OPINION 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 definition. 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- ctity. 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! WILLIAM BENNETT, the new 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. 1 Wasserman SIR, OU12 TAX CUTS AD DEFNSG CUTLM>S 15 TREQG ANYTHING WE A O e PRODUCED } U E DEK -I N-a I1 CAN DO ABOUT 1- /7 4 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 Africa. 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 won't. 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- DI1SM~ANTLE MOST GOVERNMEANT B o T FDERA U I 7OS/ WHATpETERI BL pQoSPECT I v q4n f 4 b 4 X11 Letters Boyd insert contained insightful ideas -venience is hypocrisy. not morality-it's Coege Press Service ass Q % ,%i KY /G/ 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 action. 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 BLOOM COUNTY 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 misrepresented). 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 dialogue. - Eric S. Goldstein February 11 Boyd's insert was fraudulent, misguided 4 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 February7 4 by Berke Breathed I r watL, ITaaAm~rp j WhN Z r S WAG~4KIM& hQGW I POX H 6 -1?i~Dnh~t I/J 111CZ' M T ANYHOW. cA OF 11EM I 1I A