Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

February 14, 1985 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1985-02-14

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

Page 4 Thursday, February 14, 1985 The Michigan Daily

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Gleme, tram, dif, and love

Vol. XCV, No. 112

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board

Expensive stereos

By Phil Educate
What is Love? That's not such a hard
question, is it? In one sense it isn't. That is, if
you asked one hundred people, surely ninety
five could come up with a reasonably in-
telligent reply. The difficulty of the question
lies in the ability to gauge the correctness of a
given answer.
I'm not implying that there's a right or
wrong answer, and that is precisely what this
article is about. I wish there was a right an-
swer. I wish there was a standard definition
for the word 1-o-v-e to which we all sub-
scribed. The fact is, there is no such standard
The Random House Collegiate Dictionary
definitions range from: "... . profoundly ten-
der, passionate affection for a person of the
opposite sex." to: ".. . a strong predilection
or liking for anything." This problem is
present within individuals-not just across
them. Consider the following example. John,
a college student, gets a call from his mother
and before hanging up, he says, ". . . and I love
you. Bye." Then, an hour later, John tells his
friend that he's falling in love with a girl he
met last semester. This of course is right af-
ter he's exclaimed how much he "loves" the
kind of cheese that was on their pizza earlier.
I think we'd all agree that the word 1-o-v-e has
vastly different meanings in each situation.
Obviously contextual information clarifies

which in the range of possible definitions the
speaker intends for the word 1-o-v-e, but...
should it be that way?
I guess my beef is that I wish it wasn't that
way. I'd like to see a little respect and awe of-
fered up to a word whose foremost meaning I
hold pretty sacred. I'm not blaming anyone;
indeed, I'm just as guilty as 4nyone when it
comes to broadening the use of the word. I've
done all the things John (above) has and
more. Maybe that's excusable, but I believe
there are other instances where flippancy in
the use of the word 1-o-v-e jeopardizes its san-
I'd like to think that when I hear people say
that they love someone, they mean exactly
the same serious thing that I take it to mean.
Perhaps we've already passed the point of no
return and the word has already been ruined.
Should we then have five or six words to con-
vey the multitude of meanings that we've
always used "love" to convey?
How about these: "Mom, Dad, I gleme
you." "Hey, this pizza is great; I tram the
sauce they use!" "Of course I fasher my
friends; they're a great bunch of guys."
"Sweetheart... I diff you." etc. Maybe there
was once a philosopher who replaced all of
these words with the word 1-o-v-e because he
saw a thread of commonality running through
all their meanings. Which approach is bet-
ter? Due to my (near neurotic) need to un-
derstand and be understood, I deny any

possibility that the latter could be the
superior approach.
Although contextual information does nor-
mally afford the latter approach some value,
it's still not always possible to know for sure
what someone means when they use the word
1-o-v-e. This is where the relevance of this ar-
ticle, to Valentine's Day, comes in. When
someone of the opposite sex (non-relative)
tells you they love you, do they have a certain
degree of affection, emotion, etc. in mind, or
do they subscribe to the notion that love is
unquantifiable and there's no such thing as
loving someone a little or a lot? Do they think
that being in love differs somehow from
merely loving? I don't know the answers to
questions like these, and I don't think anyone
ever does. Given this consideration, do your-
self and your sweetheart a favor this Valen-
tine's Day, and do two things: 1) Tell them
that you "diff" them. 2) Establish with that
person exactly what you mean by "diff."
Make sure they know what it means to you,
and find out what it means to them.
If this elicits a look of total bewilderment or
fear from this person, one of two things is
possible: 1) You had no right to bring that up
so early on. 2) You two just aren't meant to
be. Maybe.
Enjoy. Happy Valentine's Day!

secretary of education, supports
President Ronald Reagan's cuts in
student financial aid. Although
positive responses to Reagan ideas are
expected from loyal cabinet members,
it is surprising that an -official whose
job is to provide a good environment
for education of this country's citizens
has taken such -a callous approach to
this necessary form of federal aid.
Bennett likened the president's
proposals to "a divestiture of certain
sorts: stereo divestiture, automobile
divestiture, three-weeks-at-the-beach
divestiture." Bennett's off-the-cuff
remarks do not, however, address the
issue of how students will be affected
by the proposed budget. A $2.3 billion
cut in aid to college students will mean
more hardship than simply sacrificing
a few luxuries.
According to Gregory Moore,
president of the United States Student
Association, nearly two million out of
5.3 million current student aid
recipients would be affected by the
Reagan plan. "This was a budget
composed in the Office of Management
and Budget with only one aim: to
reduce the dollar figures without any
regard to the students it affects,"

Moore said.
The figures in Reagan's budget
speak for themselves:
eThere would be a $4,000 limit on the
amount of money an individual student
may receive from the federal gover-
nment in one year.
*Grants, direct loans, and subsidized
jobs would be restricted to students
from .families with incomes less than
$25,000a year.
*Students would be required to
provide a minimum of $800 a year for
their own education to be eligible for
federal aid.
'The interest rate on guaranteed
student loans would be increased.
*Regulations would be tightened to
reduce what the administration con-
siders student abuse of federal money.
To put such measures into effect
would drastically decrease the number
of. people who could afford a college
education. Reagan's budget would
take education in the wrong direction;
it would destroy a great many of the
opportunities made available to
students in past years, While the
Reagan Administration is busy talking
about stereos and spring breaks at
Daytona Beach, it is not listening to the
needs of struggling college students.

Educate is a junior in LSA.







} U E DEK -I




Legislative hypocrisy

N THE PAST few years, a noble trend
has gained momentum in colleges
and universities across the nation:
divestment of holdings in companies
that do business in apartheid South
In Michigan, that trend was spurred
in part by a 1982 state law requiring
state colleges and universities to
divest. But the move was diluted by the
fact that the state itself did not divest.
In fact, Michigan's pension fund still
has about $2 billion invested in com-
panies that operate in South Africa.
This double standard makes the
Legislature's attempt to take a moral
stand on the issue appear hollow. It
tells colleges notuto support companies
operating in South Africa, while the
state itself continues to do so.
The Legislature is guilty of blatant
hypocrisy by bowing to political and
economic concerns. In most instances,
political compromise is crucial to
developing an effective law, but the
divestment issue is clear-cut. Either
the state will take a moral stand or it
Of course, some pragmatic concerns
are important. It would be patently
unwise for the state to move $2 billion
out of its pension fund in just a few
days, but those concerns can be ironed

out. The real opposition comes from
corporate interests such as General
Motors and Ford, both of which
operate in South Africa.
Even Gov. Blanchard held back
from advocating immediate divest-
ment, noting that it could hurt the
state's fragile economy. Instead,
Blanchard said he would "encourage"
companies to pull out of South Africa.
This weak-kneed approach is utterly
self-serving, since the whole point of
taking a moral stand on an issue is to
refrain from compromise. Blanchard
and legislators who say they.support
divestment but fail to take action are
merely spewing forth rhetoric about
the horrors of Apartheid. When it
comes time to sacrifice something to
back up that rhetoric, nothing is done.
Rep. Perry Bullard (D-Ann Arbor)
said that a bill will be introduced
within a few months to force the state
to divest. Unfortunately, it inevitably
will be bogged down in a sea of quib-
bling. Everyone will comdemn South
Africa's racist system of government,
but for some legislators, pragmatism
will win out. They should remember,
however, that morality based on con-












Boyd insert contained insightful ideas

-venience is

not morality-it's

Coege Press Service
ass Q % ,%i


To the Daily:
Just what is wrong with you
periodical printers? When An-
drew Boyd added to Consider, did
he harm anything besides a few
egos? An editorial from last Sun-
day's Daily ("Inconsiderate ad-
dition," February 10) listed some
problems with Andrew Boyd's
Whose rights were infringed
on? Who was not permitted
something they had a right to? He
did not alter or censor the context
of Consider. Everything that was
printed was available. In fact, his
action enhanced the products
marketability by adding
something new to it.
In .-r material-oriented
capitr... society, it is hard to
make something that is free even
more attractive. We should
commend Andrew Boyd. Due to
his action, more people's atten-
tion has been focused on the
publicationeand the issue.
Consider's right to free speech
was not stifled. Boyd has been to
Nicaragua and has important
messages for our community.
The importance of messages does
not get communicated by itself.
nnsider has great notential fnr

To the Daily:
As one who participated in last
week's "one-sided" Consider
issue examining U.S. in-
volvement in Nicaragua, I would
like to respond to the comments
in Thursday's Daily of those
responsible for the more "balan-
ced" insert addition. In par-
ticular, I would like to question
the motives and means used by
the Consider-stuffers in bringing
their message to Ann Arbor.
First, upon calling the editors
of Time Magazine, I found that no
such person as Captain John
Early is under the employ of

Time Inc., as stated in the Con-
sider insert. Moreover, it is likely
that no such person exists (if he
does, he's been grossly
This suggests to me that
whoever was responsible for the
insert is willing to go to pretty ex-
treme limits to promote their
more balanced view of the issue.
Misrepresentation, or outright
falsehood, are propaganda
techniques reminiscent of such
open-minded individuals as
Hitler and Stalin. Certainly, such
forms of communication are an-
tithetical to the very purposes of

terests but of those of others in
general, the pro and con position
were- the same. This is
provocative and stimulating?
If Andrew Boyd infringed on
and in fact stifled Corsider's
rights then Consider is directly
responsible for every death and

hardship in Nicaragua that could
have been prevented if we good
strong North Americans would
accept their plight as a matter of
life and death as opposed to a
conversation topic.
Who has the courage to admit
that strictly by virtue of our

citizenship and complicity we all
have bood. on our hands!
WhateverAndrew has done, we
are all guilty of sheltering our-
selves from reality with cliche
- Eric S. Goldstein
February 11

Boyd's insert was fraudulent, misguided


a publication such as Consider.
I find it rather shocking that
members of the University com-
munity would resort to lying to
get a message across to the
readers of Consider. The purpose
of Consider is to promote an un-
biased examination of controver-
sial issues. Those who disagree
with one view have the oppor-
tunity to respond with their own.
This should not include, however,
the fraudulent and purile efforts
of a misguided few.
-Daniel Gentges


by Berke Breathed



watL, ITaaAm~rp
j WhN Z r S WAG~4KIM& hQGW I

-1?i~Dnh~t I/J 111CZ' M T





Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan