4A - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, January 19, 2006 OPINION G9be idtihwn t"ailg JASON Z. PESICK Editor in Chief SUHAEL MOMIN SAM SINGER Editorial Page Editors ALISON Go Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com NOTABLE QUOTABLE She wanted to be there. She felt that her fate was there." - Jackie Spinner of The Washington Post, on journalist Jill Carroll, who was kidnapped in Iraq on Jan. 7, as reported yesterday by CNN.com. KIM LEUNG TH T L-O sBM 4 a ' - R ,~ witN a Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their author. The tricks they use JESSE SINGAL TFEM T IL TiDE 6 s is frequently pointed out, Republicans have a huge advan- tage,communications- wise, over Democrats. This is due in no small part to their ideologi- cal control over AM radio, which serves as a primary source of news and opinion for millions of Americans. But it also has to do with the argumentative style they have developed over the past few years, a style that has since filtered down to various pundits, talk show hosts and that annoying kid in your econ class. When you listen to the GOP's big guns - people like Sean Hannity who attract legions of adoring fans - you will find that they use the same tactics over and over. These tactics, needless to say, have little to do with the argument at hand. I'm going to list a few of the most popular such conversational tools. Next time you're arguing with a conservative, see how many you can spot him or her using. In no way am I saying that every conservative engages in unfair tactics when arguing; certainly there are intellectually honest conservatives who genu- inely care about ideas and debate. But when you watch the mainstream representatives of the conservative movement, you can't help but notice them use these cheap tricks. Ad hominem ad infinitum - This one's really annoying. An ad hominem attack is one that discusses not the topic at hand, but rather attacks the speaker or an entire class of people he belongs to (ad hominem means "to the man"). So if I'm arguing with a Diag activist wearing a Che Guevara shirt over some aspect of globalization, and I respond to one of his points by saying, "Well, of course you'd say that. You're wearing a Che shirt, and anyone who wears a Che shirt clearly doesn't know anything about politics," then I have used this technique. Notice that what I'm saying has nothing to do with the argu- ment over globalization - instead I'm taking the easy way out by attacking a broad class of people. It's a sneaky trick. Following the 2003 Massachusetts court decision that allowed gay marriage in Massachusetts, Bill O'Reilly responded with what I consider an awe-inspir- ing example: "Secularists want few judgments made about personal behavior. Traditionalists believe judgments are necessary in a disci- plined society." This had nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage itself, the merits or flaws of which O'Reilly was not addressing; instead, in an attempt to skirt the actual issue, he issued a broad, ultimately ludicrous attack on secular people in general. The terrorists care what you think - If my first example is annoying, then this one is downright insidious. We have been told in recent years that certain dissenting opin- ions aren't just wrong - they're helpful to our enemy. This charge has come at every important moment since Sept. 11. First those who questioned the Patriot Act were aiding our enemies, then those opposed to invading Iraq were aiding our enemies. These days, it's those who question the administration's strat- egy in Iraq who are pouring cocoa for Osama bin Laden. This logic implies a very curious world- view on the part of certain Republicans - one in which Baathist insurgents are moti- vated not by a desire to return to power in Iraq, but rather by President Bush's falling approval ratings; one in which the real cure to Al Qaeda's apocalyptic vision of a unified Islamic state is not effective counterterror- ism measures, but rather unfailing agreement with Bush. It just doesn't make much sense. It's what the people want - Time to roll out the opportunistic populism. When Repub- licans are arguing for a position that can't be rationally defended, this is their favorite tac- tic. Because when we focus on what the peo- ple want - not on what's the best, most just or fairest solution - anything can make sense. Bush's innermost strategic circle is masterful at this. Though they actively fight the will of the people in certain cases (physician-assist- ed suicide in Oregon, medical marijuana in California), when it comes to something like gay marriage, they will constantly refer to tradition, to the will of the public. So the next time you get into a political argument with a conservative (or a liberal, for that matter), keep him on point - name-call- ing, attacks on patriotism or the point of view of the majority do not constitute a good argu- ment. A defensible position should not have to rely on such cheap rhetorical tricks. Singal can be reached atjsingal@umich.edu. a VIEWPOINT India Resource Center commends Coke coalition BY AMIT SRIVASTAVA I am writing to commend the significant work done by the student Coalition to Cut the Contract with Coca-Cola. The persistence of the coali- tion has resulted in one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning - the University of Michigan - serving notice to the Coca-Cola Company that business is not as usual. The sus- pension of Coca-Cola's contract at the University is arguably one of the most successful actions of international solidarity that the campaign has experienced so far. The actions at the University have put further pressure on Coca-Cola, demanding that it clean up its act in India. The student-led campaign at the University is part of a growing movement to hold Coca-Cola accountable. In the last two months alone, more than 3,000 people have marched in different parts of India to demand accountability from Coca-Cola, and many more demonstrations are expected in the next month. The courts have started validating the concerns of the communities in India through their rulings, and even the state government of Kerala has aligned itself with these communities by challenging Coca-Cola's right to extract water in the Supreme Court of India. I continue to be disappointed by Coca-Cola's response. The company continues to deny respon- sibility for the crimes it has committed in India and has embarked upon an ambitious public rela- tions exercise to somehow "spin" the problems away. The campaign to hold the Coca-Cola Com- pany accountable will continue to grow until the company embarks on genuine initiatives involv- ing the primary stakeholders - the communities - to solve the crisis. I am also alarmed by the language adopted by the University administration in its correspon- dence with the Coca-Cola Company, repeatedly crediting the company with acting in good faith. Even a cursory consultation with communities in India suggest otherwise - that Coca-Cola con- tinues to act with arrogance in India while the adverse impacts of its operations in India continue to increase. The campaign welcomes an investiga- tion into the issues in India at any time - as long as it is truly independent. The current process is extremely flawed. Coca-Cola cre- ated a committee to coordinate carry out an independent investigation into allegations against its operations in India and Colom- bia, but in the initial meetings neither the India Resource Center nor the communities in India were informed, invited or consulted. It was only after strong student intervention that Coca-Cola was removed from the com- mission. The commission has not yet met on the Indian issues, and we are concerned about the University placing too much faith in this "one-sided" process. The commission enjoys no credibility whatsoever in India primar- ily because Coca-Cola has been consulted at every step of the way, and communities in India have been excluded. I agree with the Coke coalition that the cam- paign to hold Coca-Cola accountable is far from over. I will continue to work with the coalition to ensure that the University continues to remain a Coke-free campus until the demands of commu- nities in India are met. Srivastava is a representative of the India Resource Center. The India Resource Center is a project of Global Resistance and works against corporate globalization in India. 6 LETTER TO THE EDITOR 4 Ford employs more Christians than gays TO THE DAILY: The American Family Association shouldn't be scoffed at for holding a company accountable for not upholding its values (A boycott for bigotry, 01/17/2006). Isn't that what this University is doing in regards to the Coca-Cola Company? No, Coke certainly isn't going out of business because of us, and I doubt the AFA thinks it can (or should) shut down Ford. The bottom line is that Ford will look at this in terms of profits. It has to make a choice between the activists for traditional family values and activists for gay rights. Quite frankly, there are a lot more people out there who identify themselves in support of traditional family values than there are gay activists. In the 2004 election, all 11 state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage passed. This does not point to Christians losing merely representing the majority of Americans), and they will continue to do so despite the Daily belittling them. Andrea Holowecky Business senior Christians boycotting Ford just like 'U cutting Coke To THE DAILY: I am writing in response to the editorial regard- ing Ford Motor Company and the American Fam- ily Association (A boycott for bigotry, 01/17/2006). Two segments of the article are of particular concern to me. It stated that Ford should not be concerned with the implications of the boycott of their products because "it does not constitute a legitimate threat to the organization's livelihood." Boycotting a product because of moral or ethical standards? That sounds eerily similar to the situ- editorial board and, more broadly, many students on campus are apparently oblivious to the situa- 4 tions's obvious resemblance. These students and writers are very concerned with morals and ethics in regards to the workplace and salary, yet pay no heed to sexual morality. I would submit to scru- tiny the moral system of anyone who supports the Coke boycott yet disagrees with the Ford. Some might reply with nonsensical statements such as "sexual issues are personal" or "that they do not affect anyone else," so the Coke boycott is worth- while and the Ford boycott is not. I would respond by asking anyone who thinks that way to speak with a child whose parents have gone through a bad divorce. Issues of sexual morality and family have far-reaching implica- tions, just as issues of corporate ethics do. It is imperative to realize that moral issues, both eco- nomic and sexual, should not be taken a la carte. Second, the editorial says that the AFA and other "self-proclaimed soldiers of the 'culture Editorial Board Members: Amy Anspach, Andrew Bielak, Reggie Brown, Gabrielle D'Angelo, John Davis, Whitney Dibo, Milly Dick, Sara Eber, Jesse Forester, Mara Gay, Jared Goldberg, Ashwin Jagannathan, Theresa Kennelly, Mark Kuehn, Will Kerridge, Frank Man- ley, Kirsty McNamara, Rajiv Prabhakar, Matt Rose, David Russell, Katherine Seid, Brian Slade, John Stiglich, Imran Syed, Ben Taylor, Jessica Teng.