I
6The Daily Tar Heel Wednesday, February 5. 1986
Saiig Star itel
5rcf .year o editorial freedom
Arne Rickert and David Schmidt
Editor Editor
Anjetta McQueen.
Janet Olson
Jami White
JillGerber
Loretta Grantham
Production Editor
University Editor
News Editor
State and National Editor
City Editor
Tom Camp
Lorry Williams
Lee Roberts
Elizabeth Ellen
Marymelda Hall
Larry Childress
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
Photography Editor
Back Page Editor
Uncertainty for Philippines .
Turning points in history usually aren't
anticipated. Yet we can say with confidence
(and concern) that on Friday the Philippines
will step into a new and uncertain future.
Friday, Philippine voters will go to the polls
and choose between President Ferdinand
Marcos and challenger Corazon Aquino.
Marcos, president since 1965, has ruled
the islands since 1972 with an iron fist of
autocracy and repression. Not since 1973,
when he faced probable defeat at the hands
Of Benigno Aquino, has Marcos faced such
an electoral challenge. Marcos won in 1973
- he cancelled the elections and instituted
martial law. Ten years later Aquino, still
Marcos' leading opponent, was assassinated,
almost certainly at Marcos' order.
Now Marcos faces Aquino's widow.
Through dedication to her husband's career
of opposition, and then through his mar
tyrdom, Mrs. Aquino has become a sort of
national saint. In nine weeks she has been
baptized in political fire. First, she success
fully united the forces of opposition,
enlisting her chief rival, Salvador Laurel, as
running mate. Then, through her energetic,
populist campaigning, she has made the race
a virtual toss-up. Some of Marcos' own
supporters predict for their man only a 55
45 decision.
In all likelihood, though, the race will not
be decided on the stump, as the country
has a tradition rich in intimidation and
electoral fraud. As of Friday, the death toll
in elections violence stood at 16. Marcos
has also given ominous warnings about the
political and economic futures of those who
support Aquino too vocally.
Despite the presence of international
observers such as U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar
- whose freedom to observe he can easily
limit - Marcos undoubtedly will tamper with
the election returns. Indeed, he has already
begun to do so. On the voter registration
forms in one Manila district, 616 thumb
prints were made by 60 thumbs. 206 voters
registered as living at one address.
Not only does Marcos control the
electoral executive, he controls the judiciary.
If Aquino manages to win, Marcos can
simply claim fraud himself and appeal to
the National Assembly, which is dominated
by his supporters. Still, Marcos cannot
cancel these elections. His repression,
corruption and constitutional abuses are
well chronicled. They have piled on too long
for the patience of his countrymen to
withstand overly blatant fraud in Friday's
elections.
To be sure, Marcos is not without
support. He can legitimately point to
material gains that he has delivered over the
last twenty years. And as an incumbent, he
can promise the moon in post-victory spoils.
Yet Marcos is treading through a mine
field in these elections. In a sense, he cannot
win. If he wins big, no one will believe it.
If he wins close, no one will believe it. At
the slightest hint, however circumstantial,
of subversion of a legitimate Aquino victory,
Filipinos will take to the streets.
... .for the U.S., diplomacy
The uncertainty of the Philippines' future
lies in the nature of the reaction to a Marcos
victory, and the nature of the government's
response. So long as that country faces a
potentially explosive future, the U.S. also
faces uncertainty of considerable conse
quence. The Philippines are the anchor of
America's forward line of defense in the
Pacific. The U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet is
headquartered at Subic Naval Base. Clark
Air Force Base is a logistics and support
facility of immense scope.
As long as Marcos rules, the U.S. is fairly
secure in its possession of these facilities.
However much Marcos may grumble about
our presence there, the U.S. has been able
to link aid to his government with continued
leasing of the property. Yet the longer that
American military presence is linked with
American support for Marcos, the stronger
becomes the association (in the minds of
Filipinos) of that presence with Marcos'
repressions.
In any scenario, continued association can
only spell trouble for U.S. positions in the
Pacific. If Marcos "wins" the election, public
reaction may become so strident that he feels
compelled to step up opposition to U.S.
presence as a move to curry public favor.
In the event that Aquino or another
moderate opposition leader or comes
peaceably to power in the near future
the association may bring about the
expulsion of U.S. forces in retaliation for
its support of Marcos. Or, Aquino may feel
compelled to expel. U.S. forces in order to
gain either the support of the public or the
backing of divided opposition groups.
In a worst-case scenario, Marcos would
hold power and crack down forcefully on
public reaction. Such repression might serve
to radicalize large numbers of Filipinos and
drive them toward armed resistance groups.
If Marcos, whose health is very suspect, were
to die without providing for a smooth
succession, those forces would have the
opportunity to seize control in the ensuing
confusion.
Thus, the Philippines present the most
complex foreign policy issue ever to face
the Reagan Administration. The U.S. must
distance itself from Marcos enough to gain
credibility and the trust of whoever succeeds
Marcos. At, the same time, it must not
alienate Marcos to the point that he throws
us out in a fit of pique some point after
the election. So far, the U.S. has done as
good a job of handling this dilemma. As
one diplomat notes, our impartiality is borne
out by the fact that "neither side is happy
with us."
Marcos may be unhappy with lukewarm
U.S. support. But Marcos' days are num
bered, and the we must start making
diplomatic provisions for the day when
forces other than Marcos decide the fate of
Clark and Subic.
EDWIN FOUNTAIN
THE Daily Crossword by Elaine George
ACROSS
1 Bath powder
5 Pretense
9 Cay
14 Essayist
15 Conceal
16 Biblical
mother-in-law
17 Receptacle
19 cum laude
20 Boiled
21 Wandering
animals
23 BigSur's
state: abbr.
25 Raw metal
26 Flavoring
29 Shining
34 Kismet
35 Baby's misery
36 Food of the
islands
37 Gambling term
41 Native: suff.
42 Country of
Sanskrit
43 homo
44 Felt bitterly
toward
48 Pencil end
43 Ripen
49 Outfitted -51
Ones who
install tile
55 Disconcerted
59 Certain horse
60 Go along with
62 Mites
63 Petitions
64 In!l2x!3
65 Cristas color
63 Dsme tlyra
67 Rhrer from
Lake Victoria
DOWN
1 Hawkshaws
2 Thanks I
3 Queue
4 Crypt
5 Defend
6 Indian
language
7 US humorist
George
8 Only
9 Teach
10 Ocean fish
11 Broad-topped
hill
12 Acting award
13 Aunts in
Madrid
18 To (unan
, imously)
22 -economic
24 Home of the
Dolphins
26 Poisonous
snake
27 Untied
23 Pouting
expressions
30 Forearm bone
31 "Iliad" and
"Odyssey"
32 The present
33 Jungle beast
35 Morse
33 Women's wear
39 Join a contest
40 Wrestling
maneuver
45 Diner
43 Mske a raised
design
47. Enlarge a
hole
50 Regattas
51 Shadowbox
52 Dress trim
1 1 1 4 r 5 6 7 8 """si T5 11 12 13
- ' "" TS """""
"w 7T" Ti
To """" TT W
"23 " it-""""" m
MJITTSr- 29 IT- """"" " 31 ' 1 32 1 33 1
"34 35 " " 36" " "
TT" '3TT3T" To"
71 42 43 "
44 """" 45" """"" """" 4ff I if "
"" """" " """""" IT" so" """" """"
TP 5253' """" " " 54 """"" "55"" """" " """" 56 iSflsi
59 """"" 6Q 61" "
"o2 1 63 164
65 "" """ 1 66 """ ' j S7 """" ' """"
1986 Tribune Media Services. Inc.
All Rights Reserved
258S
Yesterday's Puzzle Solved:
53 School: abbr.
54 Window frame
58 Mata
57 Chemical
compound
58 Unit of force
61 Hint
SClUlMncR0CnDlONTS
it A JlB H ATT 0 LLV.0.R.I
i n i At 0 mTFn Is" a v o r
njo a 0 t 0 mTa n 0 a l A Y I
R IE L IE A S Ej "fO" A R ",7,
1 s eTdI It um bTlTe 1
HO lis. ! JL L!L JJL A.R. 1
0 HI E R0 A Dt"6 R U I N
PlllLAill iXLlJojEjo
reJx u.n.1! iiTr a. Z
jS- H H ; JE f. k aTpTsTe
. IOTn T H E R 0 A 0 A G AiN
.S J JL JL JL TjLC.I lO.R.0.0.
LLA K. El J.0.L.L,
liSiUEjSliEiLlslAi fAlyllA
1 .
Give me
a ring
sometime,, baby
By. KIM GILLEO
The advent of women's liberation has pro
duced some profound changes in social inter
action between the sexes. Many of these changes
have been very good. But speaking as a young
woman with some experience in the matter, I
must say that there have been some problems.
I would like to focus on one of these problems
in particular: the problem of engagement rings.
"Engagement rings?" you say. "They've never
been a problem."
No, quite the opposite: They've always been
a major aid with regard to social relations. The
problem is that men do not wear them.
Many years ago, when the tradition of wearing
engagement rings first began, a woman at
least not a respectable one never would have
thought of "making the move" on a man. Rather,
the men were the ones who made the passes.
However, an engagement ring on the left ring
finger of a female was a sign that she was "taken."
In other words, she would not (hopefully) be
receptive to a man's advances. Thus, a man knew
when to leave well enough alone.
This system worked well for a long time. But
times have changed. Now women are beginning
to make the first move toward men with much
greater frequency. This is all well and good, but
what happens when a young woman attempts
to initiate relations with an eligible-looking
young man who, unbeknownst to her, happens
to be engaged. The scene usually goes something
like this:
She: "Hi! You look kind of familiar ... Do
you come here often?"
He: "Well, yes, I do, but I'm usually here with
my fiancee."
At this point, the girl's friendly smile fades
a bit, she manages a few more words, and then
she quickly disappears.1 Needless to say, this can
be acutely embarrassing. Here in the college
scene, where there are more females than males
and also where many people are already engaged,
similar scenes probably take place rather often.
What is to be done?
Well, we could insist that engaged men not
go out in public, especially to bars, without their
fiancees. However, that seems much too radical,
and very inconvenient as well. Maybe all engaged
men should be issued a pin, to be worn at all
times in a highly visible place, embossed with
"Engaged" or perhaps "Taken." But that, too,
seems a little ridiculous. No, instead, I believe
we should institute a new tradition: Engaged
men, as well as engaged women, should wear
engagement rings.
Kim Gilleo is a sophomore international
studies major from Greensboro.
way
.tiun ... ... . , JrV!
t . I
err - 'SS5' S
s.sr, .
PATHFINDERS
READER FORUM
Buddy system sorry
To the editors:
Once again I am dismayed,
disappointed and damned angry
that the system has won again. What
am I talking about? Well, as you
already know, the Carolina Athletic
Association has come up with a
better system of ticket distribution
that sought to be not only reaso
nable, but also fair to all students.
I had really thought this new system
would work, but it seems that even
"random distribution" has its flaws.
On Monday morning, I went to
Carmichael to pick up tickets for
the Wake Forest game. I was not
especially hurried because I knew
people would not be lined up for
miles and miles, but instead, they
would later shuffle down. With the
new system going into effect, there
was no need to hurry. As the
attendant took my athletic passes,
I noticed the four or five stacks of
tickets neatly arranged inside the
ticket window. Upon closer inspec
tion, I noticed that most all of the
smaller stacks were rows F, G and
I lower-level tickets. I could feel the
excitement rising in me as I thought
of seeing the game within only a
few feet of my favorite players. But
much to my amazement, the attend
ant did not feel the same way. He -overlooked
all of the tickets I had
my heart set on and instead chose
to give me upper-level row T seats.
Because I did not understand his
choice, I asked him, "Excuse me,
but isnt there some way that I could
get those tickets instead?" His reply,
"I am saving those for some of my,
buddies who should be here after
a while. Sorry."
Sorry was certainly the right
word, because that is exactly what
I was thinking of the system.
Perhaps if I had been one of his
"buddies," I, too, would have had
one of the saved seats; however, it
came as no great shock to me that
even something as simple as giving
out tickets would not provide equal
opportunity for all students. And to
think that for upper level row T
seats, I was almost tardy for my 9
o'clock class!
LaTonya Broome
Cobb
A tongue lashing
To the editors:
Never before has anything
shocked, saddened, and dis
gusted me the way the behavior
of the anti-FDN 'protestors' c!ii
Wednesday night. I had no
inkling that such denizens
infested this institution. To these
wretched creatures I say: Your
hypocrisy and deceit are manif
est. Your ruffian tactics are
exposed. You have defiled and
despoiled the principles of this
nation. You have shamed this
University. You have shamed
youselves. I pity you.
Jeff A. Taylor
Chapel Hill
Respectful neighbors
Rudeness not typical
2588
To the editors: v
Living in the midwest I am
appalled and ashamed at the behav
ior of our next door neighbors in
Wisconsin that was displayed on
national television Jan. 19 when the
University of North Carolina played
Marquette University. I know many
people in North Carolina heard the
Marquette student body screaming
"bullshit, bullshit, bullshit..." when
a referee called a foul on a Mar
quette player early in the game. A
replay showed the player indeed
committed a foul. It was even more
shameful when the Marquette
student body threw debris at the
North Carolina bench late in the
game and struck toacn ucan
Smith.
I would like the student body at
the University of North Carolina to
know that the students in the
midwest are not typical of the
animals at Marquette University. I
am a student at the University of
Minnesota and have never seen
students display that kind of sick
ening behavior. The referees were
gutless not to call a technical foul
on the crowd. I do not believe that
North Carolina should ever sche
dule a game at Marquette again.
Thomas Westbury
Chapel Hill
To the editors:
The Cavalier basketball victory
over Carolina brings to mind
Winston Churchill's saying: "Mag
nanimous in victory, generous in
defeat."
It was with profound satisfaction
that we two lone and forlorn UVa
alumni (currently exiled in grad
school here at UNC) participated
in the great basketball experience
of Jan. 30, 1986.
Together from a shared barstool
we witnessed the Wahoo victory on
the large telescreen at the "Four
Corners" drinking establishment.
Our enthusiastic shouts of
WAHOO WA were met with
curious stares.
We were both schocked and
gladdened by the Cavalier perfor
mance at the Terry Dome (a.k.a.
Univeristy Hall). But to be fair, we
were impressed by the good sports
manship displayed by the Tar Heel
horde among which we found
ourselves trapped.
We look forward with keen
anticipation to the return match at
the Dean Dome in February. There
we will heartily toast the Tar Heel
Wahoo tip-off with a full decanter
of Virginia Gentleman.
And should Virginia come up
short in this contest, we hope to
equal if not surpass the good
sportsmanship of our Carolina,
brethren.
M. J. Stancill
(U.Va. B.A. 1985)
K. R. Temple
(U.Va.B.A., J.D. 1981)
Hate to burst the bubble
More statistics needed
To the editors:
I commend you for deeming the
academic status of minority stu
dents on the Carolina campus a
worthy subject for an article in the
Daily Tar Heel (Jan. 29, 1986). I
am however, concerned that the
presentation of limited statistics,
without a point of reference will lead
readers to make false conclusions
concerning the academics of Black
and Native American students on
this campus. For example, presen
tation of the attrition rate of Black
freshmen students in the fall and
spring semesters last year without
noting the attrition of all freshmen
students really tells us nothing.
Likewise, noting that in the fall of
1985, 50 percent of minority fresh
men had a GPA below a 2.0
compared to 60 of this year does
not (as noted) tell us whether this
change is significant. Neither does
it tell us the standing of minority
students in comparison to the
freshman class' as a whole.
I also wonder how Dean Renwick
has determined that "poor time
management" and "poor study
habits" are the cause of minority
students academic difficulties.
(Many previous studies have dem
onstrated disparities between qual
ity of education and college prep
aration received in public vs.
private, city vs. suburban vs. rural
high schools which, depending on
a student's background could be
factors in a student's ability to
achieve in an academic environment
such as that as at Carolina.)
1 hope that the University con
tinues its efforts in support of
minority students on this campus.
I also hope that future articles on
this subject will provide a more
thorough and wider ranging consid
eration of the plight of minority
freshmen at Carolina.
' Wendy E. Phillips'
Graduate Student
To the editors:
Dear Coach Smith:
It is quite apparent that the new
basketball facility has allowed more
students to attend varsity basketball
games, and more apparent is the fact
that many of these students have
never attended a game here in
Chapel Hill. The tradition that you,
your teams and previous spectators
had so strongly established at
Carmichael has somehow been lost.
A minority of the spectators
(although with each home game, I'm
sure the numbers will grow) are
taking it on themselves to inaugu
rate cheering practices that have
never been a part of Carolina
basketball. Never at Carmichael did
an audience wave their hands
behind the baskets as an opponent
was shooting a free throw, nor did
they ever raise their voices to chant
"Airball," nor did they ever point
at an opposing player who had just
committed afoul and scream: "You!
You! You!"
During such a tremendous year,
that has brought the opening of a
fantastic facility and an excellent
record, I hate to have to point out
this failing enthusiasm. Watching
the four games at the Dean E. Smith
Student Activities Center, I was
greatly disturbed by the spectators
lack of respect for our opponents.
I'm sure you will agree that some
changes need to be made quickly,
before our beloved SAC begins to
sound like Cameron Indoor
Stadium.
Benjamin G. Wysor
Chapel Hill
You did it, CM!
To the
I want to commend Mark Pavao
and the Carolina Athletic Associ
ation as well as any student who
contributed to the new process of
distributing basketball game tickets.
On Sunday, the ticket distribution
for the Carolina-Wake Forest game
ran more smoothly than any 1 have
been to in my two-and-a-half years
here at UNC. I walked into Car
michael Auditorium at 8:00 Sunday
morning and I had received my
tickets by 8:30. In addition. I was
able to get seats on the first level
of the SAC for the first time. This
new plan for ticket distribution -
giving out all seats randomly and
allowing only one student to go up
and get 4 tickets at a time - is by
far the most efficient way to handle
ticket distribution and it most
definitely should be continued from
here on out. Thanks to the new
procedure for distributing tickets,
perhaps we students will no longer
have to camp out in order to get
our hands on the highly sought-after
seats in the SAC. CAA. keep up
the good work!
Allison Elizabeth Sapp
Chapel Hill