0 4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, October 15 , 2001 OP/ED (Tbe £irbigtu + aii 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 daily.letters@umich.edu EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 GEOFFREY GAGNON Editor in Chief MICHAEL GRASS NICHOLAS WOOMER Editorial Page Editors Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. NOTABLE QUOTABLE If investigators' fears are confirmed - and sceptics fear American hawks could be publicising the claim to press their case for strikes against Iraq - the pressure now building among senior Pentagon and White House officials in Washington for an attack may become irresistible." - Yesterday's London Observer indicating that U.S. military strikes could move to Iraq. 1,0 7 THE ON~L.Y THING MORE. UN-AMUMW ANTHAU MOT VIGt TIM~G FOR FREEDIOM IS TRYIG TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM SOMEONE ELSE. 0 a Bush and Albright all the world is your stage AMER G. ZAHR THE PROGRESSIVE PEN rthur Miller, in his recent book "On Politics and the Art of Acting," has explained how he feels that the role of the politician in this country is essentially that of an actor. As we watch the per- formance of many of our country's leaders, some dis- turbing things are shining through. It seems as though our political elite has decided that we cannot bear much reality, and politics is the manifestation of that belief. Until Sept. 11, George W. Bush had one role to perfect: He had to act himself out of the 2000 election. He need- ed to act as if he were elected president. The amount of acting in order to complete that task was awesome; and as we observed, the presi- dent was spending much of his time finding himself and developing his character, in the process revealing to all of us that the compas- sionate conservatism that had been his prevail- ing rhetoric was in fact an ideology masquerading as textbook American conser- vatism. This resulted in his isolating much of the public and much more of the international com- munity. So Bush came to symbolize that isola- tion, that misdirection. The problem now is that as we face a crisis, Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, and the bunch must act themselves out of that role. Miller also noted that the presidency, in specific, is a "heroic role. It is not one for comedians, sleek lover types or second bananas. In a word, to be credible the man who acts as a president must hold in himself an element of potential dangerousness." In this current bombing campaign, holding one's self up as a hero is of course not diffi- cult as we "avenge" the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. What President Bush is actually saying is not so important anymore. As he returned from Camp David yesterday to the White House, the president answered a few questions on the lawn. When asked if he would negotiate with the Taliban, Bush replied that "maybe they hadn't heard ... we aren't interested in negotiating." The reporters, of course, ate this up. Bush con- tinued as to how we would not stop bomb- ing until our laundry list of conditions were met, all the while perfecting his heroic, world-saving gestures and facial expres- sions. Just when he was asked perhaps the most important question, whether or not we are looking to install a new government in Kabul, Bush yelled out for his dog Barney, flashed a smile, and led the wagging dog into the White House. What Bush was saying was not so important as how he was saying it, and the reporters were posing as theater critics, as on this stage, as Miller once again tells us, "substance counts for next to nothing com- pared with style and inventive characteri- zation. The question is whether the guy is persuasive, not what he is persuading us of." Many facts were lost in the shuffle, including the fact that we had just finished bombing a residential neighborhood in Kabul, the fact that human rights organiza- tions are declaring that our food drops are only a drop in the bucket as they need a cease-fire to make sure victims receive ample supplies, and the fact the only party avoiding negotiations with the nations we are bombing is us. Finally, in a beautiful stroke of acting prowess, Bush has imple- mented the $1 fund drive for Afghan chil- dren. What can be better than asking each American child to donate $1 an Afghan children fund? I would suggest not bomb- ing them. But American policy has rarely worried about children in other parts of the world, and that leads us to an important event coming upon us this Tuesday. One of our most distinguished scholars is to speak at Hill Auditorium this week. I am, of course, speaking of Madeleine Albright. As we all should remember, it was Albright who told Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes in 1996 that in pursuit of our foreign policy objec- tives, the death of over half a million children was "worth it." To perfect the acting style, Albright recently stated to CNN that she was asked whether our policies have anything to do with the recent attacks and distaste for America. Her answer was "no. Only those who hate democracy and human rights and freedom would be opposed to what America stands for." This is ethnocentric at best, racist at worst. But desperate attempts to appeal to the emotion of the audience is both the politician's and actor's final remedy, as we observed Albright in a town hall meeting in February 1998 where, after being besieged by some tough questions on the brutal sanctions policy on Iraq, she was moved to shout, "We are the greatest country in the world!" Patriotism here was her last refuge. But I believe and hope she will find little refuge this week as she attempts to use Hill Auditorium as her stage to star as the local expert on all that is around us. It is up to us, all of us who believe that what you say is more important than how you say it, that $1 per Afghan children does not cancel out the destruc- tion of their homeland, and that half a million Iraqi children are not worth any foreign policy objectives, to exercise our own style of Ameri- canism, rejecting the efforts of Albright and oth- ers like her to emotionally blackmail us into following an American policy that is resulting in much more death and destruction outside of our borders than it will ever result in security inside them. Amer G. Zahr can be reached via e-mail at zahrag@umich.edu. 0 V LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Y IN PASSING New M-Card looks idiotic, 'U' deserves better design To THE DAILY: I don't know how many people out there would actually care about this. But I just feel that the way our M-Card looks is rather out of style. Yes, I am talking about the new one in yellow with a big M as the background. At times, it makes me hesitated to show it to peo- ple outside of the community. I always ask myself, "Am I the only person on Earth who is complaining about this? And, don't we have a bunch of artistic students and a well art and design school on campus?" In my opinion, there is definitely room for the M-Card that we carry and use so often to look smarter. It represents the University. It rep- resents us. I am not expecting a M- Card of platinum with 10,000 functions integrated. But, after all, this I is a world-class university. We deserve .. one that looks cool to be proud of. RICHARD Yiu LSA junior 0 AL-QAEDA CYANIDE PLOTS SCARIER THAN ANTHRAX; NEW METHOD COULD KILL THOUSANDS For those who read British daily newspapers on a regular basis, yesterday was a scary day. London's Sunday Times reported that Osama bin Laden's terrorist cells in Europe had planned a chemical attack on a U.S. government building in London or Rome. Secret tapes recorded by Italian police show that bin Laden's comrades in Milan were dis- cussing acquiring 10 liters of "a liquid that suf- focates people." Security officials told the newspaper that the poison is most likely cyanide. One of bin Laden's trainees said he was taught how to release cyanide in ventilation systems. That could kill thousands of people if released in a large quantity. Here' is some disturbing dialogue from the tapes. "What's going on - you are putting down your guns and taking up industrial prod- ucts?" ... "There's a liquid which is extremely efficient because it suffocates people. Do you want to try it?" ... "Yes,.why not. A few bar- rels." A scan of U.S. media outlets yesterday turned up nothing of the Times' report. This is probably one of the most troubling news stories I've come across since Sept. 11. Anthrax sent in the mail seems like a cake walk compared to what was revealed in yesterday's report. - Michael Grass FINALLY, A CHANCE TO DEBATE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION RATIONALLY Next week, the United States Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will begin hearing case to preserve its Law School admissions policies which consider the race of appli- cants among many other factors. Legal observers believe Grutter may eventually head to the United States Supreme Court and could determine the future legality of affirmative action. Since the Center for Individual Rights first sued the University on the behalf of white applicants rejected from the Law School and the College of Literature, Sci- ence and the Arts, students have been sub- jected to ridiculous, oversimplified rhetoric on both sides of the affirmative action debate. That is all set to change tomorrow at 7:15 p.m. in Lecture Hall 3 in the Modern Languages Building when two members of the University's top-ranked philosophy department square off on affirmative action. Philosophy Prof. Elizabeth Anderson will defend the merits of affirmative action against philosophy graduate student Justin Shubow and Philosophy Prof. Stephen Darwall will moderate. Afterwards audience members are encouraged to express their own views on the matter and challenge the speakers to defend their positions in a question-and- answer session. This is a rare opportunity for students to hear the best arguments for and against affirmative action rigorously analyzed in a calm, rational and respectful setting. If nothing else, everyone should leave the debate with a new appreciation for the com- plexity of issues surrounding affirmative action., - Nicholas Woomer In Passing views are those ofindividual members of the Daily 's editorial board, but do not necessarily represent the Courtesy Division of Student Affairs V VIEWPOINT: Stop political games: Let MSA work for you BY MATr NOLAN There was a lot of rushed reaction and mis- information in the Daily last week, and I feel that I need to speak for the integrity of the Michigan Student Assembly. First and foremost, neither myself, nor Jes- sica Cash, nor any other delegate, were "visi- bly drunk," as Rachel Fisher put it, at the Association of Big Ten Schools' formal dinner last weekend in Minnesota. I actually con- ducted a television interview at the dinner, and the account presented in Fisher's viewpoint ("MSA execs, reps railroad war resolution, ignore 'U' students they claim to serve" 10/10/01) was 100 percent factually incorrect. We would never dream of misrepresenting University in such a fashion, and to say we would do so is an insult to our sense of pride for the University, and nothing more than a political attack in the face of the upcoming election. It was interesting to note that Fish- er's roles as Peace and Justice co-Chair and member of the Daily's editorial board were mentioned, yet her deep involvement with the University Democratic Party was mysteriously left off. Fisher's viewpoint, along with select com- do want the buses to run more frequently and more predictably, more time off from class, better recreational sports, ice machines in the residence halls, and other things to make their lives on campus better. As MSA president, these are the things I am focused on accom- plishing, and most representatives ran for the assembly with these as their goals as well. Unfortunately, my having a meeting with the associate vice president for student affairs to discuss the need for more performance venues for student groups isn't exactly Michi- gan Daily headline material. If it were, MSA would need a couple of Michigan Daily's per day to cover everything we've been doing. Since we are a democratically elected body and hence partially political in nature, howev- er, we do occasionally debate political issues as well. Consequently, rifts over issues that are prominent and hotly contested make better sto- ries than those about sitting in front of a com- puter for six hours drafting academic calendars, and MSA's public perception is that we talk about a lot of stuff we don't have con- trol over. I'm not sure there's a solution to this prob- lem, except for readers to recognize that there's always more going on than can be writ- edge or to have more readers talking about your column, you weaken your own student voice, which, while it may not publicly always seem like it, does have the potential to make a big difference for all of us. How can MSA tell an administrator that students want some time off in the fall calendar, when simultaneously we are being publicly attacked and told that we don't represent the student voice? On a personal note: while I am a junior, I am serving a one term presidency, and will not be running for re-election in March. I have no political agenda outside of what I ran on last term- making student government work for students, and leaving campus a little better than I left it. Unlike the vast majority of stu- dent body presidents nationwide, I don't get compensated. I don't get tuition vouchers, I don't get a stipend, and I don't get free tickets to sporting events. Outside of everything that comes with being a student, I spent 40-plus hours per week working on MSA initiatives and student projects, just because I want to make campus better for students. While you may not have voted for me or the representa- tives on MSA, a plurality of the 38,000 stu- dents on this campus did, and they voted for us because they wanted us to represent student iterests n carmnhTze nrsonallv wauelcte