The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 5
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
I
Let market decide
which stores should
be able to stay
TO THE DAILY:
I feel that your recent editori-
al, Starbukization of A2
(05/12/03), is a sincere but
incorrect assessment of the situa-
tion. First off, if it is true that
local stores support local activi-
ties at a greater rate than chain
stores do, then surely that is a
good thing. However, that really
should not be the main issue
here. Your editorial speaks of
local stores as if they were some
sacred thing to be protected and
that we somehow are much bet-
ter off if local stores are still
around. The truth is that if local
stores truly made us better off
than chain stores, local stores
would not need protection. Con-
sumers will generally shop at the
store that makes them the best
off. Your editorial mentioned that
"commercially operated stores
may be easier on the average stu-
dent's wallet," and that chain
stores are "drawing in customers
with low prices and more selec-
tion." This would imply that con-
sumers are actually better off
shopping at a chain store
because consumers can buy more
for less and choose from a larger
selection. You suggest that the
local government needs to step
in to save local stores, but that is
not the will of the citizens. The
citizens have spoken with their
wallets, and they have said they
prefer chain stores. If the gov-
ernment were to step in and
somehow subsidize local stores,
the government would only be
stealing from its citizens and
giving the money to a group that
cannot earn the money on its
own. The reason why local stores
cannot earn this money on their
own is because they do not serve
the needs of their customers as
well as the chain stores. Instead
of keeping local businesses
open, a better course of action is
to let the market decide. This
way, those stores that make us
better off survive, and those
stores that do not, fail.
DAN KRAWIEC
LSA junior
Letter ignores
Israel's human
rights record
TO THE DAILY:
David Livshiz' latest letter (His-
tory of Israel taken out of context,
5/19/03) in itself only furthers Ari
Paul's argument against the "Blue
Block" or aggregate of Israel's sup-
porters on campus. Aside from
resorting to faulty logic, by obfus-
cating historical facts, he paints a
fantastic picture of Israel that fun-
damentally contradicts the reality of
the state's nature.
In it, he argues that hecause
other present-day states, upon
their founding centuries ago, had
previous inhabitants, Israel is
excused in expelling - less than
60 years ago - and excluding to
this day, indigenous non-Jews
from her borders. This is a dan-
gerous standard to set, essential-
ly giving the green light to any
nation to expel inhabitants of
land it conquers and illustrates
the flawed "two wrongs make a
right" logic of the "Blue Block."
Today, bodies such as the
United Nations exist to ensure
that states do not engage in the
criminal practice of disposses-
sion and expulsion (as it did in
Kosovo, for example). In fact,
Israel's admission to the U.N.
was contingent upon its accep-
tance of U.N. Resolution 194,
which demanded that it allow the
Palestinian refugees their natural
right to return to their homes.
Israel accepted this to become an
"internationally recognized
state," as Livshiz maintains, but
to this day has not implemented
the resolution. Why? If Israel
permits the Palestinians whom it
expelled to return, then it would
lose its coveted Jewish majority,
which allows it to enforce "eth-
nic supremacy" over the land, as
Paul correctly points out.
Livshiz' counterargument
claims that anyone of any reli-
gious background is eligible for
Israeli citizenship. Perhaps then
he should impart this knowledge
to the millions of Palestinian
refugees who, to this day, carry
the deeds to their land, the keys
to their homes and unfulfilled
dreams of returning to live in
peace. This would be futile, how-
ever, as Israel explicitly bans
Palestinian refugees, denying cit-
izenship to even those Palestini-
ans who marry Israeli citizens
(See Israel's 2002 Family Reuni-
fication Law).
The reality is that the intend-
ed beneficiaries of rights under
Israeli law (such as immigration
or return for indigenous Pales-
tinians) are members of the rul-
ing ethno-religious subgroup.
Some have begun calling this
"Israeli ethnocracy" while oth-
ers, including concerned Israelis
themselves, refer to - it as
apartheid.
CARMEL SALHI
LSAjusior
DYING TO OPINE ON
THE INTRICACIES OF
ANN ARBOR POLTICS?
DAILY OPINION IS THE
PLACE FOR YOU
COME wRrE FOR US
TO FIND OUT HOW,
E-MAa
1ZPES1CK UMICHof'DU
Have you forgotten?
DAN ADAMS ADVANTAG? PUSH.
he past two
years have
been rough on
my opinion of patri-
otism. Don't get me
wrong, I still love
the citizenship, the
plush public educa-
tion and the right to
dissent without vot-
ing, but my zealous and unconditional
support of the government wanes by the
day. I've always noticed that there are
dozens of definitions of patriotism -
most of which are usually harmless. For
many Americans, this usually entails
mouthing the words to the national
anthem, or shooting off illegal fire-
works on the Fourth of July. Hit a deer
and make sausage. Drink a Schlitz on
your porch. Eat a hot dog with cheese
inside. Mmmm. Patriotism tastes good.
Patriotism is easy: It usually boils
down to just arrogance and/or ignorance.
Worse, it can be dangerous and has
always been a tool available to those
wishing to manipulate public opinion. In
the words of Hermann Goering, famed
Nazi henchman: "The people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked, and
denounce the peacemakers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in any country."
Not in this country you say? Take a
look around. Pick up a paper, and
you're sure to find a letter or article
condemning those who dare to remain
critical of the president. At a recent col-
lege graduation ceremony, Pulitzer
Prize winner Chris Hedges was booed
off the stage for criticizing the govern-
ment. When Senate Minority Leader
Tom Daschle questioned the leadership
of President Bush on the eve of the
impending Iraq War, Republicans like
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.),
Senate Majority Leader Frist (R-Tenn.)
and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) labeled
his actions as unpatriotic and irrespon-
sible. Media sources like The Wall
Street Journal urged Daschle to "put
aside partisanship for at least a few
days." From "orange alerts" to the infa-
mous "Axis of Evil," we're being fed a
daily dose of fear that in many ways is
controlling the public debate.
What the hell has happened to us?
Have we all simply forgotten what free
speech is all about, or have those planes
done the damage al-Qaida intended?
Now that we've crammed decades worth
of "God Bless America" into a two-year
bender, it's understandable that hearing
an ounce of criticism might be hard to
handle. As noble and as righteous as
we'd all like to be, the fact remains: The
United States government leaves a lot to
be desired. We don't always do the right
thing, and we aren't always on the right
side of the feud. Someone has got to be
the one to say it when we're wrong, and
those people are being silenced daily in
the name of patriotism.
This crisis is not our cue to stop
speaking out. In fact, if this nation is
truly great, there is no situation where we
must curb our criticism. It is entirely pos-
sible to remain supportive of our troops
overseas, while remaining vocally critical
of their deployment. Certainly there is a
desire to maintain the appearance of a
united front against our enemies, but this
cannot come at the expense of the free
exchange of ideas and opinions. Indeed,
Daschle's words meant something very
different for me. They embody the only
part of this nation worth fighting for and
the only thing worth dying for - some-
thing to remember this Memorial Day.
Love your country. Be proud of it. But
do it bearing in mind the real reasons
why the United States is so wonderful:
free speech and the men and women who
have died defending it.
Democracy is never easy. It requires
the tolerance of those who would spend
their lives in support of that which you
have spent yours opposing. Insofar as
this great nation is concerned, that is
true patriotism. Those willing to cast
aside the liberals, the anti-war celebri-
ties, the tree huggers and the radicals
have given up. They are the unpatriotic,
standing in opposition to everything
worth fighting for.
Dedicated to:
Richard Kelsey, U.S. Navy
Robert Adams, U.S. Army
Adams can be reached at
dnadams@umich.edu.
Is that a war in your pocket?
JOHN HONKALA Too EARLY IN THE SUN
o Ari Fleischer
is quitting his
w>,post as press
secretary for the Bush
administration to
enter the private sec-
tor. Wonderful news. I
can finally take this
wince off my face.
Now if we could
only geta few more Bushies to step down,
maybe someone like, oh I don't know,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or
Attorney General John Ashcroft. The pri-
vate sector welcomes you, fellas.
Not that all these guys don't already
have their hands deep in the private sec-
tor cookie jar. But at least if they quit
they'd have to keep their grubby little
mitts exclusively in that jar. That's naive
of me actually; we all know they'd find
ways. They all do.
I wonder, though, if Dubya wouldn't
mind picking somebody like, oh I don't
know, me, to be his chief intermediary
to the press. I mean, I'm looking for a
job anyway, and the qualifications can't
be that tough. I'm sure with a little prac-
tice I could get both sides of this mouth
of mine going at the same time. And I
can smile real pretty like.
Imagine little ol' me up there at the
podium. My own personal no spin zone. It
sure as hell wouldn't sound anything like
the tales that come from our current press
corp, which save for a few brave souls,
seems to be permanently in bed/embed-
ded with the U.S. military.
They have, of course, portrayed the
war as one big fat triumphant victory for
the United States and U.S. democracy.
Saddam's regime fell like so many Sad-
dam statues, clusters of convenient Iraqis
cheered U.S. troops for U.S. cameras,
U.S. casualties have been low. We are
benevolent knights, armor gleaming, like
spangles off the desert sand.
Unfortunately, you have to dig a bit
deeper, but a quick scan of news sources
not beholden to Rupert Murdoch reveals
that things in Iraq aren't all apple pie and
peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Appar-
ently a good number - a plurality at least
- of Iraqis aren't too keen on the idea of
a U.S.-style democracy. And the rarely-
reported war-related Iraqi death toll is now
near 10,000 if one includes both military
and civilian casualties. Earlier this month,
in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, three car bombs
exploded nearly simultaneously, killing 34.
Military negligence has allowed a free-for-
all that has armed thousands of Iraqi peo-
ple in Baghdad's anarchic streets.
Enduring freedom apparently ain't so easy.
Meanwhile, weapons of mass destruc-
tion, the alleged reason for which we
started this war, are nowhere to be found.
Two plausible explanations for this come
to mind. Either there were no WMDs in
Iraq in the first place, which means the
Bush administration lied, or the WMDs
- or at least the materials used to make
them - have been spirited into other
countries and into the hands of small ter-
rorist cells a lot more likely to use them
than Saddam was. Either way, I don't feel
any safer than I did before the warIn fact,
I'm more concerned now than ever about
terrorism and anti-Americanism around
the globe. If you can't see the connection
between the war in Iraq and the latest
round of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia,
then I suggest you wait awhile until it hap-
pens again and again. Because it's
absolutely going to if we continue to press
on with what seems to me like - and I
don't see how, logically, anyone could dis-
agree -perpetualwar.
We are not yet through in Afghanistan
(although Dubya has apparently decided
to can that country). We will be in Iraq for
years. And God only knows where we'll
be in the near future, but you can be sure
that we'll at least still be fighting this
"war" at our borders, on our computers
and through shadowy "aid" operations
around the world for years to come.
This is the best kind of war for an
administration bent on milking war for as
many votes as possible. (Seems like a pret-
ty weird paradox, huh? War for votes.) The
messy details (e.g. fat, fat contracts in Iraq
for Dubya's pals) can remain conveniently
- to borrow a phrase -under rug swept.
Meanwhile, Dubya and Co. can slip into
navy jumpsuits whenever the approval rat-
ings start to sag. Or shout traitor whenever
a senator won't cooperate or a union wants
to organize. Essentially, the president's
always got a war in his back pocket to use
at his discretion. It's really sick, actually.
Honkala can be reached at
jhonkala@umich.edu.