4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, November 1, 2004 4 OPINION +9 + 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 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 pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. NOTABLE QUOTABLE I almost cried, man - it was magnificent." - Michigan wide receiver Braylon Edwards, commenting on Saturday's triple-overtime win against rival Michigan State. j- Cd d 7 co n". V~ SAM BUTLER Th. 2 OA BC 4 4 I Wrong candidate, wrong country, wrong time D.C. LEE BLACK DIAMONDS AND PEARLS I asual observers, fad liberals and Democratic stal- warts often criticize the president for his oratory missteps. Four years ago in Redwood, Calif., George W. Bush announced that he would have a "foreign- handed foreign policy." More recently, the president proclaimed that "our priorities is our faith." And who among us has failed to notice the president's mispronunciation of "terror" as "terrr"? Bush detractors would have us believe that these "Bush-isms" are evidence of the presi- dent's incompetence. Incompetence to speak publicly, perhaps. Incompetence to actually have an even-handed foreign policy, absolutely not. For all the criticism of the president's ver- bal clarity, one thing is clear: Everyone knows what he actually means. In contrast, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry may be as articulate as they come, but people have a hard time understanding what he means. Recently, in a story that did not receive as much press as it probably should have, Kerry told the Associated Press that although he generally opposes the death penalty, he is in favor of capital punishment for terrorists. Yes, read that sentence again. John Kerry supports the death penalty for terrorists only. The distinction between "terror" and "non- terror" crimes is tenuous, and it is not clear why Kerry would go on the record advocat- ing the death penalty for the former and not the latter. The four most common arguments against capital punishment - that it violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, that it fails to deter crime, that it is immoral, and that some innocent people are likely to be put to death - apply to terrorists and rapists alike. Of course, when Kerry says he "oppose(s) the death penalty other than in cases of real inter- national and domestic terrorism," his response lacks the verbal and grammatical gaffes that so often characterize a Bush response. But again, people like me are having a hard time figuring out what Kerry actually means. Why the distinction? Is this clear to anyone? The most likely, and shameful, answer goes like this: Kerry sticks his finger in the air to find out which way the political wind is blow- ing, and once he and his team of strategists determine that most Americans think terrorists should be put to death, an exception to Kerry's stance against the death penalty is instantly created. Voila. Some people call this type of decision mak- ing poll-driven policy. I call it short-term thinking, and it raises larger issues about the type of president Kerry would be. Kerry and his team of strategists, for example, know that popular support for the war in Iraq is fading. So, even though Kerry initially supported the war effort - when popular opinion was on his side - when the polls reversed, so did Kerry. Now, all of the sudden, it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. Voild. Kerry is also quick to point out the thousand lives lost in Iraq. But a long-term approach to the war in Iraq, and more broadly, the war on terrorism, necessarily requires the immediate loss of life to prevent a later, more catastrophic loss of life. That Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction is irrelevant. Eventually, he probably would have, and then where would we be? Jonah Goldberg, in an Oct. 29 column for National Review Online, makes a good anal- ogy: "If you live in a house infested by rats, you may think it's okay to tolerate them for a while ... But when one of your children dies from a bite, you do everything you can to kill the rats and plug up all the rat holes to protect your family. You don't care which specific rat was responsible for the death. You simply do everything necessary to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. Post Sept. 11, Bush faced a world with a lot of rat holes. The most obvious, urgent, and 'doable' rat hole was Baghdad." The decision to go to war in Iraq was an easy one. The decision to stay, in the face of public opinion to the contrary, is not. We need a president who will stay the course, approach problems like terrorism with a long-term view and who will communicate our commitment to freedom to the American and global pub- lic with common sense and clarity. That Bush may not be as articulate as Kerry is irrelevant. I'd rather have a president who wavers on his grammar than a president who wavers in the face of public opinion. Lee can be reached at leedc@umiehedu. LETTER TO THE EDITOR 4 Adam and Daily unfair in their coverage of Greeks To THE DAILY: In four years at the University I have read plenty of issues of The Michigan Daily, and slowly I became somewhat accustomed to its unique treatment of the Greek communi- ty. At the head of the Daily's "coverage" is Daniel Adams. Adams recently painted the Greek system in one broad stroke, claiming, "They ... told me that the Greek system was more than just date rape and hazing scan- dals. And boy, are you guys proving them wrong." (Thanks but no thanks, 10/25/04). What little journalistic integrity he had left disappeared with that line. Yes, there has been a series of negative incidents in the past two years that have hurt the Greek community. Throughout that time there also have been a series of positive events in which the Greek community has partici- pated. Unfortunately, the Daily's coverage of Greek life all too frequently consists of front-page, large headlines about some- thing negative, and a page-eight, four-para- graph quip about something positive (if even at all). It may seem to many people that all that occurs in the Greek community is hazing. But that's also because that's all the Daily ever seems eager to report. Take a deck of cards and show someone five clubs and spades and he'll began to wonder if there really are any hearts. And that is exactly what the Daily has systematically done throughout my four years. And its not as if hazing, drinking and fighting doesn't occur all over this campus. Other clubs are guilty of mistakes as well, yet for whatever reason, Adams does not find the time to jump on them. If Adams really were concerned with the issues, rath- er than attacking the Greek system in itself, than where is his sarcastic wit about other clubs hazing? Where are his articles about students going to the hospital at house par- ties? Or the fights that all too often break out everywhere? To pretend that these issues are isolated to the Greek community is too naive. Furthermore, Adams's claims concerning the Greek community's continuing attempts to correct itself are also misinformed. He points to the University's proposed changes to prevent hazing, which were dropped ear- lier this term. However, he fails to mention that the Greek community opposed Univer- sity-imposed changes and suggested to Harp- er that Greeks work with the University to eliminate hazing. He also ignores to inform the reader that there was no evidence to sup- port the University's claim that delayed Rush would curb hazing, which was the linchpin of the University's attempt to eradicate hazing. Still, it's not to say that the Interfraternity Council and Panhellenic Association aren't working toward change, and the recent events can only serve as a reminder that more needs to be done. Still, change cannot happen over- night. To leap into an informed overhaul of the Greek system would be catastrophic for the University as well as the Greek system. But change needs to occur from without, as well. The reputation of the Greek system has been tarnished by unfair and subjective coverage of the Greek community, and the Daily can't hide from its role. Last year after a similar opinion article was written, I wrote the Daily and encouraged them to come to charity event my house was having for home- less shelter, where both houses participating bought presents for the kids and had it over for pizza before Santa passed out the gifts. Sadly, nobody from the Daily ever contact- ed me or anyone in my house in response to my letter. It might only be one example, but it's a telling one of the Daily's negligence to report both sides of the issue. It's time for the Greek community to change, but it's also time for the Daily to change. With your job also comes responsibility, not the haughtiness that the Daily all too often resorts to. Nick Kowalczyk LSA senior 4 4 VIEWPOINT From a douchebag apologist By SAM BUTLER If we ourselves haven't visited it, almost all of us have heard of it. John-kerry-is-a- douche-bag-but-im-voting-for-him-any- way.com (hyphens added) seems to reflect the outrage and a deep-seeded resentment among liberals across the country. The del- uge of emotion flooding this presidential race has caused John Kerry's candidacy to represent the shortcomings of our current political two-party system in which we con- tinually have to choose between the lesser of two evils. An entire liberal electorate is casting its vote for Kerry simply because he is not George Bush. Kerry supporters don't really support Kerry and extol his virtues simply by highlighting the failings of Bush. per." I defy anyone to find a major politician who has played the game for any extended period of time who has a voting record that could be deemed "consistent." Compromise is the grease of the legislative process and simply a reality of politics, especially on the national level. What's worse is that liberals have taken this simplified flip-flopper perception to heart and have begun to see Kerry as a particularly soft invertebrate of ideals. Yet when asked for specific criticism, all that many liberals can offer are groping thoughts that Kerry should have taken a stronger stance against an unjust war and a more charismatic lead in defying the Bush regime. I believe in psychology; this is called displacement. We seem to be so angry with Bush that we are angry with Ke,.,.,,We des;,.;n Krv, ,an vneof idenni-- I'm only suggesting that we are holding Kerry to a level of scrutiny that we did not hold Bill Clinton or even Al Gore to. We see every crack in Kerry's persona and every pandering to popular media. The truth is that Kerry hasn't been the victim of Bush's failings, but the fickleness of the liberal constituency instead. Our high hopes for Kerry have put him in a campaigning catch- 22. For instance, every liberal saying Kerry is too negative is countered by one saying he isn't negative enough. We can't decide what we want because in the wake of Sept. 11, Kerry, like the rest of the democratic machine at large, was forced to contain his political agenda. Democrats lost their iden- tity and were met with almost a stigma of shame. Liberal voters too fell into a pit of noli1ai limh oadnow, ish Kerr.rul 4 <. :: d