Page 4 --The Michigan Daily - Thursday, January 31, 1991 She ~ichgan al EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 + / I NOAH FINKEL Editor in Chief DAVID SCHWARTZ Opinion Editor Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board. All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily. nlt 6 1m t--A'KosRB \I~Z?6You WTh ' LAT '"'t. f 't ,.R!Tw 4 fit,. 1 1M 5S!" A Oil spill Bush cannot take the environmental high ground AN OIL SLICK 35 MILES LONG AND many times the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill lies off the shores of Kuwait and is slowly moving into Saudi Arabian waters. The Pentagon has announced that this was a deliber- ate move by Saddam Hussein to pre- vent an Allied amphibious assault, as well as wreak havoc throughout the Gulfiregion. Though it is possible the oil spill was caused by Allied forces' flawed bombing runs - "precision-bombing" has its limitations and is subject to hu- man error - the release of the crude oil into the Persian Gulf should not have surprised officials in Washington. The act is consistent with Hussein's threats since August. When this con- flict began to escalate, he declared that he would either set Kuwaiti oil reserves afire or flush them into the sea before giving up his territorial claims. It is shocking, however, that the Al- lied coalition did not prepare contin- gency plans for this disaster. The oil sweepers and cleanup vessels that are required to clean up the mess should have been positioned in the Gulf long ago; they will be as important as the troops and weapons we have stock- piled in the region. President Bush, as expected, has :been swift to condemn the spill, calling it "a sick... act of environmental terror- ism." White House spokesperson Marlin Fitzwater said that Hussein "has shown no decency in his regard for human life," and said "we could not expect anything but the same disre- gard for the environment." Condemnation of Hussein is war- ranted - this act will undoubtedly af- fect the region's ecosystem for years - but President Bush is in no position to criticize other leaders on their lack of concern for the environment. The fed- eral government - in particular the U.S. military - has engaged in a war against the environment for decades. The massive military buildup during the Reagan era did incredible damage to the environment. Government dumping of toxic waste has caused town-wide evacuations; lax regulations on nuclear power plant operations played a part in the Three Mile Island disaster. And dozens of recently-closed military bases cannot be converted or sold for productive uses because the surrounding areas are polluted with toxic chemicals and military waste. The Bush administration cannot take the environmental high ground until they clean up the ecological quagmire at home. The Pentagon's continued censor- ship of the media's Gulf coverage is another cause for concern. Most of the pictures shown of the disaster consist of sea birds staggering along the coast- line, flightless from a thick coat of oil. While we should be concerned about the effects of this disaster on the Per- sian Gulf bird population, we still have seen nothing of the destruction in Iraq. We have seen no Iraqi civilian casual- ties from the carpet bombing missions of American B-52 squadrons. This selective coverage of Gulf de- struction serves an obvious - and ominous - purpose. Through its con- trol over information dissemination, Allied military leaders are working overtime to depersonalize this war. There are no people involved; there are only sleek jets, Patriot missiles, Sad- . dam Hussein, and oil-covered cor- morants. Though Saddam Hussein may be guilty for the oil spill in the Gulf, the U.S. government cannot justify its criticism of the Iraqi dictator's "war against the environment." The real war on the environment began in this country decades ago, and no end to the Pentagon's "naked aggression" against our ecosystem is in sight. i C "S g . I/ / -J tl -fj TkO(,?LrP :jpf)eCTV! t cQN *Mrzf A Ct4 ) / 4a.r. 'S7rA I OF 17 - Ulu lCN Readers respond to 'Bring back the draft' editorial To the Daily: In response to the Daily's article, "Bring Back the Draft", I was dis- gusted in reading its authors wishes of bringing back the draft as "the only possible equalizer." Drafting men and women for the sole purpose of achiev- ing an equal representation of race is a most shameful reason for the ad- vancement of any single minority. Only drafting white males and fe- males becauseitheyrare white is dis- crimination in its purest form. Do we decrease the number of mi- norities in a business or any organiza- tion in which their numbers exceed their representation in society? We do not do this for the same reason that we should not implement a draft to promote equality. I am unsure about the need for a draft, buf I am sure that a draft should be used for reasons such as threatened international security or as a means of achieving the quickest possible end to war. Andrew Russell LSA sophomore Daily violates personal freedoms To the Daily: The call by the Daily for rein- statement of a military draft is symp- tomatic of the leftist egalitarian phi- losophy that has infected the editorial board there for years. The rest of the University community should take a lesson. Leftist egalitarian philosophy (new left, old left, socialist, communist) advocates complete equality of re- sults, not opportunity. It insists on this contrary-to-nature position regardless of the universal suffering or depriva- tion it might cause. Leftist egalitarians would rather everyone suffered equally than every- one be better off, if some were more better off than others. In the real world, freedom inevitably leads to a more productive, more peaceful, more comfortable society across the board. Freedom does not, however, lead to equality. It is no accident, therefore, that leftist egalitarians consistently are opposed to freedom. It is also not incidental that the ed- itorial board at the Daily wants to re- instate the draft. The board's mind set allows for any outrage to personal freedom in the name of equality. Ex- perience proves, of course, that such equality is impossible anyway. Those who shout the loudest for it always end up in the forefront of the dictator- ships formed to enforce it. Chris Brockman Ann Arbor resident Daily editorial self-aggrandizing To the Daily: I am offended and afraid after read- ing your editorial calling for a military draft. The Daily editorial page usually has little impact on our lives other than fodder for conversation, but, be- cause of recent media coverage of your editorial, I find it necessary to respond. First, our army is a volunteer army. The men and women in the Persian Gulf voluntarily joined the armed ser- vices; they are now fulfilling the re- sponsibilities and duties entailed by that choice. Second, there is currently no need for a draft. There are nearly 500,000 troops already in the Gulf; not until long after a ground assault might be- gin would there exist a need for more soldiers. The American people and the military establishment does not want or need a draft; indeed, we would be endangered by sending thousands of people to the Gulf that do not want to be there to replace or fight with those who volunteered for and are trained in combat. If the Daily was aware of the lessons of the Vietnam War, you- might not have called for a draft. In Vietnam, because of the lack of unity, training, and continuity, among the troops, the lives of all those soldiers were jeopardized. While I abhor the fact that minori- ties are disproportionately represented - a consequence of domestic in- equities - we must remember that these men and women volunteered. Even worse, I am offended by the hypocrisy and paternalism pervading your article. I doubt that all those who voted for this editorial would actually report for service if there were a draft; a significantnumber, I presume, would use their own wealth and re- sources in the manner that they con- demn to avoid their own military ser- vice. In addition, the paternalistic atti- tude you take towards the troops would offend them. They did volun- teer, it is their job, and they have ded- icated and trained themselves to de- fend their country. Usually, the world does not take notice of the Daily. With this edito- rial, however, you have entered the spotlight of national media. This edi- torial seems to be the product of self- righteous and self-aggrandizing sensa- tionalism. No one has taken heed of your editorials the four years that I have attended U-M; it would be tragic if the first one anyone did follow was this one. Your hypocrisy is dangerous. Tony Barkow LSA senior Daily doesn't represent students To the Daily: Congratulations, the Daily re- ceived national attention yesterday on CNN with its proposal to reinstate the draft. I am embarassed for myself and my university. The Daily, the so-called voice of the students, has once again shown a lack of knowledge about the true eco- momic realities facing this nation and has shown itself to be a true genius in finding the most inefficient means of correcting true social problems. I shall be leaving this university very soon. Let it be known that the Daily has represented me very seldomly. Jason Weiss Graduating senior S Wh osechoice Coerced use of Norplant violates civil liberties LAST MONTH IN CALIFORNIA, when Judge Howard Broadman con- victed Darlene Johnson of child abuse, he offered her a plea bargain of either four years in prison or one year in prison with three years probation. During her probation she would be prohibited from having children. This would be ensured by surgically im- planting in her arm the new birth con- trol device called Norplant. Johnson, fearing four years in prison, chose Norplant. Johnson had pleaded guilty to beat- ing two of her four children with a belt and with an electrical cord. She is not a good mother. But her plea bargain is worse. Norplant is a prescription treatment; not every woman is a suitable candi- date for the implant. It is the business of a doctor, not a judge, to decide medical suitability. In fact, Johnson has high blood pressure, is a diabetic, and has a heart murmur. Norplant is a dan- gerous option for her. More importantly, any sentence that sacrifices bodily integrity is unethical and a violation of the criminal's civil liberties. America has chosen not to offer shoplifters the option of prison or broken fingers, and it does not offer drug dealers the option of the rack or the stockade. Here the state would be coercing the criminal to "choose" a cruel and unusual punishment. Johnson and her lawyer are appeal- ing their case with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. But most cases are rarely challenged be- cause the convicted person is grateful to avoid prison. Sterilization is a tempting solution for rape, child abuse, and poverty. Judge Broadman used it for Johnson, who is on welfare. And the lead edito- rial in the Dec. 12 Philadelphia In- quirer suggested Norplant as a solution for poverty-stricken inner-city Blacks. This editorial was rightly condemned as racist, and the Inquirer apoligized. However well-intended these sug- gestions are, they are simply not right. They evoke the specter of the eugenic movement that America experimented with in the 1910s, and Germany expe- rienced during the Third Reich. U.S. courts must unequivocally eliminate sentences involving sterilization. Up- holding this punishment would set a dangerous precedent for overzealous judges who think they can decide not only who is worthy of caring for chil- dren, but also who is worthy of bearing children. Johnson's crime is heinous and in- excusable. Child abuse offenders - men as well as women - should un- dergo psychological treatment, and their children should be placed in the care of the state. But Norplant, the first I armr th r .dnnnt retI nj-I., nr n 7 0 0 f i A STAKE 15 NDT 6o1wMW COUNTRY CALLED KMAILIAT SIW 15 THlE iND Of WORD WE UR d WILL INHABIT. DAM V5T Rp II O@ "