4 - Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
413 E. Huron St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
tothedaily@umich.edu
KARL STAMPFL IMRAN SYED JEFFREY BLOOMER
EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles
and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Vote Yost, Dar for MSA
Reisinger, Madoff ticket a sound choice for LSA-SG
The student government elections on Wednesday and Thurs-
day promise to be the most uneventful in recent years. The
Michigan Action Party; a descendent of the now-defunct
Students 4 Michigan, should easily win the president and vice
president positions in both the Michigan Student Assembly and
LSA-Student Government, as well as the vast majority of represen-
tative seats in both bodies.
Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
- Slogan on banner that Joseph Frederick held near his high school in Juneau, Ark. in 2002. Appeals
courts recently ruled that Frederick's free speech rights were violated when school administrators
suspended him for holding the sign, as reported yesterday by msnbc.com.
SAM BUTLER I
11
Ir; S f - } -
.. r E
0+1 e s - uvve tA. ea.
YOU 1stelOLn I u~asrJ
ThiscartoonoriginallyappearedintheNov.20,2002 editionofiTheMichigan Daily.
Fool me twice, shame on me
0
6
6
MAP candidates Zack Yost and Moham-
mad Dar face only a long-shot bid from the
Defend Affirmative Action Party's Mari-
cruz Lopez and Sarah Barnard for the top
positions in MSA. MAP's Keith Reisinger
and Hannah Madoff are completelyunchal-
lenged for the top positions in LSA-SG.
Perhaps after last year's fiasco, a quiet
year is to be expected. The all-out ruckus
that pitted the dominant S4M against the
Michigan Progressive Party, the Student
Conservative Party and DAAP left voters
- even candidates - dazed and featured
at least a couple of violations of electoral
rules - if not federal laws. MPP, SCP and,
to a lesser extent S4M disbanded, leaving
DAAP and a fresh slate for this year.
In preparation for this election, MAP
was formed, mostly by former members of
S4M along with some who formerly sided
with MPP. Although its candidates high-
light differences between MAP and S4M
- insisting that MAP is more diverse,
less about winning and more about get-
ting the job done - it's hard not to see the
glaring similarities. MAP has no ideology
and looks set to monopolize the two larg-
est bodies of student government, the very
two characteristics that defined its dispa-
rate predecessor.
MAP wants to be the party of everyone
and as such seems to stand for nothing and
everything at once. Its ambition is com-
mendable, but never should such a porous'
platform go as lightly challenged as MAP
has so far. Spirited debate and competition
is always preferable to the foregone con-
clusion that is this year's race. Even if it
eventually spiraled into chaos, last year's
election offered distinct choices, an inte-
gral part of the democratic process that
is largely missing this year, with DAAP as
the only alternative.
Anchored by members of BAMN, the
radical affirmative action group, DAAP
is much more straightforward in its plat-
form. It wants campus diversity defended
at all costs in the wake of November's affir-
mative action ban and to avoid, in its own
words, resegregation and a return to the
days of Jim Crow. In addition, the party
claims a laundry list of liberal positions
such as favoring empowerment of women
and opposition to the war in Iraq.
We can't disagree with the positions
DAAP takes on those issues, but it's hard
to support a party whose candidates have
no experience and seem to have complete-
ly missed the point of cooperative govern-
ment. It's one thing to stand strongly for an
issue and quite another to be antagonistic
and counterproductive. DAAP promises
that it is ready to govern a wide range of.
issues, but its candidates' comments sug-
gest otherwise.
For example, Lopez relentlessly decries
AirBus, a service initiated by MSA to pro-
vide students cheap rides to the airport. Her
argument is that MSA should dispose of fri-
volities and focus on the issues that matter,
like preserving a diverse campus. In imply-
ing that it is the job of candidates to tackle
controversial issues, she's absolutely right.
But her naive criticism of a service that
benefits students who cannot afford cars or
taxi fares suggests that DAAP is not ready
to accept the considerable responsibility of
representing students.
Ensuring diversity at this campus is of
utmost importance, but it cannot be stu-
dent government's only concern. Students
are also worried about tuition hikes, text-
book prices, neighborhood lighting, park-
ing and a litany of other issues that DAAP
either overlooks or minimizes. The MAP
executive candidates for both MSA and
LSA-SG on the other hand, have experi-
ence both in student government and in
dealing with these issues.
SA-SG candidates Reisinger and
Madoff are especially impressive.
Because LSA-SG is usually out of
the limelight and doesn't tackle the most
controversial political issues continu-
ally impressed upon MSA, its candidates
are forced to talk about their records of
accomplishment. Reisinger and Madoff do
so impressively and convincingly.
They point to the textbook forum held last
semester and the "this sucks" e-mail group
as examples of their respondingto the needs
of students. They are right to do so, but we
remind you that nothing has come out of
that forum as of yet and sending an e-mail to
LSA-SG about what sucks on campus doesn't
automatically fix the problem. Much of
that isn't the fault of the candidates; slicing
through University bureaucracy is no easy
task. Nevertheless, Reisinger and Madoff
are among the most competent, qualified
and dare we say likable candidates we've
seen in recent years.
MAP's candidates for president and vice
president of MSA, Yost and Dar are also
experienced, qualified and likable - even
if they do feel the need to repeatedly point
out that one of them is Jewish and the
other Muslim (which makes it possible to
suspect something more than mere coinci-
dence). Possible tokenization aside, we're
convinced they can govern effectively. The
only problem is their standing alone and
relatively unchallenged, which has left
them on their heels.
While DAAP has its shortcomings, it
does at least stand fiercely for issues and
ideologies. What exactly do MAP MSA
candidates stand for if everything is not an
option? They'll proudly say that it isn't the
place of MSA parties to have ideologies,
and we will proudly disagree.
Having several ideologically driven par-
ties, each representing different issues
and interests would make paying atten-
tion to this election worthwhile and offer
actual choices where votes make a differ-
ence. After all, the turnout spike that fol-
lowed last year's brutal campaign was no
coincidence. Multiple parties and diverse
platforms are not only desirable but neces-
sary; it's not democracy if all votes mean
the same thing.
The Daily Editorial Board endorses
ZACK YOST and MOHAMMAD DAR
for MSA president and vice president. We
also endorse KEITH REISINGER and
HANNAH MADOFF for LSA-SG presi-
dent and vice president.
There's one thing about the
2004 presidential election
that will never stop bothering
me: People have died because of it.
It is my belief that because Presi-
dent Bush was re-elected in 2004,
more people - Iraqi civilians and
American servicemen - have died
in Iraq than would
have died had Bush
been voted out. You
don't have to agree;
for the purposes
of this column, it
is enough that you
know I believe it.
So now you'll IMRAN
understand why
I remain so bitter SYED
about 2004. I could
care less for John Kerry or the hoards
of liberal attack dogs that made that
election as divisive and confusing as
Bush's minions made 2000. I care
only about the fact that, in my opin-
ion, the wrong man won and thou-
sands have had to pay the price.
I could blame Ralph Nader for
undermining Kerry's credibility
among strong Democrats, Bush for
launching cowardly personal attacks
or the cheaters who stole Ohio. But,
at this point we almost have to take
those things as given shortcomings
of the American system. What both-
ers me above all else is that it was a
new trend in the electoral process
that gave the wrong man a "mandate"
while leaving the right 'man reeling
in its wake - and we're making the
same mistake again.
Of the many Democratic challeng-
ers who rose to oppose Bush, there was
only one I ever thoughtcouldbeathim.
Howard Dean stomped around like a
cave man with his early lead, Kerry
gave long, winding speeches in his
really high pants and John Edwards
told us a million times about just what
his father did (he was a mill-worker,
in case you missed it). But I knew that
these frontrunners had no shot; Bush
had something on all of them.
There was only one man who
scared the Rove/Cheney electoral
war machine, one man mainstream
enough to attract support from both
sides and with a reputation that
armoredhis persona toturnbackeven
the most incisive of personal attacks.
Gen. Wesley Clark was the only can-
didate in 2004 who could kick out a
president in wartime and thereby
avoid at least some of the death and
destruction that has followed in Iraq
because of Bush's stubbornness.
Clark was a valedictorian of his
class at West Point and a Rhodes
Scholar at Oxford. He received a
Bronze Star, a Silver Star and a Meri-
torious Service Medal for his service
in Vietnam (and he didn't burn any of
them, which helps his image today).
He was Supreme Commander of
Allied Forces in President Clinton's
second term and received the Presi-
dential Medal of Freedom in 2000.
He was also an outspoken critic of
Bush's war in Iraq.
The Democrats dream candidate?
At least in 2004, yes. But there was
a problem: Wesley Clark also had no
chance of winning the Democratic
nomination.
Clark was an accomplished four-
star general with war experience, not
a career politician. That is what made
him the ideal candidate to defeat
Bush. Comparisons to Dwight Eisen-
hower, without a doubt the most bi-
partisanly respected president of the
20th century, were exaggerations but
not completely without merit. But
even if not being a cunning, schem-
ing, conniving power-fiend would
endear him to the people, it doomed
Clark's campaign in the primaries.
He announced his candidacy in
September of 2003, several months
after the other Democratic candi-
dates. He had no reason to do it earli-
er; the presidential power-trip wasn't
on Clark's mind, and he only made
his decision after carefully weighing
his options. Seeing how entrenched
Kerry and Dean were in Iowa, he
opted to skip that primary; his funds
were limited after all. But regardless
of what Clark said or did, that late
start was enough to doom him.
Other candidates had spent months
raising money and were ready with
their attacks by the time Clark
entered the race. How bad did it get?
Joe Lieberman (among others) actu-
ally dared to question Clark's loyalty
to the Democratic Party. You know,
that same Lieberman who alone sup-
ports Bush's war and now identifies
as an independent.
So Wes Clark voted for Reagan.
Might I remind you that everybody,
from California to Massa-freakin-
chusetts, voted for Reagan in 1984?
The point is, this type of baseless mis-
characterization should not have been
so firmly entrenched by the time Clark
entered the race. But because some
Clark's 2004 loss
proves worthy of
remembrance.
candidates started their campaigns -
oh, I don't know - in the third grade,
later arrivals stood no chance.
Sound familiar? It should.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
and Edwards are decent people who
would be a whole lot better than Bush
as president. But the unfathomably
earlystartto this campaignislimiting
our choices to only those candidates,
and leaving potentially better can-
didates - Al Gore and Clark, among
others - with a lot of ground to make
up should they decide to enter.
The media may drown us in Hill-
ary or Obama mania, but let's not for-
get the other guys when they enter
the race.
Only an idiot makes the same mis-
take twice in a row.
Imran Syed is the Daily's
editorial page editor. He can be
reached at galad@umich.edu.
r
i
a
4
SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU
Editorial Board Members: Emily Beam, Kevin Bunkley, Amanda Burns, Sam Butler,
Ben Caleca, Brian Flaherty, Mara Gay, Jared Goldberg, Emmarie Huetteman, Toby
Mitchell, Rajiv Prabhakar, David Russell, Gavin Stern, John Stiglich, Jennifer Sussex,
Neil Tambe, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Wagner, Christopher Zbrozek
to be called I
Viewpoint writer misunderstands term start to;
Before push
the conflict in the Middle East look into the h
evercomplain
TO THE DAILY: and Jordanian
While I understand that Paul Abowd's viewpoint wars and hav
(Divestfrom complicity, 03/19/2007) does not represent superiority ov
The Michigan Daily's point of view, I do not appreciate most recent vi
the statements made in his article.
Abowd essentially states that Israel is a terrorist Allen Weiss
nation that oppresses Palestinians just for the heck of LSA senior
it. The viewpoint is biased, and if Abowd were to live
as an Israeli for a year, he might understand why the
country does what it does. How would he like it if the Amaker
pizza place next door was blown suddenly up by Pales-
tinian bombs just because it was run by Israelis? Israel teamsfi
is not a terrorist nation, and Abowd is out of line.
Palestinians, only in the 1980's did that
apply to only Muslims).
hing for divestment, maybe Abowd should
istory of the area and question why no one
ed aboutEgyptiancontrolofthe GazaStrip
control of the West Bank. After losing five
ing to acknowledge Israel's clear military
er the Arab world, divestment is only the
le attempt to exterminate Israel.
s departure leaves
uture up in the air
4
I
ERIN RUSSELL
FOP TOJAY'$S
SPEAKFASr', CHEF OY
WILL GE PQEPAAING
SCPAMBLEO EG.
THI 15 YOUP SPAIN.
YEAH. CAN YOU
ANY QUESTIONS? MAKE MY ?PAINS
tENO/CT WITH
EXTRQA PEPPE2P
Talia Schlamowitz
LSAfreshman
History ofIsrael and Palestine
sheds light on the conflict
TO THE DAILY:
Monday's viewpoint by Paul Abowd (Divestfrom
complicity, 03/20/07) presents some very intriguing
questions. After reading the article, I picture a pre-
1967 Middle East with a glorious Palestinian nation - a
citadel of human rights and liberalism whose citizens
live in peace and prosperity amongst their neighbors.
After doing some research, I was unable to discover
many facts about this nation. Who was the "Palestin-
ian" head of state? Where was the "Palestinian" capi-
tol? Where was the "Palestinian" delegation at the
United Nations? In fact, the only reference I could find
was to many Jewish groups pre-1948 (yes, Jews used
TO THE DAILY:
In response to Athletic Director Bill Martin's com-
ments that former men's basketball coach Tommy
Amaker did everything he asked of him (AmakerAxed,
03/19/2007), I do not understand how Martin can say
such words the day after Amaker was fired. Martin
said that Amaker's firing was best for Michigan bas-
ketball in the long run.
While only time can tell, Amaker's firing could be
the downfall of the future of Michigan basketball.
With three all-star recruits - Alex Legion, Corper-
ryale Harris and Kelvin Grady - it appears as though
Amaker was doing an excellent job in looking out for
Michigan in the long run. However, with his firing,
these recruits are no longer certain they want to give
their talents to a Michigan team without Amaker.
We will have to wait and see how much of an impact
Amaker's firing will have on the future of Michigan
basketball. In the mean time, I believe that his firing
was somewhat premature.
Brad Pretzer
Kinesiology sophomore
I
I