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.

November 17, 1993 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1993-11-17

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

4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, November 17, 1993

UT ~tjzIJ~d~u l ig


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

Editor in Chief
Editorial Page Editor


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.

Guncontrol dobae rgson

To the Daily:
Concerning your editorial on gun
control ("Pass the Brady Bill," 11/4/
93), seeing that the Daily supports a
revision of the Constitution. Let's
turn it around a bit.
The editorial stated, "And that
collective right overshadows any
person's individual right to own a
handgun." I feel a newspaper that
wants to strip law-abiding citizens of
their Constitutional rights is
subversive and should be shut down
for the collective good of society.
If the term "the people" in the Bill
of Rights refers to collective, not
individual rights, then your attitude
would also apply to the First and
Fourth Amendment as well. Right?
You would not tolerate an
infringement on your right to
distribute the propaganda of the anti-
I could disprove every paragraph
written in that editorial. But my
space for response is limited; you
wouldn't want someone with views
opposite to yours to have "too much"
First Amendment freedom, would
you? They might prove you wrong,
as well as hypocritical.
To the Daily:
Andrew Patrick Clark's
conservative teenage indictment of
the much needed and reasonable
Brady Bill clearly beats out the
Daily's related editorial ("Pass the
Brady Bill," 11/4/93) as uninformed
ad poorly reasoned.
It is troubling to see such virulent
conservatism among people so
young. (As a yellow dog democrat, I
freely admit that I amnot objective
here.) Nevertheless, it also is clear
that left- brain engineers with such
parent-influenced conservative
tendencies should at least consider

* .....

how their thought processes are so 4
poorly suited to social issues and
politics. Leave these topics to the rest
of us, we'll hire/fire you if needed. JIM LASSER/Daily

Rackham graduate student
To the Daily:
I laugh at your stupid, poorly
researched article on gun control
("Pass the Brady Bill," 11/4/93).
I have with me a copy of H.R. 7
- the "Brady Bill," and under
inspection it accomplishes nothing
expect to "approve spending $100
million" according to your own
words. So spend, spend, spend, and
all our problems go away, right?
I have a question for you, also
based on your article. "This (the
Brady Bill)... still falls short of what
is necessary: serious legislation that
prohibits the sale, use or possession
of handguns." Why in the world
would anyone want to pass more
unnecessary laws? The United States
already has over 20,000 firearms
regulations on the books, yet in their
own words, the Daily editorial board
wants one more useless one. Good
position... really meaningful
everyone. I wish I had room in 150
words to wake you up.
RC first-year student
To the Daily:
. Do you realize how ill-informed,
unsubstantiated, and irrational your
gun control editorial ("Pass the
Brady Bill," 11/4/93) was? You are
either the most ignorant,
sensationalistic and dim-witted

assembly of pseudo-journalists to
disgrace the history of student
publications, or else you are
deliberate, propaganda-spewing fools
that would make the Nazi party
Your lack of firearms knowledgeW
and laws astounds me. You call for a
ban on the sale, use or possession of
all handguns in the name of curbing
crime. Such a ban would embolden
criminals, who already obtain
handguns illegally, not deter them.
You claim it is wrong to use a
gun for home defense, hinting that
the gun usually causes injury to the
homeowner, not the criminal.
According to FBI accounts, firearms
are used by honest citizens of this
country over one million times a year
to thwart serious crimes.
The Constitution of the United
States was conceived to ensure and
protect the right of each individual
citizen of this country. To claim that
the rights of the individual do not
matter is to support the view of
socialists and totalitarians, not free
Show me facts to support your
statements, and I will argue the point
no longer. If you cannot, then open
your eyes to the reality that anti-gun
legislation does not work and refrain
from advocating it in your
LSA senio*
aren't very sure about what the LSA-
SG is or what it does. I would like to
tell you about what they have done in
the past. One of their banner events
was bringing Daryl Gates to campus.
When he spoke, the protesters
outside of Hill Auditorium out
numbered the few students who
actually bought tickets. How much is
listening to Daryl Gates worth? The
LSA-SG spent $5,000 on the event.
The other LSA-SG event they
everyone knows about is the annual
Grad Bash they hold. In fact, the
annual Grad Bash has only been
annual for two years now. What is
the Grad Bash? A giant party the
LSA-SG holds because they have
nothing better to do with the money
they receive from students as part of
your mandatory student government
This semester the Revitalization
Party is running for the first time in
an effort to turn around the LSA-SG.
We want an active student
government that is responsive to the
needs of its constituents. Our
platform includes creating an Fall
Speaker Series to bring to the
University speakers students want to
hear, we plan to automate CRISP and
end the long lines that students
endure; and we will institute an
annual requirement review so the
administration knows how LSA

- 8lIl

Apply terrorism
standard equally
To the Daily:
This letter is in response to the
recent commentaries attacking
Katherine Metres' recent letter.
These opponents of human rights for
the Palestinians attempt to dismiss
the international outrage against the
injustices of illegal occupation and
brutal subjugation by crudely
labeling all pro-Palestinian activism
as terrorism. They do this because
they are aware of the strong
emotional weight of this word upon
the American public and hope to
justify their oppressive agenda. What
they conveniently forget to recall are
the policies and criminal actions of
some of Israel's fore founders and
current government.
Mr. Schwartz's article "Terrorist
acts more than 'punch in the eye"'
establishes a definition for terrorist
activity stating, "A terrorist murders
innocent civilians. Given his
definition, Mr. Schwartz must agree
with me when I use the word
terrorism to describe Israel's 1948
massacre of 250 men, women and
children at Deir Yassin; the massacre
of Palestinian religious pilgrims at
the TempleMount; and the Israeli
military assault against the warriors
of the tntifada (children- whn- armed

human rights and the rejection of
"terrorism be equally applied in all
Rackham graduate student
Smith pushes 'outer
edges' of free speech
To the Daily:
Instead of another condemnation
of Bradley Smith, why don't we take
a look at why his editorial succeeds
at generating controversy. Smiths'
editorial is tasteless and fascinating at
the same time because it walks the
gray line that Americans call free
speech. Free speech does not allow
someone to yell "fire" in a crowded
theatre. But, "how far does the
extension of the premise go?" is the
question that has plagued lawyers
and judges for centuries. Especially
today, in the era of political
correctness, free speech is not a
clearly defined right in American
Smith succeeds at pushing the
outer edges of free speech to get his
desired effect. By expounding
ridiculous statements, but not inciting
to riot, Smith keeps his hateful
message within the fuzzy confines of
the law. By recognizing the legal
ploys of such hate groups, we can

OSU provost cancels his office hours

That's the sound of Ohio State Uni-
versity Provost Richard Sisson's new
policy for meeting with students.
} In a meeting with the editorial staff
of the Lantern last month, Sisson ex-
tolled the virtues of an open-door policy.
He said he would welcome students
into his office every Tuesday, accord-
ing to a news brief by Lantern Campus
Editor Amy Keller.
"I want to meet students, I want to
hear about students," Sisson said.
But now, in what can only be de-

meet with students on Tuesday, Dec. 7
- during finals week.
How convenient for students...
Sisson cited schedule constraints
and lack of student participation as the
main reasons for the change, and to be
fair, this could be the case. After all, as
a vice president of a major university,
he certainly has plenty of duties to keep
him busy. And while we could quibble
over the fact that his office hours were
within a restrictive time window, the
overall level of student apathy -just
look at University Student Government

for much time with students - even
though students were not exactly beat-
ing a path to his office - sends a
message to the student body: I have
other things to do.
In our view, this is unacceptable.
What could be more important for an
administrator in Sisson's position than
to know the concerns of students? Af-
ter all, a portion of his salary is paid by
student fees.
At the same time, if no one seeks
him out, it's a moot point. We think that
students could be more involved in


Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan