100%

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

Share

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.

October 14, 1986 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-10-14

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

OPINION

Page 4

Tuesday, October 14, 1986

The Michigan Daily -

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Vol. XCVII, No.29 420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board
All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.
Assassination endorsed

4

Make room for two

types

DEBATE HAS once again arisen on
whether or not the Reagan
administration supports assas -
sination attempts. The most recent
catalyst for controversy has been
the government disinformation
campaign against Libyan leader
Moammar Khadafy. State Depart -
ment documents reveal that the
campaign was proposed to promote
a coup or assassination attempt
against Khadafy. Yet, the White
House denies that the plan adopted
and executed by it had any such
aims.
Another spasm of debate occur -
red with the April bombing of
Libya. Some charged that the
attacks on Khadafy' s home and
headquarters were attempts to kill
the Libyan leader.
Before this, questions were
raised by the CIA-written manual
that advised the Contras to
"neutralize" Nicaraguan officials.
On the meaning of the . word
"neutralize," President Reagan
said: "You just say to the fellow
who's sitting there in the office,
'You're not in the office
anymore."' Despite the president's
eloquence, some still doubt the
sincerity of his position.
In a way, this debate over
assassination is healthy, but it takes
place in such an atmosphere of
irrelevance and isolation so as to be
ludicrous. Controversy focuses on
the attempted murder of
government officials while there is
contemptible silence on the
slaughter of countless civilians.
The Salvadoran government,
with U.S. assistance, wages a
massive air war on its own people
and the press maintains compliant

silence; yet, when across the
border in Nicaragua the lives of
government officials come into
question, there is an uproar.
For example, the Contras killed
a seventeen-year-old newlywed by
repeatedly stabbing her in the
abdomen with U.S.-supplied
bayonets. The young wife was
four months pregnant when they
sliced her belly open according to
Witness for Peace. Even with the
media's taste for gore, this tragedy
was not considered newsworthy.
If anything, however, the murder
of civilians deserves more media
attention than the assassination of
government officials.
The Reagan administration has
supported the slaughter of people
in El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Guatemala, Chile, South Africa,
Angola, ad nauseam. Then it has
the nerve to piously proclaim that it
is above supporting assassination.
In addition, the press is so myopic
as to ignore this emetic display,
and worldwide bloodshed, while
waxing morally indignant about
assassination.
Perhaps the Reagan people so
vociferously deny support for
assassination because they, as
government officials, wish to stay
immune from attacks. Yet, they
cannot transcend the carnage.
They share the blame and{ stain of
innocent blood shed. They should
not be allowed to escape culpability
by manufacturing false moral
distinctions between government
and civilian casualities.
A "common" person is no less
significant than a government
official. United States-supported
murder of either is cause for
condemnation.

There are two types of people: people
who save things and people who throw
things away.
The people who save things are the
people who save everything. They save
third grade report cards, junior high
biology papers (in case they can be used
later), once popular KISS albums, letters,
drivers learner's permits, broken watches,
free pamphlets that people on the Diag
hand out, newspaper clippings, and ticket
stubs.
And people who throw things away are
people who throw everything away.
They throw away this morning's
newspapers, bank card numbers they'll
soon forget, phone numbers of people
they have to call back, checkbooks,
directions to places they need to go to,
and receipts from things they need to
return.
Most people try to reach a happy
medium between the two personality
polarities. But this hardly ever works,
simply because people are attracted to
their opposites.
People who save things always live
with people who throw things away.
For this reason the two are always
having conversations like:
"Have you seen my so and so?"
"Yes, I did."
"Well, .where is it?"
"In the garbage. You threw it out last
week."
It would seem that the people who
save things would always have the last
laugh. Again, this is rarely true.
While people who throw things away
are meticulously organized and know
exactly where things would have been had
they not thrown them away, people who
save things are not this way.
People who save things have the
miserliness of pack rats. But they also
have the organizational ability of those
same rodents. They know what they need

. is there, they just can't seem to find it.
Because of this the two are always
having conversations like:
"Have you seen my so and so?"
"Yes, I have. I told you that we
should save it. I knew we were going to
need it later. It's right here....Well,
maybe it's right here.... No, I know
where it is.... Hmm, guess it's not
there.... Ah, It's over here...I'm trying to
think where I put it last..It's gotta be
there.... No, but I have a feeling we're
getting warmer. Anyway, aren't you glad
I told you to save it?"
That they can never find the stupid
thing never upsets the person who saves
things. Even though they can't locate it,
the smug bastards still claim the
satisfaction of knowing "it's here
somewhere." ("Somewhere" is, of
course, hidden in a file of other things
they have saved. Many times, though,
they won't even need to look for the stuff
they saved. This is because the stuff they
have saved is so absolutely useless. A
strange phenomenon is that the people
who save things do not even mean to
save everything. They may put an object
down and leave it, there, with the full
intention of throwing it away later.
However, as they get further away from
the initial placement, they forget this.
Seeing the object is saved they conclude
that it was obviously saved for a
reason-which, of course, means it can't
be thrown away. Thus, they save even
more useless stuff.)
The two types of people are always
working against each other. While the
people who save things are busy putting
things in storage boxes, the people who
throw things away assume the boxes are
full of garbage and toss them out.
I suspect the disparity between savers
and throwers-away contributes to the
failure of many marriages. In fact, I don't
think it will be long before the claim that
"He throws everything away" or "She
saves everything" will be grounds for a
divorce.
Luckily for the savers and the
throwers-away, society accomodates both
types of people. A few examples:
Basements are for people who save

things. Apartments are for people who
throw things away.
Receipts are for people who saver;
things. No return policies are for people
who throw things away.
Repair kits are for people who save
things. K-marts are for people who
throw things away.
Family scrapbooks and picture frames:-
are for people who save things. Garbage::
cans are for people who throw things:::
away.
It's good that society provides for both
types of people. It needs both to survive..',
Imagine if we had a world of people who:-
only threw things away. Put yourself. -
back in colonial times. "What do you,'
mean you want to save the Constitution
and Declaration of Independence? The
paper is already yellowing and the corners
are ripped. The war is over. Throw it:::
away, you sentimental fool." Or imagine:**
a book dealer finding an original copy of.
the King James Bible. "An original copy
of the King James Bible? What do I need.
one of these for? We already have a
couple million copies of the book',4
floating around. And the binding on this:
one is starting to smell. Out the window*
with it."

The results would be equally
disasterous if we only had people who.
saved things. We would simply run outs
of space to move. Everywhere we went
we would have to wade through piles of:
bank receipts, baby teeth, Bazooka Joe
comics, Parchesi board games, dental
bills, wish bones, rough drafts, Burger
King coupons, Newsweeks, diplomas,
family pictures, disco records, stamps,
and beer cans.
Truly, we need both types of people to
get along in the world. Yet, it's often
hard to remember this when your.
roommate has thrown out your favorite
possesion or buried it under a mountain,
of useless material. Both types of people
need a greater understanding and"
appreciation for each other. For it is only..
because of the constant war between the,
savers and the throwers-away that the
world does not become one large vacuum
or one large pile of junk.

I
4

Wasserman

Ri Brother
wants

YOU rs

ISU.S. A SENT US &UN4, AMMO-.
f/ I /
Letters:
Crack
To the Daily:
Open any newspaper and
Stories and photographs are a
constant reminder to us that a
serious drug problem exists in
the United States. The edit-
orial staff at the Daily fears not
the "drug monster," but the
government and the press
("Exploiting Crises", Daily,
9/30/86).
Crack dealers are spreading
through the cities of America
like the swarm of locusts
plagued Ancient Egypt. In
fact, if the surge in popularity
of Crack increases, it might
kill the first born in every
household. If you walk down
the street in any major city I
the United States, you might
notice that you could purchase
cocaine in any form, from
numerous dealers on the same
block. Crack is contaminating
our streets, and maybe the
Daily should stop condemning
the government for taking
positive action against a
serious problem.
The'editorial board unfairly
acuses the government ant the
press of using the "War on
Drugs" to deviously violate the
civil liberties of the public.
To walk down a street and have
to avoid annoying drug
neddlers. I feel. is a violation

FODD, MEDtGiNE... "--
-_ ____
!
,
%
t i
.

problem supersedes
watch news program after news like to know whose rights are
program about different addicts being violated by removing a
that spend five hundred dollars man from a playground who
a day on their habit. I was sells powerful drugs to
repulsed by one story that told children.
about a man who had snorted
so much cocaine that he was The editors also point a
able to insert a handkerchief in finger at politcians that are
one nostril, and pull it out the hard-line on the drug issue.
other. Is this an exageration of What is so bad about that?
a problem? The editors claim There are worse things which
uat the recent crackdown is a politicians sould be hard-line
on.
violation of rights. I would The Daily has taken the role
Sailing team deserves
To the Daily: every regatta. Fellow students
Outside the wind howled, come out and cheer their friends
rain poured, and the sky on. The universities provide
darkened. Inside it was "Warm coaches who not only give
and cozy; a perfect day to catch advice on how to sail better but
up on fall sports. I started are there as a friend and
flipping through the Daily, counselor. At most of the top
skimming the articles on ranked universities, such as
football, field hockey, and Brown, one feels that the
volleyball. I was about ready whole school is behind the
to put the Daily down when I individuals competing, not just
spotted an article on the sailing the other team members. This
team. I was shocked. Not past weekend at Navy's
once since I have been here Women's Regatta, the top
have I seen one thing about the three finishers, Old Dominion,
sailing team. Since many Brown, and Harvard, all had
students did not even know a coaches and other team
sailing team existed, they were members cheering them on.
probably just as surprised as I We finished seventh out of 14
by the anearance of the article by the cin of our teeth Most

rights
of that one person in a
classroom that will take the
opposite side of a discussion,
just to present an intellectual
debate. There is nothing
wrong with that, but maybe
they should choose an issue
that is not so costly. Educat-
ing the public of the drug
.problem can only prove
beneficial and can save lives.
So do me a favor, leave this
one alone. -Peter Graubard
October 10

Ct-OTK, SOOTS-.
GO j '

-0

WEESTHE ?OFVEAR SOM?Fb m d
y6

attention

:4

'A

money the team can afford to
buy gas to most regattas,
everything else; housing ,
food, regatta entry fees, and
equipment (except boats), must
come from team member's
pockets. Even for the regattas
we sponser here, only the boats
are supplied. We have to pay
for all incidental costs.
If the University did start
supporting the sailing team
both finacially and mentally, it
would show their concern for
individuals. At a university as
large as this one, showing this
type of interest in students is
imperative. Students could
very easily feel lost and all
alone. Therefore, the 44,

t l \

i

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan