4A - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, January 13, 2005 OPINION 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothiedaily@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 We cannot become Republican clones." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), speaking to the National Press Club, on the future of the Democratic Party, as reported yesterday by CNN.com. COLIN DALY F~N ciiv> ; FOR ONE PWS A cGjOlc5. 01 The great white American superiority complex JOEL HOARD O EIfYiA i ver the past few years, I've devel- oped a habit of watching and listening to right-wing television and radio programs - "The O'Reilly Factor" and Pat Robertson's "The 700 Club" have always been two of my faves. But I don't watch because I agree with their views (I'm one of those liberals they hate so much for ruining their country.) The real fun lies in the spectacles they put on: how O'Reilly spins facts into "facts" or just makes shit up on the spot, or Robertson's astonishing ability to frame every political issue within the context of the Christian Bible. But lingering just below the radar, there exists a man who makes the O'Reillys and Robertsons of the world look like Marxists. He calls himself Michael Savage, and his nationally syndicated radio program "The Savage Nation" boasts a lis- tenership in the millions. MSNBC aired a short- lived television version of the program in 2003, but that came to an abrupt end when Savage called a homosexual caller a "sodomite" and told him to "get AIDS and die." In case that doesn't paint a clear enough picture of Savage, his beliefs could best be described thusly: White, conservative, Chris- tian, heterosexual Americans are the only worthwhile human beings on the planet, and everyone else should die. He called for the nuclear bombing of a random Arab capital, has unedited, uncensored videos of Americans being beheaded on his website and recently said the 150,000 people killed in the tsunami disaster in South Asia, many of them Muslims, got what they deserved and they don't deserve our help. After all, he asked, where was Sri Lanka after 9/11? Of course it's all an act to some extent, and anyone with a conscience can see that Savage is a hack and a nut job, but simply dismissing him as such would be to pass on an incredible opportuni- ty to explore what is presently America's number one problem: its superiority complex. Savage verbalizes what so many Americans believe in secret or, at the very least, on a subcon- scious level, which is that Americans are a super- race that exist on a plane far above that of every other nation. We have more money, our style of government is superior, our religion is better and so on. The rest of the world be damned. It's inherent in the fact that so few Americans make any effort to understand other cultures in the least. It's in the way we look down our noses at every nation that doesn't employ a U.S.-style democracy. And, perhaps saddest of all, it's in the way our government handles our foreign rela- tions, represented in recent years most heinously by the Iraq War. Following the tsunami disaster, the United States had a tremendous opportunity to show the world once and for all that it cared for people other than its own. Our offer of $35 million, was dismissed as stingy by U.N. Undersecretary Gen- eral for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland. So in response to Egeland, we added a zero on the end to make it a cool $350 million. To the U.S., $350 million is next to nothing. It's our way of saying that we helped without even really helping much at all. I'm not for a moment suggesting that the U.S. should be responsible for bailing every impoverished nation out of every jam they encounter, but when a disaster of this magnitude occurs, we owe it to our fellow man to help out as much as we can. But that brings me back to my original point, which is that we don't even view those affected by the tsunami as our fellow men. We see them as lesser beings or, to borrow Savage's term, "sub-humans." If 150,000 Americans were killed in a natural disaster, we would expect the world to weep for us and observe a 40-day mourning period. When it happens to 150,000 brown people in the middle of the Indian Ocean, sure it's sad, but these things happen. It's like Jon Stewart et al. say in "America (The Book):" "2,000 Massacred Congolese = 500 Drowned Bangladeshis = 45 Fire-bombed Iraqis = 12 Car-bombed Europeans = 1 Snip- ered .American." Now more than ever, Americans need to think globally and consider what is best for the world rather than what is best for America. I'm proud to see that Americans have already donated millions of dollars to disaster relief efforts, but money is one thing, and respect is another. Only when we hold true respect for all people can we make real progress. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, we're all a bunch of Savages. Hoard can be reached atj.ho@umich.edu LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Palestinian election not a true, competitive race To THE DAILY: Nobody seems to have noticed the essen- tial irony of the Palestinian elections: There seemed to be no candidates, while the win- ner, Mahmoud Abbas, was virtually assumed to have won prior to the elections themselves! Of course, there were candidates, such as Mus- tafa Barghouti (brother of Palestinian politi- cal prisoner Marwan Barghouti), who was routinely detained, harassed and intimidated by the Israeli military during the "campaign process." On Dec. 26, for example, in East Jerusalem, Israeli policemen removed the only billboard that contained Barghouthi's presi- dential election materials and detained the campaign advertisement manager for interro- gation. Barghouti is a grassroots human rights campaigner, struggling for Palestinians' social, medical and educational needs. Along with the late Edward Said and others, he established the Palestinian National Initiative in 2002, which aimed to build democracy in Palestine and worked toward reform, the cause of Palestin- ian liberation and the right of return. Clearly, he is not some riffraff you simply detain and humiliate when you please, although this was precisely the way he was treated by the Israeli. military. Abbas, however, was given $20 mil- lion in frozen funds by Israel as well a free hand to travel throughout the Occupied Ter- ritories without infringement. If this is how elections are conducted in the Occupied Terri- tories, then one can hardly call this a "historic moment." Elections mean candidates in the plural, not candidate. Tarek R. Dika LSA senior The letter writer is the vice chair of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality. Editorial misses point; banning Bible class would be unconstitutional TO THE DAILY: The Daily's staff editorial entitled A Glar- ing Violation (01/11/2005) is just that, a glar- ing violation. The article talks about a course being considered at Frankenmuth High School, among others, that would teach the Bible as knowledge. What would be unconstitutional and a threat to the preservation of student civil liberties is if this class were removed from schools as an elective, in which case, schools would be discriminating against those inter- ested in the Bible, taking it out for no reason other than to persecute those interested in its studies. Those crying out that such a course is "an unambiguous infringement on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution" should take a closer look at the situation. The purpose of the First Amendment was not to complete- ly remove religion from government-funded establishments, but to avoid imposing any one specific religion on the entire country. So the phrase "Congress shall make no law respect- ing an establishment of religion," should not mean that religion cannot survive in our liberal society like some individuals bastardize it to mean, but rather that our government cannot make us follow or practice any one particular religion against our will or establish a particu- lar religion as the official one of our country. And that is clearly not the intention of offering the course in question. I sincerely hope that the Daily further investigates the situations on which it chooses to write editorials, especially those as contro- versial as the First Amendment and its place in academia. Anthony Hessler Art and Design senior Arguments presented for abortion are flawed TO THE DAILY: In the letters to the editor by the executive board of Students for Choice (Columnist misun- derstands nature of abortion debate, 01/12/2005) and Greg Malivuk (Abortion, beating with a bat are different, 01/12/2005), there were some common misconceptions mentioned that I believe warrant further discussion. In the Stu- dents for Choice letter, the writers spoke of casualties beginning after the Hyde Amend- ment, while casualties actually began after the passing of Roe v. Wade. An unborn fetus is not a potential person; it is a person. The child has separate DNA from the mother, and in half of cases, even has a different gender. How is this not a person? The writers' proposed solution to preventing cases like that of Rosie Jimenez is to provide In Malivuk's letter, he seems to make the claim that the death of a fetus is more accept- able due to its quick method. Were I to be murdered, my reluctance would not abate with the quickness of the procedure. Malivuk also writes that "For many pregnant women, (abortion) is the only available option." That is simply not true. Adoption and - I go out on a limb - raising one's own offspring are wonderful, safe and rewarding choices. The old argument of concern for the well being of the child is outrageous. There exist waiting lists of thousands of people waiting to go overseas to adopt a child because there are not enough here. Our campus leaders, regard- less of ideological disposition, should be capa- ble of much more logical arguments for their case than those they presented in the Daily. Gideon D'Assandro LSA freshman Affirmative action contrary to the ideal of a meritocratic society TO THE DAILY: I've read many articles defending affirma- tive action from its opponents, but I've never read one as vitriolic as Jasmine Clair's recent column (Reforming the American Dream ... I mean lie, 01/11/2005). In her piece, Clair appears to have no interest in espousing any possible virtues of affirmative action. Rather, she seems only to be interested in depicting those who disagree with her as selfish exploit- ers who seem to rob the American proletariat of its meager earnings and put it into social and economic slavery. But once one looks past Clair's anger, a simple principle emerges; the principle that people should not be treated as individuals, but as just one small part of a larger race or social class. What she seeks is not a society where all men are created equal, but one where the haves are sacrificed for the have- nots. So what if a white or Asian person is more than qualified to get into the University? That individual's achievements shouldn't mat- ter because these races are already over rep- resented. The ultimate outcome of decisions such as these is that achievement takes a back seat to uncontrollable factors such as race and economic background when determining qualifications for admittance. So much for the i