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.