4A - The Michigan Daily - Friday, October 6, 2006

r

41V

OPINION


DONN M. FRESARD
Editor in Chief

I

EMILY BEAM JEFFREY BLOOMER
CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK
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
I'm looking at the data, and we've
become post-Christian America, like
post-Christian Europe."
- Prominent evangelical youth minister Ron Luce, whose organization fears that only 4 percent of today's
teenagers will be Bible-believing Christians in adulthood, as reported yesterday on nytimes.com
The case for apathy
JARED GOLDBERG

4

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.

Torturing the Constitution
Detainee bill too vague, open to interpretation

When the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down the Bush Admin-
istration's detainment and inter-
rogation policies in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,
it raised hopes that Congress would act to
protect our nation's values by permanently
restricting the presidential powers that the
court had temporarily suspended. However,
the version of the Military Commissions
Act passed by Congress last week does not.
adequately check the president's overreach
of executive power. Instead, this bill has
gaping flaws and leaves far too much to the
interpretation of an administration that has
repeatedly proven itself untrustworthy.
The detainee bill explicitly denies com-
batants captured by the United States the
ability to seek a writ of habeas corpus and
leaves detainees little chance of challeng-
i g their detention in court. Furthermore,
it allows the executive branch to interpret
the Geneva Conventions and declare any
detainee an enemy combatant, regardless
of the circumstances of capture. This bill
is not only a mistake in how we view our-
selves in the war against terrorism and how
we view our enemy - it undermines some
of our most important legal traditions.
Detainees in American custody now have
little recourse to end their imprisonment,
regardless of guilt or innocence. Those in
custody who are declared enemy combat-
ants are denied the right to habeas corpus,
the 900-year-old tradition most Western
countries protect to ensure that the gov-
ernment cannot imprison people illegally.
Without that right in place, detainees can
be barred from taking their case to federal
court to plead their innocence. For many

detainees who are being held on little or
no real evidence, this bill damns them to
indefinite imprisonment with little hope of
being freed.
The section of the bill regarding the
Geneva Conventions states that the presi-
dent has the right to interpret their meaning
with regards to torture and mistreatment of
detainees. Such vague wording of the docu-
ment defining torture is unacceptable, espe-
cially under an executive as irresponsible as
this one. This administration oversaw the
abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guan-
tinamo Bay. Without stricter definitions
of what constitutes appropriate treatment
of detainees, the government can bend the
definition of torture to suit its needs, which
defeats the point of a bill defining what is
and is not torture.
The version of the bill that was passed -
after several crucial amendments, including
one to include habeas corpus, were defeated
by close margins - is a stab at the heart
of our democracy. Winning the war against
terrorism is about protecting the values for
which our country stands; to think that we
can compromise our core beliefs of fairness
and justice because terrorists do not believe
in them misses the point of winning any war.
The supporters of the detainee bill that was
passed in Congress feel it was an acceptable
compromise between our beliefs and the
ability to wage war against terrorism. This
compromise is a mistake, one that leads us
down a dangerous path. If we tamper with
our democratic traditions by removing peo-
ple's rights, we are lower ourselves in the
eyes of the world and make victory in this
war against terrorism impossible.

f there's
one
place
at the Uni-
versity that
you need
to stop by
every day
- if only
for a couple
of minutes
- it's the Diag. From crazy homo-
phobic preachers to the occasional
seesaw over the "M," the Diag is a
wonderful place to people-watch,
read, catch a breath of fresh air or
engage in meaningful and polite
discussion.
Except during last week Wednes-
day's Solidarity Day. Various
student groups representing Pales-
tinian, Iraqi and Lebanese students
came together to protest and hand
out information on American and
Israeli foreign policy in the Middle
East. Pro-Israel students came over
to discuss the content and theme of
the protest. When I arrived, students
on one side were yelling at students
on the other side, who answered such
"discussion" with even more yelling.
When it comes to the Arab-Israeli
conflict, normal Diag dialogue eti-
quette flies out the window. Not only
do members of both sides scream at
eachother,butrarely does meaningful
dialogue actually take place. There's
plenty of historical precedent for this.
As I noted in a column last summer
(The repetition of history, 7/31/2006),
tensions flared between both sides on
the Diag during the Six Day War in
1967. It's a near guarantee that any
event, either pro-Israel or pro-Pales-
tine, is going to elicit strong feelings
from the opposite side.
My views on the Arab-Israeli con-
flict, depending on whom you ask,
range from moderate to left-wing. I
see errors and legitimate claims on

both sides, and I'm not ashamed to
call out the appropriate governments
when I think they're wrong.
But my views are irrelevant: No
matter what you believe, standing on
the Diag yelling at someone is not
productive, though it can be amusing
at times. If there's one thing that can
steal the spotlight from homophobic
ministers preaching nearby, it's this.
This has been true throughout my
time at the University. And barring a
peace treaty between Israel and the
surrounding Arab states, including
the Palestinian Authority,this is how
it will remain. Don't get me wrong: I
salute student activists on both sides.
Any time a student becomes politi-
cally active in a cause they believe
in, that's nine times more admirable
than their classmates' apathy.
When I read Cherine Foty's letter
(News article misrepresents Solidarity
Day's purpose, 10/03/2006), criticiz-
ing the Daily's coverage of the day,
I was a bit perplexed. It wasn't the
criticism on the actual reporting
that bothered me. What I found so
troublesome and not so surprising
was that she attributed the "errors"
of the Daily staffers not only to bad
reporting, but also biased reporting.
She wrote: "Furthermore, the con-
tinuous need to have the pro-Israeli
view represented in every single
article where any mention is made
of Palestinians is a reflection of the
biased nature of this newspaper,
which needs to end as it is discred-
iting the legitimacy of this newspa-
per's journalistic credibility."
As I wrote last summer (Media
bias and the worst president ever,
05/15/2006), allegations like Foty's
are not only baseless, but reflect a
troubling trend in what people expect
from a newspaper. Many people
mistakenly feel that any reporting
or viewpoint that strays from their
own opinions indicates bias, while

things they do agree with are proof
of impartiality.
Many conservatives on this cam-
pus hold such a view. It should be no
wonder that there are currently two
Facebook groups devotedto trashing
the Daily: "I Wipe My Ass With The
Michigan Daily" and "The Michi-
gan Daily Is Liberal Propaganda."
It is people like these who grow up
to be Ann Coulter: ridiculously naive
and dangerously narrow-minded.
Intheendthe bestthingthe Daily
can do is contribute to on-campus
dialogue. Such dialogue becomes
meaningless if people spend their
time out on the Diag screaming
at each other. And when the very
forum designed to give voice to
divisive positions is deemed biased
simply because it does just that, it
demonstrates a far deeper problem
on this campus than media bias.
That problem is the lack of open-
ness to ideas that differ from our
own. While conservatives have
been predominantly guilty of this,
many liberals also need to learn to
respectfully and politely disagree
with their counterparts. And every-
one needs to learn to tolerate that
in this paper.
The Daily has made its mistakes;
I'll be the first to admit that. The
MSA election profiles last year,
which portrayed two female presi-
dential candidates in a sexist man-
ner, were atrocious. The infamous
1989 editorials on Israel and the
Lockerbie bombing were some of
the worst in the Daily's history.
But our time here is limited, even
for those of us doing the "victory
lap." If we spend our undergradu-
ate education shutting out opposing
viewpoints, how are we going to be
prepared for the real world?
Goldberg can be reached
atjaredgo@umich.edu.

4

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Send all letters to the editor to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.


Low gas prices only delay the
inevitable; alternatives needed
TO THE DAILY:
While Kevin Bunkley reached the right con-
clusion in his viewpoint (How low should gas go,
10/03/2006), he omitted one rationale that is more
important than any of those he mentioned. It's
important to recognize that oil is a finite resource
on this planet, and we are using it up dangerously
quickly. M. King Hubbert first coined the term
"peak oil" and correctly predicted the peak oil
production in America to occur in the early 1970s.
Others, using his methodology, have predicted
peaks in oil production between last year and about
30 years from now. Already, 33 of the 48 largest
oil-producing countries have peaked their oil sup-
ply. Once the worldwide peak hits, oil prices will
grow exponentially as demand continues to grow
and production continues to decrease.
Chevron's Jack discovery in the Gulf of Mexico
has been explored only very minimally, and claim-
ing it will increase U.S. oil reserves 50 percent is
foolhardy. Estimates for the discovery's yield are
between 3 billion and 15 billion barrels, a range too
large to draw significant conclusions.
Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet to our
oil addiction. Ethanol is simply not the answer. A
recent study has shown that corn ethanol produc-
tion requires only slightly less energy input than it
releases. It has only slightly better greenhouse gas
emissions than conventional gasoline. One of the
reasons Brazil has achieved such impressive lev-
els of ethanol production is because it uses sugar
cane, which is a much more energy-efficient crop to
grow and to use in producing ethanol. Until cellu-
losic ethanol reaches the market, ethanol will have
a negligible effect on oil imports and greenhouse
gas emissions.
Furthermore, automakers do have a reason to
push for ethanol-fueled vehicles: They get huge
bonuses that make achieving corporate average fuel

economy restrictions easier. U
mandates, which helped double
the last oil shock, stopped incre
- but the Big Three are still c
these restrictions.
Ultimately, our addiction to
pear without significant chang
- government, industry and c
rent pattern of energy usage is
peak oil and global climate che
gas prices will only delay our tr
this unsustainable pathway, wii
strophic consequences.
White guilt sustains
affirmative action p
TO THE DAILY:
I commend the Daily for I
Cohen's letter and taking timet
of the affirmative action debt
change (The role of white guilt i
10/04/2006). Unfortunately,C

nfortunately, those ries of preference policies. White guilt deludes
fuel economy after those who believe they are helping the poor and
easing in the 1980s unfortunate; affirmative action actually only
only barely passing helps the middle class. White guilt makes peo-
ple forget all the achievements blacks have made
oil will not disap- without preferences and how little progress has
ges from everyone been made since their establishment. White guilt
onsumers. Our cur- justifies the use of discrimination to fight dis-
not sustainable, as crimination in a democratic society and shades
ange show us. Low the hypocrisy of that statement. It's truly fright-
ansition away from ening how fast the hopes of civil rights leaders
th potentially cata- have been twisted. After all of the cries and calls
for a colorblind country, for a government in
Blair Wilcox which race does not matter, these policies make
Engineering senior sure that race will always matter.
It's disheartening to hear people say that they
miYeaning couldn't have gotten to where they are now without
..affirmative action. It reeks of heavy dependence, a
olcles lack of individual responsibility and a void of ini-
tiative - all created by government programs of
white guilt. Without these traits, all the preference
printing Prof. Carl programs in the world will never create real prog-
to let the other side ress, and minorities will always be hanging on the
ate be heard for a coattails of the privileged. It is time to let go.
n racial preferences, Joshua Booker
Cohen didn't have LSA senior

slavery to white guilt for the Holocaust, but this
comparison is simply unfair. Only 50-some years
after the Holocaust, with a significant number of
survivors (and perpetrators) still alive, our sense
of guilt is mostly extinguished. But nearly 150
years after the end of slavery, with not a single
former slave or slaveowner alive today, our guilt
still affects our public policy. Let's not forget:
Racism and slavery, horrible though they may be,
cannot compare with attempted genocide.
Geoffrey Hicks
Engineering sophomore
For the time being, racial
preferences needed for equality
TO THE DAILY:
We are still living in a country where racism and
sexism are rampant. People of color and women
are still grossly underrepresented in every sector
- and yet Prof. Carl Cohen and the supporters of
the Michigan Civil Right Initiative somehow think
that it will increase equality (The role of white guilt
in racial preferences, 10/04/2006)?
MCRI is a step backward, a means for admis-
sions officers and the hiring departments of public
organizations to select more white men because
they will no longer be able to consider the racial
or gender makeup of their student body or staff.
An initiative requiring equal treatment, while
seemingly progressive in theory, in practice will
have the reverse effect. In order to truly have
equal treatment, we must be sure that the personal
stereotypes and prejudices of those controlling
admissions or hiring decisions have been eradicat-
ed. Until that time, to ensure that we do not revert
to the days of all-white, all-male college campuses
and workplaces, a decision affording special con-
sideration to those who are disadvantaged by race
or sex is the best solution.
Emily Chaloner
LSA senior

d

the space to delve very deeply into the important
white guilt argument. Many readers may conclude,
"So what? What's the problem with a little guilt?"
The problem is simply this: Guilt changes the
issue from a problem of minority advancement to
a problem of ridding the privileged of their shame.
Affirmative action then becomes only a cure for
white guilt instead of an effective solution to a real
dilemma. It's a tool used to make things appear
better than they really are. The goal is not improv-
ing the situation of minorities but alleviating the
consciences of the privileged by promoting "diver-
sity" and obtaining that perfect multiracial college
promotional picture.
White guilt blinds people to the achievement
stigmas minorities face in academia and the ever-
present that high dropout rates for the beneficia-

GI Bill was racially unbiased,
fair way to achieve equality
TO THE DAILY:
Carilyn Miller tries to compare today's affir-
mative action policies with the GI Bill of the post-
World War II era (Post-WWII affirmative action
helped immigrants move up, 10/05/2006), but this
connection is dubious at best. The GI Bill was
not racially motivated; it was open to all veterans,
regardless of their race or economic status. The
example of the GI Bill only serves to prove that
classifying by race is not necessary to help the
poor and disadvantaged of this country.
Miller also connects white guilt for racism and

RYAN JABER .-.: MAKs MUD
a t : m
C A '

JOHN OQUIST IVE ;,N YouR FEcT

THE POPE'S VISITING TURKEY SOON...I STILL
CAN'T BELIEVE THOSE EXTREMISTS GOT
SO ANGRY OVER HIS COMMENTS ABOUT
MUSLIMS BEING VIOLENT. SOME CHURCHES
WERE FIREBOMBEDI
WOULDN'T IT MAKE
YOU ANGRY?

-Ir

PEOPLE COULD SAY THAT ALL LATINOS ARE
LAZY, BUT I WOULDN'T SLEEP ALL DAY JUST
TO PROVE THEM RIGHT.

YOU DO SLEEP ALL DAY
WELL, YEAH, BUT THAT'S BY
CHOICE.

4
4
I

_IL

Editorial Board Members: Reggie Brown, Kevin Bunkley, Amanda Burns, Sam Butler, Ben Caleca, Devika Daga, Milly
Dick, James David Dickson, Jesse Forester, Gary Graca, Jared Goldberg, Rafi Martina, Toby Mitchell, Rajiv Prabhakar,
David Russell, Katherine Seid, John Stiglich, Rachel Wagner.

6


A