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 20, 2002 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 2002-11-20

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


4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, November 20, 2002


c be 3k+bi1un imIi


SINCE 1890

Editor in Chief
Editorial Page Editor

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. .

That's like asking
someone to first vote
for censorship, and
then figure out later
what is censored.
With all due respect, I
find that statement
- Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz
on a proposed speech code that would ban
"offensive" language from the classroom,
as quoted in yesterday's Boston Globe.

B0 AZOE~os or
MS> eue -i Y1 veaet

Stupid advertisements tell truth about greedy
look at The Econo- well-groomed man in his mid-sixties, shar- begun to re-evaluate. Because it is so easy
mist as a pretty ing some time with his grandson on the to think of better examples of government
authoritative news edge of their swimming pool with a plate of waste and because it is expensive to adver-
magazine. Sure it's what I assume to be fine caviar but could tise in The Economist, I can only assume
British. Yes, it's rather just as easily be Oreo cookies. that this ad was very well thought out and
conservative in its out- This struck me as an exceptionally stupid tested and targeted towards a very specific
look. Of course it's ad and I spent the good part of a day showing audience. Clearly, judging from the picture
sometimes overly sar- it to people, expecting them to burst out and its anti-social program stance this ad is
castic. But it's widely laughing. I mean, it's ridiculous. First of all, meant to appeal to the extremely rich. Evi-
respected and when I it clearly means to contrast wasteful govern- dently, this company feels it can best
read it, though I often disagree, I feel it ment spending with spending "your" money attract customers by reminding them that
gives me a good idea of what the movers on better things, like family. But their exam- they are wasting their "hard-earned
and shakers of the world are thinking. Its ples are pretty dumb. Health care? Reform- money" by helping others.
audience is undoubtedly the world's politi- ing education? Saving the environment? It doesn't even go into specifics. In my
cally knowledgeable and wealthy. Looking These seem like pretty worthwhile things to naivete I assumed that pretty much every-
at its pages, from the tone of the articles to me. If you sat me down and asked me my top one would like to see the environment
the advertisements, I can learn not only five priorities for my tax dollars, these three saved and wanted better high schools for
about the world, but also the worldview of would all be on the list. their children. Yes, we might argue about
the people reading this magazine. I guess Compounding the stupidity of this ad is the way to do it, but I always thought peo-
in some sense I look at The Economist as a that it would have been so much easier to ple would like for everyone to have access
sort of control group for moderate free- find real examples of government waste. to a hospital bed. But obviously not.
market conservatives. Reading The Econo- Even crazy pro-tax pro-social program lib- Apparently, there are people so in love
mist can be a sort of sociological journey erals like me can find plenty of places with their money that any of "their" tax
into the minds of the world's elite. where the government wastes money. dollars going towards cleaning up oil spills
Last week I came across the following Beyond obvious and cliched references to is an affront to their "hard-work."
advertisement on page 19 of the Nov. 9 edi- $400 screwdrivers and ignoring common- If this ad were honest it would say: "On
tion. It was for something called iShares, place arguments for wasteful spending put one hand THE GOVERNMENT can use
put out by Barclays Global Investors. It was forth by liberals like defense spending and YOUR TAX DOLLARS to help those in
a full page ad, the top of which read: "On corporate welfare, I can think of plenty need. On the other hand DOESN'T IT
one hand THE GOVERNMENT uses examples of waste in the government that FEEL BETTER TO BE A GREEDY ASS-
YOUR TAX DOLLARS to improve health everyone could agree on. Things like a HOLE and spend that money on yourself?
care, reform education and protect the envi- doubling in the president's salary; millions The goal of iShares is to keep your money
ronment. On the other hand KEEPING of dollars spent researching shrimp farm- exactly where it belongs - clenched in
YOUR MONEY IN YOUR POCKET isn't ing in Arizona; $20 billion in pork barrel your uncaring fist."
half bad (emphasis theirs)." It then contin- spending in the past year alone. The sad thing is, people would still line
ues, "To help ensure your hard-earned But the more I thought about it, the less up around the block to buy into it.
money stays exactly where it belongs, con- funny the ad became. Previously, I had
sider the advantages of iShares?" The ad given this company the benefit of the Jess Piskor can be reached
also prominently features a picture of a doubt that they were stupid. But I have atjpiskor@umich.edu.


The Sports Monday column
'didn't live up to Daily's
sports standards'
For the most part, I am a big fan of the
Daily's sports section. The writers are usu-
ally accurate and their opinions mostly
reasonable. However, Steve Jackson's col-
umn, Henson's baseball stock plummets to
all-time low, (11/18/02) didn't live up to
the Daily's sports standards.
Does Steve Jackson think that he
knows more than the Yankee scouts -
the same Yankee scouts that discovered
Jeter, Pettite, and Soriano? As much as I
hate to say anything good about the men
in pinstripes, their scouts are the best in
the business. And they all say Henson is
going to be good.
Here's why: from the time he quit play-
ing high school baseball in the late spring
of 1998, he didn't seriously play organized
ball again (besides a few weeks with Yan-
kees and Reds farm clubs) until he left
Michigan football in the winter of 2001.
So he went from hitting the hell out of the
ball in high school, to two years of foot-
ball, to playing with a AAA ball club!
Nobody could make that transition! In
1998 he was facing kids like me that
were lucky if they threw a pitch 80 mph,
then he took two years out for Michigan
football, and now he's supposed to jump
back into baseball against many pitchers
that will be playing in the majors two or
three years from now. That's too much to
ask of anybody!
Steve Jackson's argument about
Michael Jordan is ridiculous. Jordan didn't
average a home run per every 6.9 at bats
with only 48 K's in four full years of high
school varsity baseball. Jordan was never
an amazing baseball player while Henson
was arguably the best high school baseball
player ever. As senior he batted .605 with
83 runs, 83 RBI, 18 doubles, 22 HR, 47
walks, 17-for-17 in stolen bases and just
nine strikeouts. Nine. I had that in one
double-header! Twice!
Jackson's other argument about Josh
Booty and Chad Hutchinson are equally
impotent. For every Booty there's a Todd
Helton (quarterback, University of Ten-
nessee), for every Hutchinson there's a
Tom Glavine (fourth round selection, Los
Angele Kina of the National Hockev

three more years of organized baseball
than Henson under his belt, why is it
acceptable that he struggle with AA base-
ball, but Henson is expected to be the All-
American that he was in high school?
Because hitting baseballs is really tough,
that's why.
Finally, Jackson forgets that Henson is
still only 22 years old. This isn't the NBA
that we are talking about - 22 is just a
baby for pro baseball. The best third base-
man in baseball today - Troy Glaus, hit
.218 with I home run in 165 at bats when
he was 22. Give the kid time!
All that being said. I will never forgive
Drew Henson for lying to us about staying
for his senior year and for abandoning
Michigan's football team. I would like
nothing more than to see his baseball
career end via a fastball to the shin. I'd
pay good money to see that.
LSA Senior
Hoard's Dave Matthews
Band review 'worst piece of
journalism ever'
This letter is in response to Joel
Hoard's review of Dave Matthews Band
latest live release, Live at Folsom Field.
Hoard's review ranks as the absolute
worst piece of journalism I have ever
seen. The review gives the impression
that Dave Matthews is a semi-talented
songwriter, average performer and has an
annoying personality.
All of these statements are false.
While I can concede that this release is
from one of the weaker tour years for
DMB, it still has a ton of notable high-
lights of which Hoard mentions as the
"uh, classics." On this disc are quality
renditions of "JTR" (a previously unre-
leased track from the Lillywhite ses-
sions), "Big Eyed Fish," "Bartender,"
"Two Step" and "Ants Marching."
Apparently for Hoard, "none of those are
good either."
Also Hoard fails to mention that as
opposed to shortening the set, this "com-
petent" performer played past the local
curfew and incurred a fine all for the
enjoyment of the crowd.
What Hard hasdcn in this article is

cap-donning" guys. This review is crap,
and I suggest the Daily try and find some-
one who can put some bias aside and
write a fair review.
LSA senior
DM 'review 'utterly
insulting,' exhibits lack
of integrity
After reading the review of "Dave
Matthews Band - Live at Folsom Field,"
I was thoroughly disgusted by the lack of
integrity of the Daily's music reviews.
Joel Hoard eloquently writes, "DMB fans
are irritating. (They are) tight-clothed
females ages 16 to 22 and their baseball
cap-donning boyfriends." He says they
are "nauseating." The only other fans
Hoard can think of who "can possibly
find Dave's shtick endearing or humor-
ous" are "wannabe hippies, and Christian
teens who wanna rock but not so hard as
to upset their parents."
A critic's job is to critique the work of
an artist - not those who appreciate it.
Being quite a DMB fan myself, I am
utterly insulted by the lack of decency
Hoard possesses. I think it is incredible
that such a respectable newspaper would
publish such garbage.
A good critic does not base his review
merely on his own preferences, but on
the quality of the work as a whole. If it is
a pop album Hoard is critiquing, for
instance, he should remember that
whether or not he likes the album is not
the question. The question is whether or
not the album has merit in the pop music
world. The same principle should have
been followed when Hoard attempted to
critique Dave Matthews Band's "Live at
Folsom Field."
Hoard also lacks the ability to back up
his opinions with any sort of reasonable
argument. Perhaps his only support is the
phrase, "it isn't any good," which he read-
ily uses three times. His only complaint
of any substance is that "the jams are
mind-numbingly long," to which one
could reply that this length is one of the
Dave Matthews Band's many charms.
This brings me back to the mark of a good
critic. Obviously, Hoard has not done his
research Fans of the hand live for the



...m ,

Vl% - - - -- - ---


Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan