4A - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, September 21, 2006
i
'cZl e lCir 'cg m ttilg
OPINION
DONN M. FRESARD
Editor in Chief
EMILY BEAM J
CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK JEFFREY BLOOMER
Editorial Page Editors Managing Editor
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890
413 E. HURON
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
The devil came here yesterday. And it
still smells like sulfur today."
- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, referring to President Bush during a speech
before the U.N. General Assembly, as reported yesterday by CNN.com.
Lacking a legacy
JOHN STIGLICH
A
wo reporters from the San Fran-
cisco Chronicle were subpoenaed
earlier this year to testify before
a grand jury regarding their sources in
a story that connected high-profile ath-
letes with steroid use. This week, the
reporters face a final decision: expose
their confidential sources or face jail
time. What's at stake in this case is the
First Amendment and its vital protection
of a free press that can hold the govern-
ment accountable. Journalists have a'
responsibility to inform the public - a
responsibility that journalists can con-
tinue to uphold only if they can protect
their sources, and a federal shield law
would help ensure that.
In the past year, the work of two
Chronicle reporters, Lance Williams
and Mark Fainaru-Wada, has been
instrumental in connecting athletes,
including Barry Bonds and Jose Can-
seco, to steroid use. Their work has also
brought national attention to the preva-
lence of performance-enhancing drugs
in professional sports. In order to obtain
information for their reports, these jour-
nalists had to promise confidentiality to
their sources. By promising confidenti-
ality, reporters are able to gather infor-
mation from sources who otherwise
would be reluctant to talk. Investigative
reporting of this kind is a crucial role of
the free press, and by jailing reporters
who refuse to reveal their sources, the
government encourages a watered-down
media.
Although the reporters' promises of
confidentiality are perfectly legal, their
sources violated grand jury secrecy laws
in sharing information. In a last-ditch
effort to expose the whistleblowers, the
grand jury subpoenaed Williams and
Fainaru-Wada to reveal their sources,
even though the case doesn't involve
national security concerns - an emo-
Times was nelo in contempt or court for
refusing to identify a source in connec-
tion with the exposure of CIA officer
Valerie Plame. Each case illustrates how
the reporter, rather than the source, is
unfairly burdened with the responsibil-
ity of choosing between integrity and
imprisonment.
American media organizations,
dominated by corporate owners more
concerned with turning a profit than
the traditional journalistic role of hold-
ing truth to power, already carry out
pitifully little investigative reporting.
The federal prosecutors, in overstep-
ping their authority, have unleashed a
further chilling effect on the media.
Certainly, all journalists cannot be
expected risk jail time to uphold their
values, so the likely consequence is
a more complacent media that shies
away from truly investigative reporting
for less risky stories. With a weakened
media, Americans are left uninformed
and wrongdoers stand less of a chance
of being exposed.
To foster the solid journalism need-
ed for a functioning democracy, Con-
gress needs to pass a shield law similar
to those already in effect in 31 states,
which protect news-gatherers from sub-
poenas seeking their notes and sources.-
Unfortunately, many of these laws are
inconsistent with one another and have
vague descriptions about who falls
under their jurisdiction. The federal
government has an obligation to protect
the First Amendment and to enact a lay
that can uniformly protect journalists
from being forced to reveal confidential
information.
ABC's
con-
tro-
v e r s i a l
miniseries,
"The Path to
9/11," raised
many ques-
tions about
our govern-
ment's abil-
ity to protect its citizens. While
the show did not intend to direct
blame at any one person, senior
Clinton administration officials
- particularly former National
Security Director Sandy Berger
- certainly took exception to
the miniseries's version of his-
tory. Even Bill Clinton - in an
ironic call to honesty - chal-
lenged ABC President Robert
Iger to "tell the truth" in the
miniseries. Why would Clinton,
Hollywood's best friend, be so
hot under the collar about five
hours of television? Because
despite all the scene-cutting and
disclaimers ABC extended him,
Clinton is astute enough to realize
that his presidency is still search-
ing for its legacy.
When historians look back at
Clinton's tenure, what is there to
remember outside of the Lewinsky
scandal? Surely, the one positive
development they have to mention
is the performance of the econ-
omy during his watch. America
experienced an economic boom
during the '90s thanks to some of
the policies implemented by the
Clintonistas. But supervising a
booming economy didn't enhance
Calvin Coolidge's legacy, did it?
What about legislative achieve-
ments? Clinton loves to claim
credit for balancing the budget for
the first time in decades and "end-
ing welfare as we know it," but a
fair analysis would have to give
the Republican-controlled Con-
gress credit for pushing Clinton
toward those worthwhile goals.
Even if Clinton received full cred-
it for balancing the budget and
reforming welfare, he still would
not have a monumental legisla-
tive accomplishment in the same
league as FDR's New Deal or
Johnson's Great Society.
Clinton pinned his legacy as a
diplomat on mediating an agree-
ment between the Palestinian Lib-
eration Organization and Israel.
During Clinton's eight years in
office, no foreign official visited
the White House more than Yas-
ser Arafat. In the end, after being
offered nearly all of what he said
he wanted, Arafat left the bargain-
ing table with nothing to show for
Clinton's alleged diplomatic tal-
ents.
Washington, Lincoln, Wilson,
FDR and Truman earned gran-
diose legacies by successfully
guiding our nation through war.
Clinton's tenure as commander
in chief saw no significant use of
military force - but rather a focus
on using the military as a means
of social experimentation. "Don't
ask, don't tell" became part of the
American lexicon because Clin-
ton's one goal for the military was
to make its culture more accept-
ing of alternative lifestyles.
Additionally, Osama bin Laden
cites Clinton's removal of U.S.
forces from Somalia after the infa-
mous "Black Hawk Down" inci-
dent as a rallying point for radical
Muslims. Bin Laden discovered
that America has a weak stomach
for casualties on television - a
weakness he and his cadre con-
tinue to exploit today.
However, what Clinton's reac-
tion to the miniseries tells us most
clearly about his perception of his
presidency is that he's terrified of
being labeled asleep at the wheel.
According to the 9/11 Commis-
sion report, from the first World
Trade Center attack, occurring
just weeks into the Clinton presi-
dency, until the attack on the USS
Cole - the last al-Qaida attack
during the Clinton administra-
tion - al-Qaida attacked Ameri-
can interests six times, expanded
operations fromregional to world-
wide and formed a safe haven in
conjunction with the Taliban gov-
ernment in Afghanistan. Not an
impressive resume for a president
who claims to have done all he
could to combat terrorism.
Clinton knows the importance
of the visual. Visual images
- particularly movies - can
change our perceptions on any
given topic. Following the release
of Oliver Stone's "JFK," Ameri-
cans flooded their elected rep-
resentatives with requests to
re-open the investigation into the
Kennedy assassination. Michael
Moore released "Fahrenheit
911" to persuade Americans not
to vote for President Bush. Both
films have questionable fidelity
to the truth and their goals were
the same - changing the public's
perception of history.
President Clinton left office as a
mediocre.president with approval
numbers in the low sixties. At the
time, the American public did not
blame him for the rise of al-Qaida
as a global terrorist network.
Those who viewed "The Path to
9/11" had their perceptions of his
legacy change in that regard.
The miniseries portrayed an
administration that covered our
protectors in the FBI and CIA with
red tape. The Clintonistas viewed
global terrorism as a law-enforce-
ment issue unworthy of military
operations. Due to concerns that
bombings would negatively affect
our world image, the administra-
tion passed on numerous oppor-
tunities to bomb al-Qaida training
camps and to hit high-ranking
leaders. As a result, bin Laden
lived, al-Qaida grew and America
slept through the threat escalation.
This was the bridge that President
Clinton built to the 21st century.
Stiglich can bf reached
atjcsgolf.umich.edu.
VIEWPOINT
Big Brother is yelling at you
VIEWPOINT
Young, and it doesn't show
By BEN CALECA
Imagine you are walking down the sidewalk
and decide to jaywalk to make it to class a bit
faster. Now imagine that as you do that, a voice
from a loudspeaker tells you to turn around and
use the crosswalk. This is already the case in
the English town of Middlesbrough, which has
installed several speakers to its extensive CCTV
public surveillance system in order to help keep
the public in check. This scheme, no matter how
well-intentioned, is nothing more than an affront
to civil liberties.
This is the latest idea in a series of surveil-
lance systems Britain has installed to try to curb
its crime problems. Big Brother now doesn't just
watch what you are doing, but he can now pub-
licly embarrass you to enforce the law. Barry
Coppinger of the Middlesbrough Council, who
devised this scheme, brags: "It is like public
humiliation in a way." But is humiliation for such
high crimes as littering really anything more
than another infringement on personal privacy?
Trying to guilt people into obedience by
embarrassing them is not a new idea. I used to
go to a Catholic school that had a two-way loud-
speaker that could listen in on children's con-
versations. The voice of the head nun screaming
"Shut up, Paul" (it was always Paul) to embar-
rass him still rings in my ears. George Orwell's
"1984" was meant to warn us about the dangers
of enacting such surveillance. Orwell is surely
spinning in his grave now that his own country
is ignoring his advice.
However, surveillance at a private institution
or in fiction is quite different from snooping in
public areas such as busy intersections and pla-
zas with high pedestrian concentrations. Gov-
ernments have no right to observe a person's
movement without good reason, such as if a
warrant is issued based on other information.
No government agency has the right to public-
ly humiliate people for any reason. It is absurd
to believe that a police force and local govern-
ment would resort to infantile tactics like this to
enforce the law and curb disobedience.
Keep in mind also that the operators of these
cameras are still human - and hardly impar-
tial. Although the proponents of the system say
there are restrictions to prevent operators from
saying anything insulting, that's hardly a guar-
antee that the system will not be abused. It is
inevitable someone will try to point those cam-
eras into people's bedrooms. In addition, opera-
tors will surely be inclined to let their friends off
the hook while making sure to single out those
they dislike.
The costs of this system also make it an abuse
of government resources. The cameras alone cost
nearly $100,000 a piece to install. Combine that
with the cost of technicians and the operators
behind the camera system and you are diverting
a considerable amount of money that could have
funded more police - who can stop real crimes
rather than simply yell at people committing
minor abuses from a distance.
London has arguably the most impressive sur-
veillance system of any city, able to track tens
of thousands of people at a time via face recog-
nition among other techniques. Although these
cameras do not yell at residents, they are meant
to cut into London's crime rate. The success of
such cameras, however, has been lackluster -
London still has a crime rate seven times higher
than New York. Though the system was able to
identify some of the London bombing terrorists
last summer, it also made false matches to others.
This shows one critical fault of cameras: While it
can catch criminals on film (along with innocent
citizens), a camera cannot arrest a criminal, and
a camera cannot prevent a crime.
While to some the idea of such a system
ever being installed in the United States seems
unlikely, several urban areas are trying to copy
Britain by more closely monitoring the public.
Chicago, for example, has been creating an ever-
larger public surveillance system aimed at stop-
ping crime. We must remember, though, that the
benefits of such a system come at a far greater
cost - our right to privacy.
Caleca is an Engineering freshman.
BY RAFI MARTINA
TROY - The "Eric Gregory
Campaign Chili Cook-Off" - an
event to "heat up" the campaign
of the Democratic candidate for
41st District state representative
- seems a standard affair. The
attendees are more of a custom-
ary set than a melange of ages and
ethnicities. In this Detroit suburb,
the crowd reflects the demo-
graphic: middle-aged to senior,
white, solidly middle-class and
certainly not the provocateurs
emblematic of the putative "New
Democratic Party" of Howard
Dean and Ned Lamont. No shout-
ing college students deriding
Bush's War on Terrorism; no goa-
teed Birkenstockers sipping their
fair-trade coffee from Nalgene
bottles here. This is the meat-
and-potatoes Democratic crowd
often obscured by today's New
Party. Gregory, the candidate for
whom this event is being hosted,
is joined by two of his politi-
cal peers - state rep candidate
Andy Levin and (running against
Joe Knollenberg) Nancy Skinner
- for a rah-rah event that was
supposed to be attended by Mich-
igan's U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow,
who for whatever reason wasn't
able to attend.
But the one feature of Gregory
(and his candidacy, for that matter)
that stands out most conspicuously
from his political profile is the fact
that Eric Gregory is 20 years old.
And notan "almost-21" 20. He won't
shed his minor status until months
after the campaign is finished.
What's more surprising about
Gregory rests in the phenomena
- and the teeming paradoxes -
of his youthful- campaign. Those
wondering if there's something to
this campaign beyond the obvious
novelty of having a college student
run for office haven't met this col-
lege student. Despite his youth, it's
an undeniably well-run campaign.
The impressive website, the volun-
teer network, the events attendedby
notable politicians are all enough
to surprise the casual detractor
unimpressed with yet another 20-
year-old's stillborn schemes.
But for all its merits, the crusade
comes off as unwaveringly preco-
cious: Its organization, stellar as it
may be, no doubt reflects a lurching
ambition of similarly stellar degree.
The candidate is so polished by the
surfeit of similarly ambitious (and
exceptionally brainy) handlers that
his success is a blemishto his alleged
sincerity and humble approach.
Dressed in a button-down shirt
and standard campaign patterned
tie over standard khakis, Gregory
comes across as every bit the typical
middle-aged candidate.
For a self-proclaimed outsider,
Gregory brandishes all the set-
pieces and artillery typical of
battle-tested politicos. The talking
points, the banner, the campaign
logo - all these are readily appar-
ent. It's truly a campaign to scale, a
living replica of the polished cam-
paigns of his mature peers and
rival down to every detail. Speak-
ing before an audience, Gregory
What does a 20-
year-old Candidate
have to do to
seem Credible?
contends passionately that the
word this 'political-theory major'
once most closely associated with
government was "disillusionment,"
which is pretty standard Gen-Y,
Daily Show material. Yeah, we
get it - apathetic youth displeased
with the unscrupulous adult gov-
ernmental machine, right?
Totally wrong. Gregory extends
his word-association into a use-
ful conceit: His campaign message
- reached, we assume, through tra-
ditional politico-messianic epiphany
- is "hope." His platform? "Bring-
ing a real change to government"
Creating a "positive role for govern-
ment" with a "message of hope."
Standard political material.
All these elements display a keen
attention to strategy and detail for
an ostensibly fledgling candidate.
Perhaps this reflects an ardent com-
mitment to winning - an accep-
tance of the political prerequisites
with an. eye towards keeping his
campaign credible and yet intrin-
sically doe-eyed and fresh. In this
regard, the campaign never falters
into the naive quixotism of campus
radicals; it is, by any visible mea-
sure, an able and qualified endeav-
or absent of any and all naivete or
misplaced idealism. Gregory is no
firebrand bomb-thrower, and by all
appearances, he has no interest in
that role.
Ironically, however, it's the
absence of these qualities - the
shrill voice of a committed, agi-
tator, the persistent and novel
approaches of young politically-
minded students, the true outsider
profile which Gregory at times
tries to invoke - that most serious-
ly discomfit Gregory's appeal. That
Gregory fails to fit the youthful ste-
reotype of a body-pierced, aspiring
young agitator - that he is instead
staid and insightful - perhaps
hurts his image. His demeanor and
dress isn't the least bit distinct from
that of his opponent - or any tra-
ditional candidate, for that matter.
I want to take a candidate seri-
ously, and for this reason I'd never
vote for the standard University st-
dent running as a socialist for Ann
Arbor City Council - or state rep-
resentative, for that matter. Those
kids are jokes. (Take Matt Erard,
the socialist candidate running for
the 52nd District state representa-
tive seat from Ann Arbor. Living in
East Quad with him for two years,
the guy came across as the second-
biggest jerk in the building, behind
me of course.) But aside from the
discomfort of voting for a candidate
my own age, there's an additional
discomfort in voting for a candidate
like Gregory, who, despite being my
own age, acts like my father, or at
least my father's politician.
Perhaps I have an urge to want it
both ways: to dismiss the inexperi-
enced and bombastic young idealist
forimmaturity,whilemistrustingthe
apparently bona fide young political
ingenue (Gregory) for his palpable
ambition. Nevertheless, it's a duality
reflected in the candidate himself,
who claims outsider status while
wielding and calling plays from the
strategy book of traditional party
warfare. Perhaps appropriately,
it was an official in the Michigan
Democratic Party who proposed and
first supported Gregory's candidacy.
Is Gregory grappling for the reins or
riding in the chariot along with the
party's top brass? Would we actu-
ally want him to be the disaffected
young agitator we expect any young
candidate to be?
Martina is an LSA senior.
I
I
I
I
I