LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - The Michigan Daily -
We're losers, baby, so why don't you kill us?
JOHN HONKALA Too EARLY IN THE SUN

Coverage of war in
Iraq balanced, yet
inadequate
TO THE DAILY:
During the last few weeks,
The Michigan Daily's coverage
of the war - although certainly
successful in presenting different
viewpoints on the war - has
been limited in other aspects.
Issues of human rights related to
the war, particularly those affect-
ing Iraqi civilians, have
remained a mere background in
the portrayal of the single most
important public life event right
now.
During the last four weeks,
much more emphasis has been
given to the political and mili-
tary aspects of war, rather than
to how this war is actually
affecting the lives of Iraqis -
precisely the people that are
supposed to benefit from this
war. Looking back, only an
extremely limited number of
articles have made reference to
the deaths and suffering of civil-
ians in Iraq, and even when this
aspect of the war is brought up,
it is oversimplified to a brief
mention of a numerical figure.
Only one article has been com-
pletely dedicated to the events of
civlians' deaths in Iraq. I - and
I am sure many others on this
campus - want to know about
the father whose six sons, wife
and parents died as a result of a
U.S.-led attack; about the
women and children being used
by Iraqi militaryforces to
ambush; about the great number
of refugees who might be forced
to flee their homes in search of
security; about how prisoners of
war are being treated by the U.S.
military; about the cluster muni-
tions the U.S. military is using. I
want to read stories that show
our community the fear and
uncertainty that Iraqis must be
experiencing right now.
Ironically, a great number of
recent articles in the Daily have
been dedicated to the poor
media coverage of the war. I
understand that access to infor-
mation is limited in times when
our governmental political agen-
da permeates every aspect of
U.S. media. However, let's not
forget the great sources of infor-
mation that NGOs are - partic-
ularly for issues related to
human rights. Other media
sources outside the United
States are providing this kind of
information, as you precisely
mentioned in the article What
else is on? (04/09/03). For exam-
ple, Amnesty International cov-
ers many of the issues
mentioned above. On April 2,
2003, they published an article
on the use of cluster bombs by
the U.S. military in Iraq. These
bombs have been used in civil-
ian areas and are suspected to be
the cause of civilian casualties
in Iraq. The article particularly

makes reference to the U.S.
attack on the area of al-Hilla on
April 1, 2002, in whic!: a st
33 civilians died and 300 were
injured. This type of bomb poses
a hazard for civilians even after
the U.S. military leaves the area.
The bombs that did not explode
upon contact remain alive and
pose a great threat to anyone
that comes into contact with
them.
Amnesty International infor-
mation can be obtained at
www.amnesty.org
I encourage not only The
Michigan Daily, but also the
entire University community, to
actively seek other sources of
information.
PALA AMADOR
LSA senior
Story left out
important details of
divestment vote
TO THE DAILY:
I'm writing to express my
extreme displeasure at the way
the Daily portrayed the way
MSA dealt with the resolution to
divest from the Caterpillar Corp.
(MSA postpones taking stance on
Caterpillar Corp., 04/16/03).
Reading the article, one would
think that the assembly as a
whole "voted" to table it. This
could not be further from the
truth.
Realizing that this resolution
was asinine for singling out
Israel, two-thirds of the assembly
voted to take the resolution off
the table - mind you, this
means that the assembly knew it
was hogwash from the begin-
ning. One vote was necessary to
completely abolish the resolution
from even being considered. It is
a false assertion, as resolution
sponsor Eric Reichenberger
claims, that the assembly "came
to the decision" to table the reso-
lution; surely, Reichenberger
knows that the only people legal-
ly able to table resolutions are
the sponsors themselves. Know-
ing that there wasn't a chance for
the resolution to pass, the spon-
sors decided to pull it, not the
assembly.
Because the resolution will
be considered in the fall term of
2003, I would publicly ask the
sponsors of the resolution to
bring it up on a time other than
the first assembly meeting of the
year, which is on Yom Kippur
(hence, several observing Jewish
MSA members would not be able
to vote).
These are unambiguous facts.
The overwhelming majority of
MSA representatives understood
the cruel intentions of this reso-
lution. I would implore that next
time, factual evidence be pre-
sented to those that read the
Daily.
BRAD SUGAR
MSA representative
LSA senior


graduated Satur-
day, with 6,500
other hung-over
and sunglassed under-
grads. Most of us
were stoic and listless.
At least until keynote
speaker Gov. Jennifer
Granholm warned us:
"I know it's hard to
believe, but there are some U. of M. grads
out there who have wasted the paper on
which their diploma was printed, who have
squandered their talents. There are some
U. of M. grads who are complete and total
losers. Here's my first bit of advice: Do
not be one of them."
A chorus of boos greeted Granholm's
statement. I thought most of us were feign-
ing mock horror, but after talking to
friends and relatives afterward, I'm not so
sure. It seems a lot of people were actually
offended that she would insinuate that
some of usare not (gasp) geniuses.
But Granholm was right. I was sitting
around a few graduates who are already
losers and many more who are headed
straight for that status. For starters, there
was the girl behind me who obviously was
not part of the hung-over crowd because
she was as chirpy as a chickadee, only
shriller. Somehow, she thought it was
funny to sarcastically woo her way through
the commencement speeches and loudly
poke fun at the dry, graduation-speak ema-
nating from Michigan Stadium's fifty-yard
line. I'm all for unstuffing the stuffy, but
the ceremony was already casual enough
without her incessant chatter. At some
point, these sorts of things become just
plain disrespectful and rude; if she didn't
want to be there, she should have stayed


back in her nest. Lest you think I exagger-
ate, let it be known that she wooed a refer-
ence to Sept. 11.
But Miss Tactless was not the only
University grad cum loser we the tired and
squint-eyed had to endure. I also happened
to sit a few rows up from the
Swingers/Brooklyn/Olive Garden crew (ie.
ultra-moussed pretty boys with expensive
watches, who high-fived and faux-gang-
ster hugged some Tony Soprano-looking
dude in the bleachers on the way to their
seats). They were also the guys that stood
up for their conferment like they were in a
rap video, pounding their chests and
spreading their arms out d la post-sack
Warren Sapp. Their excitement was fath-
omable, and they earned itI guess, but I've
never seen male posturing look so asinine.
I had no idea an engineering degree was
so ghetto fabulous.
Actually, not just ghetto fabulous, but
plain old fabulous. Somehow last weekend
a University degree became the equivalent
of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Every East
Coaster's second choice became the
choice. And since I apparently have sinned
and was assigned the Long Island section
of the bleachers as penance, I got to hear
all about it.
A lot of people - and these were
some of them, I'm sure - come to the
University because their parents make a
lot of money and can afford for their chil-
dren wonderful pre-college educations and
the University's exorbitant out-of-state
tuition. They come here with chips on
their shoulders, whining about Michigan's
erratic weather and, ahem, big-upping
their own kind. But by the time they leave,
presumably to return to whichever coast
from whence they came, they realize

they'd better start pushing the degree
they're about to receive. Former Michigan
adjectives backward and hickish become
laid back and chill; "I came here for the
Business school" becomes "I came here
because Michigan's the most prestigious
state-school in the country. And the Ivy
League is for snobs." And so on.
Granholm was tight. Some of us will
become losers; some of us already are. But
now it becomes really apparent who is and
who ain't. What we choose to do after this
week - with a degree that places all of us
in positions much more fortunate than the
majority of our peers - will be the stuff
of our characters.
Many of us will also ignore
Granholm's plea for "servant leadership,"
for leaders that use any power or position
they might gain to serve the people. Why?
Well, because many of us will in fact be
losers who waste our degrees and don't
use what we've learned here to better our
communities and the worlds around us.
We leave college this week, hailing
ourselves victors valiant and graduates of
an elite university. The University is a
wonderful school, but let's not kid our-
selves. A lot of us have worked hard, but
no harder than working people work
everyday. And alot of us haven't done shit
while we've been here. So, let's not
indulge ourselves. Let's just take our
degrees humbly, without poking fun at the
people who are celebrating us, and head
out into the world like human beings. And
if I could indulge myself this once, and
offer my own advice to my fellow gradu-
ates, it would be this: Be nice.
Honkala can be reachedat
jhonkala@umich.edu.

Schoolyard diplomacy
DANIEL ADAMS ADVANT.E PUSH.

As the war in
Iraq cools to a
simmer, Pres-
ident Bush has now
begun the process of
looking at the domes-
tic arena. Many Amer-
icans, especially those
from blue-collar back-
grounds, love Bush's
bravado, a la George Patton. His populist
style is infectious, and has an especially
potent effect when coupled with the blows
of cruise missiles and smart bombs. But
now that those bombs have stopped falling,
what will keep the Bush presidency afloat?
The best, and only reason I can think to
vote for an incumbent George W is his
handling of domestic security because
everything else is in the crapper. But even
this doesn't seem to hold water with me.
Case in point: the North Koreans have
recently restarted their nuclear weapons
program. You'd think that given the gravity
of the situation, President Bush would bust
out a little regime change on Kim Jong I.
So what is our strategy in dealing with
probable nuclear armament on the Korean
Peninsula? It goes something like this: Say
and do nothing. No really. Recently, in an
interview with the BBC, President Bush
expressed his view concerning the situa-
tion: "This will give us an opportunity to
say to the North Koreans and the world
we're not going to be threatened."

Huh? We're not saying anything to
North Korea, and that is a firm message of
American authority? Pardon my naivete,
but to say something you've got to say
something. Granted, refusing to grant talks
can be a powerful diplomatic tool, but
holy crap. Ignoring this situation, for
whatever political reason, is a grave error,
and seems to have more to do with a
vague notion of U.S. superiority than it
does with safety and security. Nuclear pro-
liferation on the Korean peninsula is
something the U.S. has fought hard to pre-
vent, and now our message (or lack there-
of) leaves us with-our head turned away at
a very critical time.
So what exactly has led Americans to
believe that Bush, Jr. shares his father's
knack for foreign affairs? What I've come
to realize is that his populist style, consist-
ing of simple words and simple actions
isn't a mere political move. He really is just
a simple man, and this simple man has a
simple equation: It's my way or nothing at
all. His approach is one I've come to call
"Schoolyard Diplomacy," because it is
very juvenile in its method. It brings noth-
ing to the international community but
assertions, threats, and impulsive behavior.
Everything is good or evil, friend or foe,
right or wrong. Measured response is not
in his vocabulary.
Things aren't that simple. North Korea,
for all of its aggressive behavior, had been
willing to compromise in 1994 when

skilled U.S. representatives like current
University scholar Madeline Albright
applied the correct levels of pressure.
What's more, the decisions made by
France, the U.N. and Turkey to not show
support for the war were greeted with out-
rage by Bush, when they should have been
respected. For all of his political strengths,
these all are classic examples of common
international situations that rather than
methodically work through, the Bush
administration has seen go sour. There are
many levels of gray when it comes to inter-
national relations, and instead of dealing
with them as such, Bush has favored more
absolute and jingoistic rhetoric.
The result is an increasingly polarized
world and domestic situation. The more we
fail to see the common ground, the more
we will find conflict in its stead. Bush is
playing the odds. He's hoping that the
piece of the electoral pie he has already
secured will be enough to win, because the
rest is probably a lost cause - perhaps a
sound strategy politically. But internation-
ally, it's not making us friends. Rather, it's
straining our old alliances to the limit and
helping to foster a great deal of anti-U.S.
sentiment abroad. According to Bush
spokesperson Ari Fleischer, this strategy is
winning the war on terrorism. Perhaps, but
it's definitely losing my vote.
Adams can be reached at
dnadams@umich.edu.