in the country every three month. Megatrends is a compilation of a dozen years of these quarterly reports. The body of the book itself is divided up into ten chapters, representing the ten "megatrends" that John Naisbitt sees occurring in today's society. Each chapter is very neatly broken up into several components, which are in turn broken up into yet smaller sections. Naisbitt conveniently categorizes the topics within each chapter with headings and sub-

headings printed in large type. He prints certain "key" sentences and ideas in bold-faced type, so that the reader will know what is supposed to be important. The whole book actually reads like a very tightly structured argumentative essay. Almost aU of Naisbitt's "megatrends" center around one central thesis: that American is swiftly being transformed from a centralized nation to a decentralized nation. Many of the chapters merely detail different aspects of this main theme. For instance, there is the chapter: "Representative Democracy to Participatory Democracy," which explains how Americans are separating themselves from the government by taking a more direct part in local political processes through such actions as referendas and initiatives. And then there is the last chapter: "Either/Or to Multiple Opt~Oll/which.describes· the change from a "great American melting pot" to greater cultural diversity, and how we are forsakin'g the major three television stations (ABC, NBC, CBS) to watch hundreds of smaller stations, with the advent of cable television. The central theme of all this is that America is no longer one huge entity, but many smaller, interdependent networks. This . applies to every aspect of life: politics, business, entertainment, youname-it. But why this sudden trend toward decentralization? According to Naisbitt, after the Depression, Americans felt very insecure and craved to have some "Big Brother" to watch over them and take care of them. The American people handed a lot of power over to the federal government and large indtlsries, and this country assumed a hierarchial structure, both politically and economically, with Big Government and Big Business at the top of the pyramid. America enjoyed a feeling of security under this structure for several decades, until the 60's generation came along and shook everything up. But the 60's are gone. So why is America coming apart at the seams? Naisbitt claims that we are decentralizing because, economically, we are moving from an industrial society towards an "information society," just as we moved from an agricultural society to an industrial society not

long ago. What's an information society, you ask? That's a hard question to answer, because Naisbitt never really defines the term. He seems to categorize any industry, job, etc. that will aid his argument under the heading of "information." Very generally speaking,. what Naisbitt is trying to say is that the major portion of American economy is going from actually producing goods for _consumers to servicing information to consumers, which, of course, does not require the large, centralized factories that industry calls for. According to Naisbitt, information servicing includes: education, advertising, telecommunications, management, accounting, and just about every other occupation under the sun - if your imagination is as vivid as Naisbitt's. Naisbitt's explanation for the political decentralization in America is definitely more logical. It's his opinion that the federal government just got too big for its britches. The federal government ispr~ently.SO' massive that it isJust not equipped to handle all of the 'myriad problems which come its way ..That is why politicians and citizens at the state and local levels are seizing more control of matters that directly affect them. . Some of the chapters in the book

are very interesting. For example, in "North to South," Naisbitt makes some interesting predictions as to which ten states are the best prospects for moving to in the years to come, based on their future growth potentials. Some of the chapters are downright silly, though, such as: "Forced Technology to High Tech! High Touch." In this chapter, Naisbitt suggests such crazy notions as: "country music's popularity is partly a response to electronic rock." A serious problem with Naisbitt's book is that one is so thoroughly deluged with heaps of statistics that after a while, they begin to lose their meaning; the figures become just empty numbers. One of the best things Megatre~ds has going for it are Naisbitt'$ unique anecdotes, interspersed throughout the book, which I found particularly funny on more than one occasion. One of my favorites was "Lawyers are like beavers: They get in the mainstream and damn it up." ·.AlLin~i'.'~,i~~r~~I; • r~~L~ better title, though, might have been: 1001 Things You Always Wanted to Know About' Trends in America {but were Afraid to Ask}. ~

Mark Kulkis is a freshman majoring in Computer Engineering.

Looking for a glamorous career fn the fast lane of American Journalism? Get your start at The Michigan Revfew! We're looking for individuals interested in: Writing: -Investigative reporting - Political and philosophical commentary - Movie and book reviews -Humor Art: -Illustrating - Cartooning Business: - AdvertiSing - Subscriptions - Accounting

If any of these projects interest_ you, Jet us know. Contact Ted Barnett or James Frego at 663-4089.

page 10

NOVEMBER, 1983

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

....••.•.•.•.•••••...•.••••..•.•......••...•...........••••.•.•••..•.•.•.•••.•••.•••..... .••...••••••....•••••.•.•........••..•.••••.......•.•....•.••••.....•.•...•..••••.... ~

ROTC

"Our students should have the right to choose their own ca~er ' paths," says Coulter, and one of those legitimate paths is military service. Capt. Lord explains that ROrC "is a training program for those who want to be a part of the military force ," and eliminating ROTC would- deny students this option, Recent trends show that students are increasingly choosing this option. There are about 530 students enrolled in U of M ROTC this year, a 13% inc~ease over 1982. Freshman enrollment jumped nearly 20% from last year. Each of the officers agrees that a student usually enrolls for a combination of reasons, not just for onesuch as a financial support. In fact, less than half of the Air Force and only one-third of the Army ROTC freshmen are on scholarship. Nonscholarship students in ROTC.vho perform well, however, do have a good chance of obtaining a scholarship. All three officers feel that public

From page 1

academic environment is challenged by liberal thought, and that, he says, is the citizens' protection against narrow military thinking. "Truly, those that are concerned with militarism would be out in front insisting that Michigan (and other universities) share in the military process." Coulter asserts that the world situation dictates that we devote a large part of our national resources to defense, and that we should make sure that this money is managed by our best minds, "We owe it to ourselves not to turn that money loose with a bunch of militarists," Besides providing societal representation in the officer corps, Coulter and Lord point out that ROTC provides a service for its students.

opinion toward , the military has improved in recent years, and that this is a backdrop to higher ROTC enrollment. "Once . again," says Courte, "its becoming acceptable, and no only acceptable, but . .. honorable to serve one's country in uniform." Courte also claims that "Nobody is in the program ... strictly because of a scholarship, or strictly because they want to serve this country." Other reasons the officers cite as attracting more students are: high quality training - especially in hightech areas, challenging jobs requiring a large degree of responsibility, and experie.nce in both leadership and working with people. Probably the greatest tangible benefit, says Courte, of serving as an officer in the Army is the 'leadership and management experience. "You're talking about somebody who is 21 years old, . .. or 22, graduating with a bachelolJs degree, suddenly being in charg,e of 40 people in their first job. And if they stay on beyond three or

Mail Review 11_,1.... ;.", ~~

•• ~'c.I'Mo Co

(*) ...

.____ .

~OM.~ ~1W\;+.u.

~~.~.oC~

,,,q,,st ... \t . . .~tI)

~~~.V:¢~-

A y....( \'_fwf. ~ J". S f ..·qo .010 " •• c~ 1 ..••

~t.q •• "\c~iq·n ~~06~ 0

""~''',;;:a~~~~~:; :.s.\~~~f.\~1~'~-:';; ~ ~ \~'" .H;~'" ,:,~.t~:~~ut".f,~"

.." ..... "....

_ar-

_ ........ :" , .... ;;:

........... , ' "

r,_ t .~.,..... . ~

•

.'" ... ,... ' ... _.. '" ., .......

C'£)u~ d. 1'" ~".st ~ 4• ..,jot"-

" " . , . . ."

...........

t~..

::..: ••", .IO'" ....ia

..,.wi.

....

' •~.~I tn:;::'~~~ ',t . R

_ . . .•. . ._.~ ~ 1.... ,'"if ' ",.,..' ., ....."

" .t, y ; : = r ! ••• I..I~; \<.

first

Q:> ....... cl.a

~~Q~~

\5 "e 5 S

,I_,.~

AMerce....

~'t~out .,~

1"'+0

•

QI\"'~t' CCMoMic.

" . . . . ., ••, ........, . . . . . . , .... ',. ,00"

,,,~t

....II.t.

~. "..r.s:' dur\nq Q"r " ..ar \ , • ., d ~~~~l(~~S 11 ..' ~o'E1ME~".\~.o~·elect a •• ......., ' •••• if :rd~ ... ,., •• , , .. " ' f',·· ...... , .... ," ..... ~ ••, ,.1 .,,0' ......... • ..., ".,' .,.....

,,,.al , ..yOU - p' .. of

"'....,

loJ~t ~

« ........ ,,,.

b.~.

.... i~C

•

yO+ ?

; ft '110 ...-)

.......,... ,,, ,'" .... I," ~f ~~.".' ........... ........... " '.~,~. ~,••" "f" .1.··· ,. •. ,.. .....,"... ~-:.t."::: ,~~.~ :.t.:-:":'... ~ .... ..... ••

'-r

(Ho

eO uS ~et ~~ ~ • "de •• cordi"q to our .. ecordS' .-

yOU"

•

~~'IV

~co"

'-'

~ydq.tecl ~ qlft~t~ ~.~ .....~._," "..' ."..' ,',.~ " ,.,."." ,I" ....

~-w ......... -iL.. ...\-

~k.d'-~""~ :.~~.

,an. t

~..,

.....".«,.,

• .. • ...... " "

four years they could be commanding a company of 200 or 300 people." Capt. Lord points out that a newly commissioned Air Force officer may be put in charge of a squadron of jets, or other equipment, worth millions of dollars. Responsibility like that, say these officers, rarely comes to men and women that young in the private sector. The salary' for a newly commissioned officer is about $18,000 to $21,OOO-part of which is a nontaxable living allowance - plus medical and other benefits. Officers that enter special areas such as aviation or nuclear power receive salary boQuses as well as a longer tour of duty. These attractions may bring more students into ROTC, but what do the officers think of students so opposed to the mUitary that they won't register for the draft - even at the cost of losing federal financial aid? "Its not for me to judge," remarks Capt. Lord. "If they personally believe that's right the government has a system for conscientious objectors." CoL courte pointed out that men refusing to register must, as with any moral decision, face the consequences of their action. And if that includes losing feqeral financial aid, he concludes, "until the law is changed, that's the way it is." CoL Coulter feels it is "wholly appropriate" for the federal government to link finanl::ial aid to registration. He stated, "We have a freedom that's not free, it has to be paid for, and it takes a contribution from our citizens-a willingness to participate." Coulter commented further, 'That's one thing that worries rrte a little bit; that some people feel no obligation at all, no responsibility to make any contribution to the country. And, I think, those are the ones, sometimes, that are exercising most of the freedom that I feel we are making some contribution to perpetuate." ~

Sl"""'f-

••'"

ne\O -- .n

cllf'.t dO .~ . '

'i \"cef'A \'t •

. "__ ( L~r:If~ \

\,0/&1\

.t~. (~.l"~

+0 A. w't4- ""

t ..... e~ ,.

Q"..s . . . ---.- ~ \ .s+:I\

d.,,'r

(.ou1'

~t.

~~;(._s -r,~

N.oJ"

MOt\&Af?

..... ,.«.. <' • • -

. "

.. -

.......... _ - . . . . . . . ._

. . . . . .. . -

. ,.., • • •~ , -,.------

page 11

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

NOVEMBER, 1983

....................................•..........••.................................•.•..............•...•....... ........•.........•.....••..•.•.....••..•..••...................

Uneven Odds '

Corporate Taxes Percentage of StocksP'ublicly Held (by industry) LAYERS OF OWNERSHIP

From page 3

percent of the total income tax and represent 98 p'e rcent of the returns. As Mr. Mathieson correctly points out, the fact that a progressive tax system is the current method does not make it the most beneficial or correct one. And as the evidence proves, it is not the "rich" who foot this bilL Personal income taxes are the issue here , along with corporate taxes. These two issues fuse because individuals pay part of the corporate income tax. Because individuals, or the "public," own corporations, they are . the ones faced with lower profits and hence lower dividends. Herein lies another problem with the corporate tax; it is not just a tax but two taxes. Asa rule, however, corporations pay little tax anyway. In 1980. they contributed a mere 14 percent of all revenues collected . Ninety-eight percent of the corporations report less than $5.000,000 in assets. and represent only 10 percent of the total assets and 30 percent of all revenues. This group pays only 13 percent of all corporate income taxes. Referring to these companies as "small" is not misleading. Most are probably family or individually owned and operated. It is interesting to note that companies reporting over $250.000,000 in assets represent barely 0.1 percent of all tirms and yet they hold 67 percent of the assets. receive 47 percent of the receipts and p~y 67 percent of the corporate income tax . This small group of firms fits into the category of "highly publicly owned ." Smaller firms are mostly directly owned by individuals, while large companies are held through a number of devices by individuals.

. ..

r ••

"~ ' !" , 'tff'. ' . ,(II." •

---

i·t:~

. - --~'~ .~

~.~

INDUSTRY Industrials Commercial Bi ' king Diversified Fi' lcials TOTAL

1 46.67% 59 .28% 43.60%

2 70.84% 89 .98% 66 .27%

3 83 .36% 77.98%

From page 5

4 P1Awt 89.84% 549,210 524,930 84 .04% 127,740 1,201 ,900

• Beca\ ' ~ commercial banks are extensively "publicly held," it is not necessary to go ba j, farther than '2 layers to show how much of their stock is "publicly held." Beyond 2 layers, the commercial bank data overlaps too much , mak\ng addi· tional computations impossible. t The PIA w represents the weighted average (in thousands) of the public interest shares held.

Besides serving as revenue for the federal government. taxes affect the economy in other ways. Upon removal of this unnecessary tax the economy" will grow because a decrease in the tax rate increases private consumption. Private consumption, when considered in the national growth rate . can be used as a measure of the standard of living. An increase in consumption, multiplied throughout the economy, 'would more than make up for the lost tax revenues. Part of the current tax must compensate for the cost of raising and accounting for this money, along with a way of spending it. once collected. Without the tax. these costs would be eliminated. Moreover, with a lower tax rat~ it will become cheaper for firms to invest. again helping the economy grow and provode jobs. The interest rate will also decrease. A system that taxes profit, such as ours. discourages investment (both consumer and business) and encourages consumption (as compared with investment). thereby limiting future growth. Additionally, this tax, as Mr . Mathieson posits. is merely passed on to the consumer in the long run, as all corporate taxes are. It is accurate for Mr. Mathieson to claim that our present system is ·dis-

~,'

torted. A preliminary report for the 1977 returns reveals that close to 60 percent of the total income tax liability was removed because of various credits. One should ponder the question - Why create a corporate income tax and then create loopholes to reduce that liability by 60 percent? No rational answer can be found . Congress has even enacted laws which enable firms to sell their "excess" tax breaks to other firms. Those types of distortions should be abolished along with the tax itself. Finally. the economy would be better off if the government would simply stay out of it. Because of overreactions and misjudgments, problems like inflation alld ' unemployment contiriue~

If 'orily ·left~lbilt'!·,\.tith

constant growth rate rule (CGRR) for the money supply, the economy would perform better. However. Mr. Mathieson's reference to the Soviet Union as a nonmarket economy is inaccurate. Surely the Soviety Union has a planned economy; however, a corporate income tax system's misrepresentation of the market is nowhere near this extreme of planning. Once the facts are revealed about the counter-productive corporate income tax. everyone should see how people and the economy will benefit without it.

not allow him to work in the archives, interfered with his making professional contacts and completely deprived him of the opportunity to establish personal contacts. On the order of the university president, the . students in the dormitory he lived in stopped associating with him. As a result. the goals of the research sabbatical were not accomplished. It is also interesting fo note that the better an American knows the Russian language. the greater his chances of falling under the suspicion of Soviet officialdom. for according to their firm conviction only C.LA. agents can know Russian. Another acquaintance of mine. a professor at the University of Michigan. waited more than two months for a Soviet visa and finally had to forfeit a trip to Moscow that was . vital to his research. This year lREX sent to the U.S.S.R. the smallest number of scholars in all its years of existence. and no one knovvswhat next, year will bring. "". " .' . H6wevc~f riof onlY" the quantity. but ": "...... . "'. also the quality of exchange makes one wish for something better. Some of the scholarly works recently publisheo on the basis of research in the U.S.S.R. bear clear witness to the fact that American scholars were unable to become acquainted with many Soviet sources which are not the least bit secret. Does all this mean that it is necessary to end a.ll cultural and academic contacts with the Soviets? There exists such a point ')., of view. and it has substantial arguments in its favor . I. however. on the basis of my personal experience of having lived in the U.S.S.R. . do not consider this solution correct. It must be remembered that every American film. book. singer. or record is a breath of fresh air for millions of Saviet people. especially for young people stupefied by the uninterrupted flow of party propaganda. No less important for the Soviet people are personal contacts with American scholars and students. No. mutual contacts should be developed as fully as possible. But we must see to it that they be truly mutual. This is the goal which has yet to be accomplished. As before. it is still a game of uneven odds. ~

_ __ _ __ _ _ _"""'_ _ ""~..~1i

W"lo1r~.'l?IF'"

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

NOVEMBER, 1983

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i •••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ •••••••••••••••••••• ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ •••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••

"We cannot be free men if this is, by our national choice, be .~ land of slavery. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for th~mselves . "

"The short memories of American voters is what keeps our politicians in office."

Abraham Lincoln

Will Rogers

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

"Government will always misuse the machinery of the law as far as the state of public opinion permits."

William Pitt

Emile Capouya

"Liberty means responsibility . That is why most men dread it." George Bernard Shaw

"The greater dangers to ii berty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Judge Louis Brandeis

...

......

~..-..

Brickbats

We can all rest easy now that the Washington State legislature has deregulated the size of a loaf of bread . Previously bread for commercial sale had to . be baked in pans of specific sizes - a law that precluded baking of small or odd-shaped loaves. The halfbaked opponents of deregulation included - you guessed it - the state's commercial bakers, who complained that the bill would force them to retool to meet competition. Rep. Helen Sommers, the prime sponsor of the new law, wasn't surprised by the bakers' reaction. She commented, "This bill is a symbol of what is often said : 'Get government off my back, but don't deregulate my industry, don't take away my protection .' " Henry Christmann's 6-by-IO-foot tomato garden in Long Island, New York, has cultivated ~ ' big rhubarb with the US Department of Agriculture. Christmann likes to putter around his tomato patch in the summer "just to k~~p myself in bacon-lettuce-and-tomato sandwiches." Ha! And he expects the USDA to believe that. Agricultural officials sent him an official census questionnaire, a 20-page document asking ~ow many acres he plants, what kind of crop rotation he uses, and how many horses he owns. Since Christmann grows about 10 tomato· plants a year, he threw the form away . Now it gets nasty. Agricultural bureaucrats insist that for Christmann to get on their list, he must have sold some of those plants. They sent Christmann a folow-up letter, and if he throws this one away, he's violating Section 221 of the marketing law and the case will be turned over to the Justice Department. Christmann may well end up pouring cement over the "farm" and buying his tomatoes in the supermarket. We have a good idea what Mr. Christmann could do with some rotten ones, too. Down in Kentucky, they had a good old-fashioned burning of books and records. Among the items tossed onto the bonfire were records and

....... .... ~

~~~~~

tapes by rock groups like Kiss , Creedence Clearwater Revival, and the Beatles. One Mills Brothers album also was destroyed. The Mills Brothers! Perhaps the 250 parishioners of the Community Pentecostal Church of God felt that old classic "Up the Lazy Rive~' encouraged sloth. By the way, the ehurch is located in Independence, Kentucky. If you can't beat 'em, tax 'em. That's the philosophy of the Arizona legislature, which voted to license and tax drug dealers. The law requires pushers to pay a $100 license fee and luxury taxes of $10 to $125 per ounce of drugs in their possession, To get around the self-incrimination clause of the Constitution, the tax collectors are barred from turning over information about license-holders to police. And anyone, dealer or not, caught with drugs aDd lacking tax stamps would be automatically liable for the back taxes. To the shock and dismay of legislators, no one has signed up for a ,license yet.

Up against a wall, IBM Selectric! Stung by anti-government leaflets, Communist Romania is banning possession or use of typewriters by citizens who possess a criminal record or counterrevolutionary concepts. The decree also requires that all typewriters - and typefaces - be regi$tered with the police. Elementary school children, however, will still be allowed to keep their crayons and finger paints.

Mark Edward Crane

tended oversights in a brand-new business." The lawyers also say the women have been mailed a total of $2,500, representing an additional dollar for each hour they had worked at the studio "in an attempt to have all employees feel positively about the Workout." But the women aren't buying the pay-off. They want to see Jane get a workout in court. And now Ms. Fonda will know what it's like to be in business in "capitalist" America. Trevor Parker survived a car crash over a 150-foot seaside cliff in western England be.cause he didn't wear his seat belt. Now, because of a law that's been dumped in the laps of the British people, he may be prosecuted and ordered to pay a fine of $80. The cad ac~ually violated the law that makes wearing seat belts compulsory after January. "It's a miracle he's alive. He wouldn't be around if he had been wearing a s.eat belt," said policeman Terry Whitts after the accident. "He was flung clear through the windshield: The car was completely destroyed when it hit a ledge and burst into flames."

~~~

.....

......

~~~~

Parker landed safely in the sea. He survived the plunge, but now the law is going to belt him in the wallet. The spirit of liberty is nowhere to be found in New york City's newspaper unions, which are spitting mad because USA Today, the national nonunion newspaper published by the Gannett chain, is installing vending machines on city streets without government approval. City attorney Jeffrey Friedlander says there's no law regulating vending machines. Union attorney Theodore Kheel whines, "The city is saying you . can peddle without a license - and that just can't be!" what's this country · coming to, anyway? Pretty soon, people will think they can buy and sell goods without some bureaucrat as a middleman.

WN~ ~\~~~?!

~\ ~\ 'NoU\.tl ~~~m~~~tI~

c'r \.N\N~!

It's difficult to restrain one's glee at the news that three women who worked as Nautilus instructors at Jane Fonda's Workout in San Francisco have filed a $3-milHon sex-discrimination suit agC1inst the egalitarianese-film star. The women say they were paid at least $1 less per hour than two men who did the same work at the' exercise studio. There were also some problems with unpaid overtime, which Fonda's lawyers say were merely "uninReprinted by permission of John Trever, Albuquerque Journal.

_,___

____

",~ u" . , .." _. ,,. ,,~ _,,_ ,_>

,.,..,.'\"",....

...

-. "t"'~

,<If...,'X~;.W~'<\'6.~ViH'e'f_ ~b:I$