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.