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.

March 02, 2004 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 2004-03-02

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

4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, March 2, 2004

S
OPINION

420 MAYNARD STREET
ANN ARBOR, MI 48109
opinion. michigandaily.com
tothedaily@michigandaily.com

EDITED AND MANAGED BY
STUDENTS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
SINCE 1890

JORDAN SCHRADER
Editor in Chief
JASON Z. PESICK
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.

NOTABLE
QUOTABLE
t(If there's one
thing actors know
- other than that
there were no
WMDs - it's that
there is no such
thing as best in
acting."
- Sean Penn, first-time Academy Award
winner for his performance
in "Mystic River," during his
acceptance speech Sunday night.

IT GETS HARDER
EVERY YEAR...
O0L

COLIN DALY THE MICHIGAN DALY

You said what to my Lady?
AUBREY HENRETTY NEUROTICA

0

s part of my
continuing effort
to exploit stereo-
types in unusual ways, I
would like to share with
you the story of how
Ralph Nader helped me
get in touch with my
masculine side. I'm not
talking about rock
music and comfortable shoes - neither
of which you're likely to catch me with-
out, and both of which I make look hot,
thank you - or any of the other com-
mon-sense necessities too often associat-
ed exclusively with the male of the
species. No, I am referring to that time-
honored testosterone tickler, the fight,
the scuffle, the brawl.
I used to think fighting was just for
the quiet psychotics and the loud
lunkheads in life, the walking time-
bombs and the uberjocks. Over the past
several years, my male friends and
acquaintances have been chipping steadi-
ly away at this illusion. If the sweet,
intelligent young gentlemen I have
known are at all typical, the desire to
rumble has far more widespread appeal
than I thought. It is, as they say, simply a
guy thing.
Here is what they've told me: Deep
down, most guys have "Fight Club" com-
plexes. They dream of limping, eyes
blackened and noses broken, into smoky
rooms filled with other tough guys, shrug-
ging and sniffling and saying "You shoul-
da seen the other guy." Or, at the very
least, they want to be certain they could
kick someone's ass if need be. I'm sorry if

this seems like too gross a generalization,
but as I said, I'm not setting out to shatter
any stereotypes here. Not this week.
Anyway, I like to think of myself as an
empathetic person. I feel your pain, and so
on. But I just could not wrap my brain
around this one, couldn't conceive of a sit-
uation in which I would enjoy beating
someone senseless. Maybe it's because I
don't like the sound of bones cracking.
Maybe it's because I'm a girl. I did know
plenty about the socially normative female
equivalent of brawling (calculated, mali-
cious psychological abuse), but physical
violence just seemed unnecessary. Repul-
sive, even. I wanted nothing to do with it.
Until last week, that is.
When Ralph Nader announced last
Sunday that he was officially running for
president again, my imagination beamed
me directly into a dingy bar on a Satur-
day night after one drink too many.
Think about it: This year's election has
all the makings of a great barroom brawl.
There's the guy with the legitimate bone
to pick (me, the voter), backed by the
buff bodyguards John (a.k.a. presidential
candidates Kerry and Edwards, who will,
if there is a God, team up and run on a
single ticket). There's the smirking brag-
gart (Dastardly Dubya, whose ass they
are all preparing to kick), flanked by his
faithful cronies - the dishonest duo,
Ashcroft and Cheney - who sneer
enthusiastically at the good guys and
laugh too loudly at all of the braggart's
jokes. Notice Ralph Nader is not part of
this fantasy. Yet. I'll get to him in a
minute.
So, here's what was happening: Dubya

was standing at the bar, making crude
and unreasonable demands of Lady Lib-
erty (the bartender), who was far too
classy to punch him in the face or torch
his ten-gallon hat, either of which would
have been perfectly acceptable under the
circumstances. Just as I was glancing
over at Kerry and Edwards and wonder-
ing if they were thinking what I was
thinking, poor, misguided Ralph came
swinging down from the rafters in a
Superman costume. He had the right idea
at heart, but he looked ridiculous. And,
frankly, scrawny.
He told us to stand aside, that he was
here to save the day. He told us to
"relax," that we could still kick the shit
out of Dubya in the name of Liberty if we
were strong enough, and who were we to
deny Ralph a left hook or two?
The point is not that Ralph doesn't
deserve a-fair shot at Dubya. The point is,
some people who might have jumped to
our aid in the event of an all-out brawl
are going to be mesmerized by any guy
who would make an entrance like that (in
tights, no less). They'll back him and not
us, and with Lady Liberty's honor at
stake, you'd think he'd see that.
Still bursting with my newfound brava-
do and sense of chivalry, I just wanted to
shake him and say, Ralph, you know we'll
always be tight - I voted for you last
time, you know that - but for God's sake,
stay out of this. This doesn't involve you,
man - it's not your fight to fight. We'll
take care of it. Just walk away.

01

Henretty can be reached at
ahenrett@umich.edu.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Daily wrong, Christ's
bones did not break
during crucifixion
TO THE DAILY:
I just wanted to make one correction to an.
otherwise excellent article about "The Passion
of the Christ" (Celluloid Jesus: Gibsons vio-
lent vision hits theaters, 03/01/04) that claimed
that when Jesus was being stretched to fit on
the cross in the movie, his bones were broken.
Actually, his shoulder was dislocated. The rea-
son why I mention this is because one prophe-
cy about Jesus in the Old Testament is that his
bones would not be broken (Exodus 12:6,
Numbers 9:12, Psalm 34:20, John 19:36). This
is also why it's significant that even though the
men being crucified on either side of Jesus had
their legs broken, those of Christ were not.
Instead, he was speared in the side.
JOSH CALHOUN
LSA sophomore
Gibson's 'Passion' offers
accurate account Of
biblical events
TO THE DAILY:
I appreciated the honest review of Zach
Mabee, Daily film editor, on the recent Mel
Gibson film, "The Passion of the Christ"
(Celluloid Jesus: Gibson 's violent vision
hits theaters, 03/01/04). I recently experi-
enced the film, and agree that any concerns
about anti-Semitism or historical accuracy
should be dismissed. The film is quite true
to the biblical account and except for a few
events that I did not recognize from the
Gospel records, was thoroughly true to
what actually happened when the Romans
- who followed the example of the.
Phoenicians - scourged and then crucified
their victims. Old Testament prophecies
about the Messiah and His sufferings were
vividly pictured.
Thank you Mabee for pointing out that
everyone: Gentile, Jew, Muslim and all of
us bear equal responsibility for the death
of Jesus. And we must also remember that

blood offering of the Lamb of God far sur-
passes the moral teachings, life and exam-
ple of Jesus. We learn from these things,
but without his death on a cross, burial and
bodily resurrection, Jesus is no different
from other religious figures.
My loyalties lie in Jesus's camp, and I am
forever grateful.
DOUGLAS KEASAL
Rackham
Reference in photo
caption is inappropriate
TO THE DAILY:
The caption to the film still from Mel
Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," atop
the Daily review of the film (Celluloid
Jesus: Gibson 's violent vision hits theaters,
03/01/04), shows the bloodied and tortured
Jesus Christ being whipped, as he carries
his cross down the Via Dolorosa to his
agonized death, saying "Thank you sir,
may I have another!"
This robbery of language from Charles
Dickens' "Oliver Twist" - in which Twist
asks for another bowl of gruel - with a
possible reference to the English habit of
caning obstreperous youth at aristocratic
"public schools" like Eton or Harrow, is
extraordinarily twisted and offensive in the
context of Christ's crucifixion. What's next
for the Daily, showing Jews at Auschwitz
saying "Gee, I sure enjoyed that shower?"
Or slaves waving their chains and saying,
"I sure love all this free jewelry Massa
gave me?" Let's hope not. Unmerited suf-
fering isn't too funny.
A Daily columnist wrote a column sev-
eral months ago which gratuitously insult-
ed Mother Teresa, to great public outcry.
Now, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"
shows the Daily has yet to learn. This read-
er will thank the Daily not to have another
repeat of this anti-Christian trivializing-of-
brutal-violence, and wholly inappropriate,
nonsense.
DAVID BOYLE
Alum
Letter includes incorrect
information

Bush's proposal makes
civil unions, domestic
partnerships illegal
TO THE DAILY:
It is not true that states will be able to
define other legal arrangements for gay cou-
ples (Students blast Bush's call for amend-
ment, 03/01/04). This is the text of the
proposed amendment: "Marriage in the Unit-
ed States shall consist only of the union of a
man and a woman. Neither this Constitution
or the constitution of any state, nor state or
federal law, shall be construed to require that
marital status or the legal incidents thereof be
conferred upon unmarried couples or
groups."
No law shall be construed as to require the
legal incidents of marriage be conferred on
unmarried couples. No law could require, for
example, that a partner in a civil union have
spousal rights in medical decisions - that
would require a legal incident of marriage be
conferred on an unmarried couple. This amend-
ment is not about the name "marriage," it is
about the bundle of rights associated with it.
Bush may have claimed that states should be left
this ability to define these legal arrangements,
but that is a lie. The amendment he supports
explicitly makes that illegal. This amendment
would make all meaningful domestic partner-
ship or civil union laws illegal. Have no illu-
sions. Read the amendment.
ANDREAS DUUS PAPE
Rackham
LETTERS POLICY
The Michigan Daily welcomes letters
from all of its readers. Letters from Univer-
sity students, faculty, staff and administra-
tors will be given priority over others.
Letters should include the writer's name,
college and school year or other University
affiliation. The Daily will not print any let-
ter containing statements that cannot be
verified.
Letters should be kept to approximately
300 wo-rds. The Michian Dlv reserves the

6
0
6

0

._ -- - -- - __ - max::

L _3 ..._,...... ,,... .Cy. .,. .., ..,..,...

A ~ -

A

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan