Letters to the Editor

George W. Bush does not stand for women

To the Daily:

Most of this year, I have been referring to George W. Bush as "Slogan Boy," for obvious reasons. The new slogan his handlers have coined, unfortunately accepted at face value by Daily news writer Hanna LoPatin, reminds me of the Newspeak which George Orwell imagined in his book 1984 - "W stands for women" contains about as much truth as "war is peace." I suggest that women read the biography of "Dubya" written by Molly Ivins, Shrub, if they want to see how a woman political reporter in Texas evaluates both his life and his record in Texas for the past six years. He previously has approved the subordinate role for women advocated by some Christian fundamentalists.

I have no doubt that Republican women in Southfield gushed over Bush's mother. But the reference in LoPatin's article ("The final stretch," 10/19/00) to the crowd of 400 which attended the event brings to mind another topic. The Bush campaign has continued a practice which it began in the primaries, that of supplying a claque of Republican Party members to any event at which the candidate or his surrogates appear, in Michigan and in other states. Apparently, Slogan Boy is unwilling to face voters without such a claque.

So, if you want to know what 'W' really stands for, it stands for "Wimp."

Roger Wilner

Law school alumnus

Capitalism should be fixed, not abolished

To the Daily:

Nick Woomer's column was an exceptional and well-based critique of not only democracy but Capitalism itself ("Tangible visions of Red markets," 10/31/00). I tend to agree with this column in that capitalism can and does fail part of the population while allowing a small select group to become overwhelmingly wealthy. And I see that with Woomer's rhetoric and knowledge of socialism he is well prepared to propose a viable solution.

I would have preferred to hear Woomer's own version of these Red Markets. To have such a revolutionary idea or plan would need much more than Woomer's quotes of past and present thinkers and philosophers. Quoting Plato and revealing only a "very rough" approximation of how this system would work is exactly the reason it won't work. I'm not saying what system we have now is working, it's obvious that its not.

"Naturally, there is more to Roemer's proposal than this - it would require complex regulatory mechanisms and a combination of other devices ..." This is the very reason we're failing as a society to provide for the entire populous. Any student reading this would agree especially those in the social sciences. There are thousands of regulatory programs and countless acronyms given to half-baked programs that rarely work. Each and every day we go to school and learn, study and formulate these ideas; there are lawmakers and legislators in Washington devising more and more laws. laws that make no sense, laws that hurt rather than help, laws that extend the gaps of society.

My point: The people at the bottom of our socio-economic ladder are there because we're not working hard enough to do something about it, not just because of some almighty infrastructure that has no face. Also, it's easy for a person to critique the very system that is providing him/her with prosperity. My suggestion is that we ask whether we truly have a free form capitalistic society. Perhaps the founders and pioneers of capitalism were unable to foresee the problems we would face. Let us change what we have before we try something new, especially when it sounds a lot like what is implemented today.

Who knows, maybe if we let things run a little smoother, got down to "brass tacs," used some of that infamous American Ingenuity and a little common sense we might make it as a whole. Quite possibly it could look a lot like the system Woomer has proposed.

Paul Howard

University of michigan - dearborn faculty

Abortion is more than a moral issue

To the Daily:

I was dismayed to find in this week's letters to the editor yet another castigation of female selfishness in regard to her choice to have an abortion, which the Nate Lee believes is not only immoral, but should be illegal ("A fetus could be a human being," 10/30/00). As far as I can tell, selfishness in this country is not illegal (or else many a software designer would be imprisoned) - that is, until it comes to matters of sexuality and childbirth, which our state system seems ever so eager to regulate.

Lee's sweeping accusation of selfishness must also apply to fears of death, certain diseases that result from difficult deliveries, organ damage and other complications of childbirth for which one cannot account by simply recommending adoption. I'm not sure those concerns fit into my standard definition of selfishness.

Further, can you legally mandate that someone risk her life or health for another (potential) human being? In this timely debate (read your history - abortion has primarily become a "crisis" since the technocratic reign of the masculinized practice of medicine), the issue of male parental obligation gets conveniently pushed to the margins.

First of all, the decision to have an abortion is not solely the woman's, who often considers her partner's desires or who considers the stigma (still) and financial burden of pregnancy without a willing parental partner. And though Lee does not consider this initial role of the paternal father, he should be given credit for his assessment that a man should be made responsible for his part in conception.

But, alas, it seems that until that time comes, we should definitely enforce the visible obligation of pregnant women. With all the advancements in science and technology, it would seem relatively simple to discover the male partner in procreation. But the fact of the matter is that our male-dominated society does not want to enforce male parental obligation at any time - the laughable prosecution of deadbeat dads is evidence of this pattern, and there is no debate as to whether or not those children are human.

The issue of abortion is absolutely a moral one. But once morality is legally regulated, certain standards must be upheld (though often are not). A law is discriminatory that prosecutes only one group for a "crime" committed by the entire group or that requires only one parent to sacrifice her life, health and/or citizenship for the "mistake" of conception. Instead of focusing exclusively on individual women, abortion debates should consider the accountability of men, if not the entire state system.

Katrina Mann

Rackham

Students need to vote on Nov. 7th

To the Daily:

Why is it so important for students to vote Nov. 7th? One: You have the resources to do it. Everywhere you turn there is a table, a flyer, a Website or an e-mail about how to vote.

Two: You determine the next generation's future by deciding how you stand on the issues in this election. It's not about social security or tax cuts right now, it's about a life you want for yourself and family members. Think about what is meaningful to you and what you think might be important for your existing and future family. Young people are volunteering for community service activities more than ever now but they continue to ignore the issues they care about the most at the voting booth. Candidates pay little attention to young Americans because they don't vote, and young Americans don't vote because candidates ignore them. Stop the cycle. Three: Vote with children in mind. This election is about you and generations to come. It's about your future and the ones you may bring into the world later. Use your privilege of having available resources and vote Nov. 7th.

Julia Stransky

School of social work