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.

September 22, 1993 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1993-09-22

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

4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, September 22, 1993

c1je Litjigw a'1

Sharp as Toa

420 Maynard
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Edited and managed
by students at the
University of Michigan

JosH DUJow
Editor in Chief
ANDREW LEVY
Editorial Page Editor

TO &0A5

TMPRE SS1 £N S OF
t~~YXA 'FROSH P~fZ6ON
'PEa2SPEC1-T I VS
SSE5 M ER OWE

>.e.:. .

0

i

I_ ::.' A x a .a i

3

Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of the Daily editorial board.
All other cartoons, articles and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.

. --- -
r --

, -T'_ ' c o(0 NEW YOWK
_-1/ Li VIN(,,AT SOUTH
S ZLI K I-SPO2RTS +Food
~~ ONE SNTROOuCES Hl4Map
Tit uANDSOFTI ME5

%Il KAOW - .. IF )yJV LOOK AT t-rT T
pjaT n44I. f ^ tJ1v ' tn'
Ai.SO
LL CZN

r

c;

Pt

y\l11 IW%_

COFFEE HOUSES SELEM To~~8Rlt,
'THIE L)- M ST u DE- n

- Is

Exploring the dog-eat-dog mentality

By KEN SUGIURA
It's a dog-eat-dog world out
there.
What in heaven's name is that
supposed to mean?
Sure, it does mean something.
Namely, it means that whatever it is
that is being described as "dog-eat-
dog" - most likely the world, but
also places of employment, the
classroom (students only) and ponds
(frogs only) - is very predatory and
altogether competitive.
But why dog-eat-dog?
I used to have a dog. He
(actually, good o1' Vic, may he rest
in peace, was an it) ate a whole
bunch of things -dog food, bacon
and assorted vermin - but never
once did I see him eat another dog.
Now, I'll be the first to admit, my
dog was kind of overweight, and I
gave him (it) plenty of freedom,
being the progressive pet owner that
I am (now there's an oxymoron for
all you oxymoron fans -
progressive pet owner. Progressives
wouldn't own, would they? They
would share. Yes, pet sharer, that's
what I was. But then again, even
though I was sharing, that still
doesn't nullify the fact that our dog
was owned, so maybe we just co-
existed. Whoa, this parenthetical
statement is getting just a little too
long. So long, in fact, it almost loses
its parenthetical nature.), so maybe
he did some dog-swallowing while I
was elsewhere. But I highly doubt it.
Nor, in my two decades on Mama
Earth, have I ever laid eyes on any
canines ingesting other canines.
So what gives?
It boggles the mind. Well, it
boggles my mind. Long ago, did
dogs eat other dogs in idiom-
Sugiura is an LSA senior and a
member of the Daily Sports staff

inspiring fashion, as only dogs can
do? And if so, why did they stop?
Did the dog-eating dogs come to the
realization that dog, prepared in any
fashion, simply was not as palatable
a meal as their owners' - I mean
co-existers' - table scraps?
And if dogs ate other dogs, how
in the world did their race ever
survive? Isn't there something just a
little strange here? If this whole dog-
eat-dog thing were carried out to the
fullest extent, there would just be
one dog left at the end, having eaten
all the other dogs who had eaten
other dogs who had eaten, well, you
get the picture.
I suppose he or she or it would be
top dog, now, wouldn't he or she or
it?
But anyway, back to my point, or
at least, to what I was saying before,
because calling it a point really gives
it undue and undeserved credit, kind
of like calling fish mammals, or the.
letter "c" a vowel.
At any rate, my non-point was, if
dogs were eating dogs, why did they
stop?
I would reckon it was because
they were taught to avoid idioms,
just like we humans were in high
school. Those dogs are a smart
bunch, you know. Except for mine.
My dog was not very bright.
Boy, the stories I could tell. Like
the one time when he scored 650 on
his SAT. We gave Vic a hard time
for awhile after that, but I think he
knew we were just teasing him in
fun.
But back to dogs-eating-dogs.
Let me ask another question.
Even if dogs are in fact eating dogs,
why should anyone care?
Situation: My friend John (not his
real name) has just finished his first
week at his job at somewhere
important. He looks really tired, kind

of like he just baled hay.
ME: Hey there, John. You look
tired. You look like you just...
JOHN: Just finished baling hay.
That's all I've heard. Baling hay this,
baling hay that. Enough with the
baling hay.
ME: So how was work?
JOHN: Mercy, it's crazy. It's a
dog-eat-dog world out there.
ME: Oh really? You didn't tell
me you were a veterinarian.
You see? Who cares if dogs are
eating dogs? Besides dogs, of
course. I would imagine most dogs
would be highly interested in this
topic; and would likely attend
seminars on how to buck this trend.
What does that have to do with
anything?
So what is the point?
Here is the point. This country is
in dire need of some new idioms
(Again with the oxymorons. Idioms,
of course, by their very nature are
old.) I call upon you, the readership,
to think of something to replace the
non-serviceable idiom, "dog eat-
dog." And here's whatyou can do
with your suggestions.
Send them along to me, Ken
Sugiura, c/o The Michigan Daily,
420 Maynard, Ann Arbor, MI
48109.I have made my own
Political Action Committee (PAC)
with my Own Acronym (OA). The
name is together, we can Rid
Ourselves, Once and For all, from
dopey idioms (ROOF).
I will compile the list and send
them along to the U.S. Senate
subcommittee on Idiom
Replacement.
Our group will then receive
unheard-of acclaim. Itwillbe our
day in the sun. Because, as they say,
every dog has his day.
Now, don't even get me started
with that one.

Indiana paper criticizes Union Board

Daily ad inserts
waste paper
To the Daily:
This past week has already seen 2
different advertising inserts put into
the Daily. I have watched the
inevitable result for the past three
years, which is that 99% of the ads
wind up on the floor. Whether
people throw them there, drop them,
or they fallout is unimportant-
what is important is that all these ads
are at best glanced at, then discarded.
No one really cares about Ralph
Lauren's new clothing line, or how
to obtain a Discover card. This
information is readily available
elsewhere, or could be conveyed just
as well in a black-and-white ad
inside the Daily itself.
The Daily is usually recycled by
most people, while these ad inserts
are printed up for a life of about 1
second before they begin their trip to
the landfill.
Not only is this environmentally
irresponsible, but it also makes our

Here areafew things to consider in
lightof (the Indiana University) Union
Board'srefusaltohelppay tobring Pat
Buchanan to lecture on campus, ap-
parently because the former presiden-
tial hopeful is too controversial:
During the Vietnam War, Union
Boardpaid the noted foreign relations
expert Jane Fonda to come and talk at
IU aboutUnited States involvement in
the "conflict."
In 1976, Eldridge Cleaver, the
formerBlackPanther Partyministerof
information, gaveaUnionBoard-spon-
snred sneech. By then. of course. he

women and liberals, whom he appar-
ently believes are interchangable.
Skip aheadtolastyear, when Union
Board paid Spike Lee $10,000 to,
among other things, root against the
basketball team and callIU coach Bob
Knight aracist.
And finally, isnt it Union Board
that sponsors Coach Knight's speech
to the students every year?
Buchanan is controversial, to be
sure. He's a demagogue that has said
that AIDS is nature's "retribution" on
homosexuals and has proposed build-
ing a trench along the U.S.-Mexican

are, the College Republicans offered
to pay a significant portion of the cost
this year.
So what was the board's reasoning
in refusing the College Republicans'
petition 7-3-7? "(The College Repub-
licans) put us in a lose-lose situation,
said seniorboard member Pete Correia.
"If we vote no, it's all over the papers.
But if we vote yes, we look stupid.
Union Board has given substance
to complaints from the College Re-
publicans and the Young Americans
for Freedom, who are always looking
for a reason to yell "Discrimination,

A FS U I .VA rila i A- TMOSTe-I *# V TQ1 0 H43 F.-I F -TCITSTIT! VISIT

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan