4
4A - Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
i iidigan &ajl
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu
4
We must eliminate the Detroit
entitlement mentality."
ANDREW GROSSMAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF
GARY GRACA
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
GABE NELSON
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.
The Daily's public editor, Paul H. Johnson, acts as the readers' representative and takes a critical look at
coverage and content in every section of the paper. Readers are encouraged to contact the public editor
with questions and comments. He canbe reached at publiceditor@umich.edu.
Research and destroy
'U' should question role of military on campus
t might only weigh four ounces, but the Department of Defense
is promising big benefits from "The Bat" - a robotic, bat-like
spy plane that would gather information in combat zones. The
project is a collaborative effort between several researchers across
the country, and for $10 million, the University is developing the
plane's software and sensor package. While the project's appeal as
a James Bond-like gadget might be entrancing, people shouldn't be
taken in - our campus isn't the right place for designing war tools.
- Dick Dauch, chairman and chief executive officer of American Axle & Manufacturing, justifying his
threat to outsource his company's production, as reported yesterday by The Detroit Free Press.
CHRIS KOSLOWSKI I OU T T T PA OT jRE E-MAIL KOSLOWSKItAT CSKOSLOW@UMICH.EDU
Support the GSI Strike! Huh-wha? You're supporting jIt' ust those GSls, they're so
WOOO! unions nowcrafty. Take a day off get
a pay raise, Sheer GENIUS!
Ya'Wogtthe pwet5hno still despise unions.
..... .. . ... ..... ..... 0
Endorsed incompetence
4
Like a real bat, the spy plane will use
radar technology to steer itself through
combat areas that may be too dangerous for
soldiers. The Bat's "brain" will use cameras
and microphones and transmit information
back to soldiers. It also will be able to scav-
enge energy sources like solar power and
water to recharge its batteries..
The plane could save lives by making
combat safer for our soldiers, which is a
noble goal. But it's the implications for the
University that make this project trou-
bling, not the project itself. The Bat may
not be a controversial project, but maybe
it should be.
Only in recent decades has the connec-
tion between academia and the military
become so explicit. Increasingly, private
contractors like Halliburton and Raythe-
on aggressively recruit our most talented
students. They also donate heavily to the
University. And now more than ever, uni-
versities are being recruited to develop
military technology, often designing small
parts for larger projects. The University
has been a key player in military research,
receiving $49 million from the Department
of Defense in the 2007 fiscal year.
Computerized warfare technology like
this one raise important ethical questions.
On one hand, it saves lives. On the other
hand, it makes war easier to sell, promis-
ing faster, more efficient wars with lower
body counts - at least for our side. Consid-
er America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States has technology hundreds
of times more advanced than the Taliban or
Iraqi insurgents. Yet our flashy weapons
haven't brought America victories in these
wars. In the case of Iraq, it has protected
Americans, keeping our death toll to just
4,003, but it has contributed to the millions
of Iraqi deaths frequently ignored in the
discussion of the war.
The University is enmeshed in this
dilemma when it doesn't need to be. Instead
of working on projects with broad social
benefits, talented researchers are working
on well-funded military projects like The
Bat. While many of the technologies devel-
oped in these projects can be applied to the
advancement of society, they can be devel-
oped without specifically being funneled
through the military first. The broad ben-
efits should be the main point of research,
and the University must be vocal in point-
ing this out.
The military is not inherently evil. How-
ever, it does not need to have its hand in
every aspect of our society. The Univer-
sity should be minimizing its role in war
and questioning even the most minimal
influences the military has here. America
already has a bloated military-industrial
complex. It doesn't need a bloated military-
industrial-academic complex too.
remember reading a headline
in The Washington Post a few
years ago that sounds com-
pletely absurd
today. I went back
and did some
research, think-
ing I must be mis-
taken, but there
it was in the Aug.
18, 2003 edition
of the Post:
Detroit Mayor IMRAN
Shines in Blackout.
And then it all SYED
came back to me,
that one false moment of hope when
the city that I called home for three
years seemed to finally have the right
man in charge.
Following the Northeast Blackout
of 2003, which left major cities like
New York, Baltimore and Detroit
completely without power for several
days,DetroitMayorKwameKilpatrick
was called a lot of things, and none of
them bad. National media outlets like
the Post and The New York Times
were hailing Kilpatrick's reputation
as the "hip-hop mayor" while heavily
hinting that he was a rising star in the
Democratic Party with much bigger
things on the horizon.
I know it was all dark and whatnot,
but even so, we all should have known
better.
Kilpatrick did handle the blackout
well. Outsiders wondering whether
Detroit would rip itself to shreds
with looting and violence during the
two nights without electricity were
stunned to see the city handle itself
so well. Crime was actually down
for those two nights and looting was
almost nonexistent.
Chris Rock said he modeled his
character in "Head of State," an aver-
age black guy who becomes president,
after Kilpatrick. Rock was attracted
to the same qualities in Kilpatrick
that the rest of us admired: He was
young, cool, outspoken, hands-on
and committed to helping the little
guy. Kilpatrick has always been those
things, but we can agree today that
that wasn't good enough.
The mayor said all the right things
in that brief burst of national spot-
light during the blackout, but Detroi-
ters had already seen enough to know
better than to believe the hype. He
was already embroiled in contro-
versy surrounding raucous parties at
his mansion. That controversy would
deepen with the firing of police offi-
cers investigating mayoral wrongdo-
ing, that infamous Lincoln Navigator
and of course, the two things every
good political scandal needs - sex
and murder.
There's an important lesson in all
of this that is easily lost amongst the
overzealous cries for Kilpatrick's res-
ignation and the mayor's downright
preposterous accusations of racism.
In a presidential election cycle where
the electorate appears poised for
record turnout and involvement, this
would be a good time for all of us to
step back and consider the following
statement: The qualities we like in a
person aren't always what makes a
good leader.
You may have heard of people vot-
ing for President Bush just because he
seemed like a guy they could see them-
selves having a beer with. I hope you
haven't had the misfortune of actu-
ally meeting such a person, but surely
you've met people who thought Al
Gore was too robotic, John Kerry too
monotone, John Edwards too spiffy or
Hillary Clinton too nails-on-a-chalk-
board. None of those things matter,
of course, and we'd freely admit that
having a president with a cute hair-
cut or an annoying voice would be the
least of our country's troubles.
And yet we still go after all the
wrong things when electing our
leaders. Why pick Kilpatrick over
challengers like Gill Hill or Free-
man Hendrix? Both of them were in
the mold of Kilpatrick's predecessor
Dennis Archer - measured, smart
and knowledgeable. Given the choice
between knowledgeable and cool,
though, voters pick cool every time.
Our American democracy has
devolved to the point where we
regard bothering to show up at the
voting booth and checking a box as
a monumental accomplishment. We
even give out stickers for it. But how
can we expect so much of our politi-
cians (just being more competent
than your opponent isn't good enough
anymore, as Gore, Kerry and Hendrix
learned), while expecting so little of
voters? Voters are the key in a democ-
racy; they are the ones with the power
to ensure that a man like Kilpatrick is
never elected.
Good leaders can
only come from
good voters.
Democracy isn't an action - it's an
idea that involves much more than
checking a box. It's the why of every-
thing thatvoters must consider before
making their choice, and yeah, that
takes effort. But we've elected too
many bad leaders to continue insist-
ing that people simply go out and vote.
We have to do more than vote; we 4
have to take the time to understand
the complete character, accomplish-
ment and record of the candidates in
an election.
If you can'tbear thatresponsibility,
then please don't vote.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Emad Ansari, Harun Buljina, Anindya Bhadra, Kevin Bunkley, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh,
Milly Dick, Mike Eber, Emmarie Huetteman, Theresa Kennelly, Emily Michels, Arikia Millikan,
Kate Peabody, Robert Soave, lmran Syed, Neil Tambe, Matt Trecha, Kate Truesdell,
Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Rachel Wagner, Patrick Zabawa.
Imran Syed was the Daily's fall/winter
editorial page editor in 2007. He can
be reached at galad@umich.edu.
4
Tracking the trail Theftrst in an occasional series of dueling viewpoints about the 2008 election
Two candidates, one progressive platform
Vote on national security, economic growth
Democrats have a lot to be excited about - not
just one, but two candidates with the energy and
enthusiasm to bring about the change our country
needs. They are being thoroughly tested by a rigor-
ous primary, yet they continue to prove themselves
ready to lead as president.
The Republicans have finally chosen their candi-
date, while the Democratic Party remains engaged
in an inspiring, albeit grueling, battle between two
historic candidates. Despite this internal
debate, the Democratic candidates share
the same general values.
With this in mind, I
believe that the Demo-
K cratic Party will pro-
duce the best president,
regardless of whether
HillaryClintonorBarack
Obamais nominated. -
Each Democratic can-
6 didate believes that peo-
/ /ple who are struggling
in this economy deserve
better. Whether it is
through tax breaks
o for the poor and
middle class, put-
-N ) ting more resourc-
es into revitalizing
poor areas, providing
affordable health care
or working to create
new job opportunities,
the Democratic candidates will fight for Americans.
The next president will likely inherit a troubled
economy, but Democrats are ready to make sure
that a safety net exists to protect those who suffer a
financial catastrophe.
Every Democratic candidate has proposed bold
steps to reduce the cost of a college education, an
investment that will expand our economy and pro-
mote new opportunities. To succeed in our economy,
it is becoming increasingly necessary to obtain a col-
lege degree, a fact that Democrats recognize. Invest-
ing in our universities is a necessary step towards
protecting the American Dream so that Americans
have a chance to better themselves through hard
work, regardless of their parents' social class.
The Democratic Party is committed to ensur-
ing the equality of every American regardless of
race, gender or sexual oriegtation. Either Clinton or
Obama will fight hard to make sure that all Ameri-
cans receive fair pay. Their records in these areas
demonstrate their commitment. They share the
belief that all loving couples are entitled to the same
rights, including the right to a civil union, regard-
less of their sexual orientation.
A Democratic administration will also fight to
protect the environment. Under Clinton or Obama,
combating global climate change will be a major
priority. Both will emphasize drastically reducing
American dependence on fossil fuels, which would
fight global warming and increase our energy inde-
pendence. Their initiatives will invest millions of
dollars into clean energy resources, creating thou-
sands of jobs.
In foreign policy, Democrats will pursue smart,
diplomatic solutions that create allies and increase
global security. Clinton and Obama have commit-
ted to significantly reducing troop levels in Iraq. The
remaining troops would primarily be there to train,
making sure that Iraqi forces are ready to take over
the security of their country. A Democratic president
will engage regional leaders to foster security in the
region. This would guarantee Iraqi sovereignty and
involve its neighbors in the reconstruction process.
The time has come to restore America's interna-
tional reputation, which has been tarnished during
the past eight years. This effort begins in impover-
ished countries, where Democratic candidates will
devote substantial resources to fighting poverty.
Their initiatives would provide numerous benefits,
including increased access to education and medi-
cine, proving that America is not just out for its
own interests. America is a powerful member of the
international community, and it understands the
responsibility that that entails.
As this primary season draws to a close, voters
will choose one candidate of these two qualified
candidates. While both parties have a platform
which unites them, the Democratic Party is best
for students, America, and frankly, the world. The
Democratic platform will create jobs, raise living
standards, protect the environment and promote a
smart foreign policy. Americans want to see their
country meet the new challenges of the 21st cen-
tury and emerge successful. They want to live in a
better world. For these reasons, vote Democratic in
November, regardless of whom that Democrat is.
This viewpoint is written on behalf of the
University's chapter of the Colleye Democrats.
This November, when you are lining up at the
polls and castingyour vote for the U.S. President,
the University's chapter of College Republicans
wants you to make the most informed decision
possible. At a chaotic time in our nation's his-
tory, a Republican president would stand strong
in supporting the war against terrorism, pro-
tecting our country's sovereignty, promoting
economic growth with fiscal responsibility and
encouraging environmental sustainability.
A nation's government is responsible for
ensuring the safety of its people. The Republi-
can Party reaffirms its commitment to providing
candidates that are strong on national security
and knowledgeable in foreign policy. Americans
have seen the impact that terrorism has had
on our nation, and a Republican president will
not allow the world's tyrannical leaders obtain
dangerous weapons. As voters, we must support
candidates who will make every effort to protect
our nation from future threats. It is not a coinci-
dence that America has been attack-free the past
six-and-a-half years. A Republican president
will act as commander in chief of the U.S. mili-
tary and make appropriate decisions in an effort
to guarantee the safety of America.
The Republican Party prides itself on making
every effort to protect American freedom and-
national sovereignty. A Republican president
would ensure that America does not lose its self-
governance to the United Nations. Although the
UN can serve as a valuable medium of dialogue
and discussion among nations and a mediator
for world humanitarian issues, the Republican
Party understands that this organization does
not hold supreme power over countries. In addi-
tion, America should not fall victim to the UN's
system of reliance on disproportionate U.S.
funding. A Republican president would stand
strong in these beliefs about the UN and Ameri-
can sovereignty.
Furthermore, as students who will soon be
entering the work force, the economic future of
our nation is a key issue in the upcoming elec-
tion. A strong economy is encouraged by lower
taxes, fewer onerous regulations and promot-
ing investments. A Republican president will be
committed to keeping Americans' hard-earned
money in their pockets through low taxes. The
impact of free trade and free markets promotes
economic growth and job creation. The econo-
my will benefit from a system that is pro-growth
and pro-investment. Coupled with the impor-
tance of a pro-growth economy is
keeping the federal government from waste-
fully spending tax dollars and adding excessive
earmarks to legislation. A Republican president
will push for innovation within our economy in
order to encourage job growth for the new gen-
eration.
In order to sustain economic growth, a Repub-
lican president will support new technology
that increases fuel efficiency
and use of energy. This
can be done through tax
credits that encourage
emission-free energy
sourc-
es. A
Repub-
lican
presi-
dent
under- d
stands
that the
increased
dependency
on foreign oil is a
problem for Amer-
icans. He will do everything in his power to
explore resources already available in Amer-
ica to minimize our environmental impact.
These efforts in advancing innovative energy
sources will also lead to increased job creation
for Americans.
The November election will have a huge
impact on the future of this country. A Repub-
lican in the White House will tackle impending
national issues with confidence and conviction.
He will pledge to protect the sanctity of mar-
riage, promote ethical reform in government
and strengthen the border. It is time that the I
Americans unite around a candidate. So, as you
stand in line at the polls, think to yourself, as the
Clinton campaign all keeps asking us to: "Who
do I really want answering the phone in the
White House at 3 a.m.?"
This viewpoint is written on behalf of the
University's chapter of the College Republicans.