4 4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, September 8, 2003 OP/ED R & le ato atchwam 11 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 letters@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 LouIE MEIZLISH Editor in Chief AUBREY HENRETTY ZAC PESKOWITZ 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 I was wrong and you were right." - Former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines on his tumultuous tenure at the paper. According to Newsweek, the quote will appear in an essay that Raines wrote for the Sept. 15 issue of Details magazine. SAM BUTLER Tiw SOAXPBOX j D~)~ ThIar 4 4 Q.. Allow me to opine JOHANNA HANINK PARLANCE OF OUR TIMES his summer was a tough one - or at least should have been a tough one - for people who like to char- acterize themselves as politically opinionated. F FLast April, when I left Ann Arbor, who walked which side of the line was clear: there were pro-war-in-Iraq and anti-war-in-Iraq booths on the Diag. The "pro-Israel" contingent rallied on the Michigan Union side of State Street, while the "pro-Palestinian" crowd opposed them from the art museum corner. For such nuanced issues, there was a remarkable amount of black and white. Last April, I also thought that I knew on which side of the street I stood with respect to these two fundamental elements of the Ann Arbor-University political (and too often, social) scene. But after all that happened this summer, from the presidential quasi-acknowledgement of our rather un-intelligent Iraqi intelligence, to the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli struggle - which, for a few hopeful months, had looked like more like a straight road than an unbreak- able cycle of violence, I find myself in the Socratic tent of Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld's in-vogue Platonic camp. After the last few months, I feel like the only thing I know is that I know, well, nothing. The question that I found myself asked a lot this summer (usually by people who are not American) was, "So what do you think about the situation in Iraq?" Lately I've taken to giv- ing in, and conceding without apology: "I don't know." People often esteem sharp opinions as the mark of someone who is politically and intellectually engaged. But it seems that the more I read about Iraq or Israel or Afghanistan or Liberia, the more difficult it becomes to process my point of view. "I don't know" stands in as the answer that is easier to give than would be the half-hour, irresolute and probably incon- sistent explanation of my position. I've learned, only too recently, that a firm opinion is not necessarily the mark of knowl- edge. This summer, I took an Italian class at the University of California at Berkeley. When we hit chapter 16, "Per chi voti?" (Who are you voting for?), of our textbook, we talked about American politics using our new Italian political vocabulary. The consensus of the class seemed to be one of general, and fair- ly aggressive, pessimism - about the econo- my, about President Bush, about the United States' international involvement. But when our instructor got down to the question - per chi voti? - no one in the class could name a single presidential candidate, except George W. Bush, running in the 2004 election. Opinions are important things to have, but I think that in the student activism world of this university, there is often more pressure to have a strong opinion than a smart one. Outside the classroom, there is a strange temptation to look at a complex situation and react with a one- word evaluation: "good," or, "bad." We polar- ize each other for the sake of opposition. Last year, I went to a club to practice a foreign lan- guage every Wednesday. A friend of mine speaks this language very well, and every Wednesday I asked her to come. By the end of the year, it had become a joke - whenever I saw her on Wednesday afternoons, I would say, with extreme gusto: "Shira, you know what day it is ... let's go!" at which she would groan exactly proportionally to my own feigned enthusiasm. I didn't want her to come as much as I pre- tended, and she didn't want not to come as much as she pretended. The same thing happens at Michigan, and really everywhere: groups who consider themselves in opposition to each other also drive each other to the extreme ends of the spectrum: They effectively shoot themselves in the proverbial foot with their own rhetoric, which, if they took a step back and a deep breath, they might not even agree with them- selves. Student groups that have formed around controversial opinions too often define them- selves by conflict: the conversation stops, the yelling begins and political disagreements - a very positive staple of University and intellectu- al life - become very, very personal. This has got to be something that we watch out for more this year. Last year there were too many personal attacks, and too many people driving each other to absurd extremes. Like Socrates says in the Euthyphro, knowing that you know nothing reflects more knowledge than does believing in something that is wrong. For us, this means recognizing that the things we argue about are not easy and obvious, and that the people we attack and go out of our way to hassle because of their opinions are students trying to pass classes at the same time they're organizing vigils and rallies and protests. Start- ing at zero this year with campus politics will be easier than starting with a negative number - and would make student activism a lot friendlier pastime. Hanink can be reached atjhanink@umich.edu. E LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Kerry is the best choice for the University's Democrats TO THE DAILY: Zac Peskowitz's column, John Kerry is - gasp - running for president (09/04/03) failed to articulate the true leadership possessed by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and was grossly short sighted in its portrayal of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. I understand and empathize with all the liberals and common-sense independents who, fed up with the bumbling President Bush, are finding Dean to be a breath of fresh air. I implore them to take a closer look at Dean and see what this man truly stands for. Dean was the type of leader who, while supporting a 1996 welfare-reform bill, said welfare recipients "don't have any self-esteem, If they did, they'd be working." Does this sound like an individual who understands the needs of Americans in job- less economy? As governor, Dean advocated dumping nuclear waste to the poor, mostly Hispanic town of Sierra Blanca, Texas - an act that Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) called "blatant environ- mental injustice." Dean never got the endorse- ment of Vermont's Sierra Club - not once in his five bids for governor! Teachers did not sup- port him either, after that they saw his big words did not amount to actions, and his actions turned out to be more like stature. Dean did, however, render support from everyone's favorite liberal organization - the National Rifle Association-- once he proved himself as an enemy of common sense gun laws. People need to look beyond the patina of leadership exhibited by Dean to see the true leadership of Kerry. To say the man never stood for anything is baseless and borderline offensive. As a Vietnam veteran, Kerry brought the wrongs happening in Vietnam to the fore- front while testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the age of 28. In 1982, Kerry was elected to the Senate, where he has continued to be unafraid to stand up and unabashedly support what he believes is right. In 1985, he supported the Employment Nondis- crimination Act -long before Dean realized that supporting LGBT Americans was the right thing to do - not to mention long before LGBT issues were accepted to the degree that they are today. Kerry fought the unsuccessful battle to increase funding into renewable sources of ener- gy, and called to question those in his own party about their positions on the environment. I understand the frustration of Peskowitz and others. We all must suffer through this last year with Bush. Do not allow your suffering to blind you to the allure of Dean, or the truly great leader that America has in John Kerry. PAUL SPURGEON LSA senior Students for Kerry co-chair Stadium replay inadequate TO THE DAILY: Am I the only one starting to get annoyed with the Michigan Stadium scoreboard replay booth? On several close calls where there may have been interference or a weak block in the back, the replay booth decided not to project the replay on the scoreboards for the fans to see. It's nice to see big hits and plays on the scoreboard but several times when I want to see a possible no-call or weak call I feel cheated by the replay booth. The result of a missed replay inside the stadi- um leads me to call one of my friends not at the game to ask about the play in question which is only second best to seeing it myself. I can under- stand that the stadium staff doesn't want angry fans and a stadium full of boos, but I can't help but to boo the replay booth when they fail to show questionable replays. STEPHEN WISE LSA senior 0 4 VIEWPOINT Blogging for America BY SUMON DANTIKI The world changed on Sept. 11, 2001. Ever since that fateful day, Americans have been repeatedly told that they are in a battle for the hearts and minds of faceless foreigners around the world. The security and prosperity of these United States, we are told, will depend upon our ability to harness both technology and the media to win a global clash of ideas. In fact, a grand ideological battle over the future of our country and our world is loom- ing. It will not, however, be fought in the streets of Baghdad and Kabul but on those of Battle Creek and Kalamazoo. The 2004 presidential election will be one of the most divisive, and important, ones of our lifetime. At stake is the very essence of our democracy: can a president who has governed with reckless abandon win reelection by manipulating the fear of the American public Critics of the campaign have come fast and furious. From within the Democratic Party, fellow presidential candidate Joe Lieberman has attacked Dean for being an unelectable firebrand liberal, who lacks the Clintonesque ability to attract swing voters. His reasoning is wrong on two counts. First, while Democrats have an understand- able inclination to craft campaign strategy in the mold of Bill Clinton, much has changed since "the natural" won the presidency. As Stan Greenberg, a top Clinton pollster, recently noted in The New York Times: "Things have changed over the decade since 1992. The parti- sans are much more polarized." This means Democrats, especially in the primary season, should focus on mobilizing their party base rather than seeking swing voters. Dean is cur- rently the only candidate who has captivated the Democratic base and the voters who might have supported Nader in 2000. As Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, is fond of observ- the Bush administration's spotty case for war. Lieberman and other Democratic critics have in large part missed the most important part of Dean's campaign. At heart, Dean's can- didacy is a civil-rights-style fight for the notion of American community. Dean wants to build community domestically by giving everyday Americans health insurance and job security. He would offer their children real opportuni- ties by increasing funding for education and directing the finances of the federal govern- ment toward job creation, not tax cuts for wealthy donors. Finally, he would mend fences internationally in the belief that a united community of free people is the best means to deal with the likes of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Dean and his supporters will fight to make this idea of community a reality. When Bush was vacationing in Crawford, Texas, Dean ran television ads in the state, saying "Has any- body really stood up against George Bush and I-~ ~Iri~ ~ r irirn nhnot t ta hdldat t6 4d1I i