February 7, 2001
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW MR The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan
Volume 19, Number 11
February 7, 2001
Building the Battle
In This Issue:
2
Flip-flops, Marches and Resolutions BY D.C. LEE The March for Life is the largest pro-life event, march and rally in the country. This year, on the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, people from around the country, and including the University of Michigan, descended on Washington D.C. to demonstrate their support for a child’s right to life and their displeasure with the seven of nine judges, who in 1973, ruled that a woman’s right to choose is more important than this life. Included among the contingent from the U-M were Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) figurehead Chip Englander and Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) representative Matt Nolan.
However, not every student representing the U-M was necessarily there because he believed in that for which he was marching. At least that’s the conclusion that many students have drawn after witnessing the “squishy” behavior of Nolan the following day at the student government meeting. Every year, the Vagina Monologues draw a great deal of publicity, and more importantly, donations from the various students, faculty and residents in the area. Historically, as was true the preceding year, 100% of these donations have gone to SAFE House, a shelter for battered women. This year, however, the Women’s Issues Commission decided that 50% of these donations were to go to SAFE
Faith in Washington BY BRAD SPRECKER
A
T THE END of a cold, dark, eight year winter in which personal responsibility seemed to retreat to some inner sanctum, civility seemed to lay dormant, and American identity became a mélange of hyphenated subclassifications; at the end of a long string of scandal, lawsuit, innuendo, and a singular soiled dress, after years of investigation into investment fraud, wrongful use of FBI resources for political
Quikshot Number of recent occurences of “BAMN” in the Review
20
10
gain at the White House travel office, after illegal contributions from a Buddhist temple, after nuclear secrets were sold to the Chinese and their sudden elevation to “most favored nation” trade status, after storming a religious compound and the adoptive home of an innocent Cuban child with hightech weaponry, after a long, knock down, drag out, “count and recount” election, AT LONG LAST a fresh voice of vision and hope has come to Washington. Although it comes as no surprise that conservatives greet the new Bush era with much excitement and expectation, the entire nation has reason to embrace the new president with optimism. The reason: after having run on a platform as a “uniter, not a divider”, President Bush has devoted a good deal of his first two weeks in office
nt rre Cu 24 n. Ja
10 n. Ja
17 c. De 22 vt. No
See BUSH Page 3
www.michiganreview.com
.We explain why Adam Dancy peacefully protesting is different than some drunken liberal trying to pick a fight with thousands of conservatives. Plus, we finally hear from a concerned parent.
House, while the other 50% were to go to Planned Parenthood, a controversial abortion-rights clinic. M S A representative Doug Tietz found the r e s o l u t i o n questionable and thus proposed a resolution in which 100% of the donations would go to support SAFE House, as per tradition. “Many
See FLIP-FLOP Page 9
4
From Suite One
We ve always said the Left was wrong, but now here s why. And Bubba succeeds in crapping on the Presidency up until the last day.
MSA rep. Matt Nolan tells fellow rep. Jessica Cash about the March for Life.
ENCOUNTERS WITH THE LEFT The Attack of the Leftist Professors! BY BEN SMITH
W
Letters to the Editor
HEN I SIGNED up to take a survey-level Communication Studies class, I expected to learn all about the mass media—not an altogether crazy notion. I assumed that if I did my readings, kept one eye on the overhead and the other on the crossword, and took the exams that I should have an “easy A.” I should have known better. Having spent several years here in the “People’s Republic of Ann Arbor” apparently hadn’t taught me anything. About five minutes into the opening lecture, I realized that I had plunged myself into a twiceweekly, hour and a half session of left wing, quasi-socialist ranting from a professor who had only a slight interest in teaching me anything about the mass media. Rather, this professor had an insatiable desire to tell me, to make a long story short, that everything in
the history of time has been oppressive and just how this was so. (Ok, maybe not the ENTIRE history of time…we only went as far back as the Big Bang, which, incidentally, was a VERY oppressive event!) Now, I really don’t mind if you have a political affiliation that I don’t agree with….I’ll laugh at you for it, but it’s your right. What I do mind is when a professor teaches from one perspective and refuses to present both sides of an argument and let people form their own opinions. To sit back at my computer and write all of the asinine things about this class would (1) be entirely too much fun, and (2) exceed vastly the amount of space I am allotted for this article. With said reason being true, I am going to give a list of the top ten things that pissed me off about this class. (10) The video we watched
See ENCOUNTERS Page 3
5,8
Columns
6-7
A Special Tribute
Justin talks about what s wrong with Abercrombie and Fitch, and the Token Libertarian proves that while we all may have voted for Bush, not all of us love him so.
10
Features
We have your music right here! Plus, Kurt becomes an expert in his field.
11
El Señor Guípe
Who d have thought, pretty girls not returning El Señor Guípeemails? Plus, our personal ads just in time for Valentine s Day. Someone PLEASE call Dustin. And just because Jim is on an lifelong mission of vengeance doesn t make him a bad guy. And Matt s death ray? No joke.
First three copies free,additional copies 50 cents. Stealing is Illegal and a sin (Exodus 20:15)
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW SERPENT S TOOTH, LETTERS February 7, 2001
Page 2
SERPENT S TOOTH Supposedly a group of professors get together each week at the IM Building pool and play water polo. In the nude. Yes, the nude. What we want to know is, how do they know who's on what team? Hoods vs. Helmets? (Take a second with that one Eds)
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW The German government has just announced that in order to curb mad cow disease, they would be slaughtering 400,000 cattle, or as they called it, "relocating" the cattle.
Last week, the men's basketball team was once again thrashed by the Michigan State team, with an unusually large contingent of MSU fans. What are all those MSU people doing in Crisler? What do they think it is, an unemployment office?
A man attacked three women and five kids with a baseball bat and a machete in an elementary school in York, Pennsylvania last week. No fatalities were reported, but as usual, Democrats immediately called for more bat and machete control, with the new lobby group Baseball Bat Control, Inc. Senator Joe Lieberman then questioned whether the man was listening to Marilyn Manson or Eminem before the attack, and again called for the censorship of films that feature violent baseball bat attacks, like the Untouchables and Casino.
It was reported by the Internet Movie Database that actress Alyssa Milano enjoys gardening topless. Wow, just like in our dreams...
The new editorial staff at the Daily declaired that page 4 would take liberal stances because the Daily has traditionally been a liberal paper. But guys, isn’t taking
Let's get this straight, the new Bush administration will have an Arab as the Secretary of Energy and an Asian as Secretary of Labor? What's next, a gay man as Secretary of the Navy? (Our sincere apologies to the Navy.)
LETTERS
TO THE
Review has “double standard” As a Libertarian, I greatly enjoy reading your newspaper. I find it a refreshing alternative to the liberal trash that masquerades as news in other publications. I have never written in response to an article before, believing that writers have a right to have their opinions heard, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. However, I felt that I had to point out a rather blatant contradiction in your latest edition. In two articles, "The Shattering of a Dream" and "Marching for Hate," you lambasted (and rightly so) the BAMN members who attacked Mr. Dancy for standing up for what he believed in and protesting in the face of a crowd which did not share his views. On the same page, another article, "On the Steps of the Hill," detailed a road trip to the capitol. On page 3, the author of the article described the beating of a protester and described it as "the crowning moment of the entire ceremony." I don't understand how you can, in one case, denounce an attack on Mr. Dancy and then, in the next article, condone an attack on another person under similar circumstances. Both should be exposed for what they are; an attempt by those who do not like a particular message to censor that message through violence. I understand that these articles were written by different people. Even still, I would have hoped that you, as editors, would have had the good sense to recognize this double-standard and prevent it from tarnishing the what was otherwise a great
The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan “What is this, a f*cking battleship?
James Y. Yeh a stance simply because of tradition the definition of conservative?
Ms. Reed, you make a good point. If we are guilty of anything, however, it is poorly showing our feelings. We didn’t relish in the beating and arrest of that a-hole in D.C. because he was a liberal a-hole, we relished it because he was being a drunk dickhead that was admittedly trying to pick a fight with the people around him, and it was he that started the fight that lead to his expulsion from the viewing area, not the Republican crowd that was there. In the other hand, what was Mr. Dancy doing other than trying to get his views across peacefully? Whenever he was physically attacked, he turned the other cheek and never did hit back. Was Mr. Dancy drunk? No. Was he trying to pick a fight? No. Was he otherwise hostile in any way? No. We apologize for not making that more clear. Eds
We may not be right, but we’re needed I am a parent with a daughter currently attending the university. Often during my forays onto your campus I like to survey as many newspapers and unconventional perspectives as possible often just for some amusement and on occasion to enrich my intellectual capital. Your publication, although a bit mediocre in substance, nonetheless has value; and as a person of color I enjoy your perspective on race related topics. Alternative opinions and dissent have enormous value in the market place of
Matthew Franczak Publisher
Bush’s recent campaigjn to reach out to Democratic legislature has been dubbed the “hug-a-Democrat-a-day” initiative. Bush may want to be careful however lest Barney Frank get the wrong idea.
James Justin Wilson Assoc. Publisher, Managing Editor
D.C. Lee Managing Editor
R. Colin Painter
We sincerely hope that our fearless President Bolligner does not leave us for more ivy-encrusted grounds. After all, without him who avoid making decisions for us?
Senior Editor CAMPUS AFFAIRS ED: NAT’L AFFAIRS ED: ASSISTANT EDITOR: FEATURES EDITOR: SATIRE EDITOR: COPY EDITOR: ONLINE EDITOR: MUSIC EDITOR:
Ruben Duran Brad Sprecher Gina Fraternali Kurt Rademacher David Guipe Tyce DeBoer Branden Muhl John Pratt
STAFF WRITERS: Margaret Allen, Adam Dancy, Alexander Bokov, Ryan Serra, Ben Smith, Michael Veeser
EDITOR
issue. -Laura Reeds
Editor-in-Chief
ideas. Constructive disagreement has the capacity to augment one's personal demeanor and growth. I am troubled a little about your opinions on diversity and affirmative action which you mistakenly seem to defined as a racial preference. Since words have so much currency in the information age, this perspective on affirmative action and diversity naturally creates conflict; but that in my opinion is healthy and can be rewarding at the end of the day. My only reservation is that dogma from the right is equally as worthless as dogma from the left and the reader is left with circular dialogue without any redeeming function or value. Nonetheless, I do encourage spirited combat and issue-based analytical dialogue on serious life-altering issues. Absence of this type of exchange creates a void. The resultant effects of underdeveloped thinking is lethal to our societal growth and progress so please carry on and offer up more divergent views on the prevalent issues of the day. I look forward to another visit on campus because after completing my loving but obligatory gopher, parenting role for my daughter, my visit on campus will provide me yet another opportunity to read the Michigan Review and that is a good thing.... Thanks, -Greg Thrasher
EDITORS EMERITI:
Lee Bockhorn Benjamin Kepple
The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the U–M. Contributions to the Michigan Review are tax-deductible under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Review is not affiliated with any political party or university political group. Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the editorial board. Ergo, they are unequivocally correct and just. Signed articles, letters, and cartoons represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the Review. The Serpent’s Tooth shall represent the opinion of individual anonymous contributors to the Review, and should not necessarily be taken as representative of the Review’s editorial stance. The opinions presented in this publication are not necessarily those of the advertisers or of the University of Michigan. We welcome letters, articles, and comments about the journal. Hey liberals, you know that burning feeling you felt inside when you heard about PRESIDENT Bush’s money for faithbased organizations plan or when John Ashcroft was confirmed as Attorney General? Yeah, well get used to it. It’s only been two weeks, with at least 206 weeks left. Maybe, by the 104th week, it may eventually sink in that a REPUBLICAN IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE! Better sign up for those anger management courses soon, Ann Arbor only has so many of them. And if you want to prevent a second term, make sure you teach your voters how to vote first. Please address all advertising, subscription inquiries, and donations to Publisher c/o the Michigan Review. Editorial and Business Offices: The Michigan Review 911 N. University Avenue, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1265 letters@michiganreview.com http://www.michiganreview.com Tel. (734) 647-8438 • Fax (734) 936–2505 Copyright © 2000 The Michigan Review, Inc. All rights reserved. The Michigan Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.
Love us or hate us, write us. E-mail letters@michiganreview.com with subject, “Letter to the Editor” Or send mail to: The Michigan Review 911 N. University Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48109
February 7, 2001
ENCOUNTERS Continued from Page 1
in class that said the news media aren’t left leaning. Have these people read the Daily recently? (9) The day the Professor told us what a moron George W. Bush was because he didn’t know all of the state capitals. Excuse me, professor, that’s President George W. Bush to you! Ha! (8) The day we learned all about the grand social contributions of “Gangsta Rap.” Yeah…..no comment necessary. (7) The warm feeling I got in class….it felt just like my days with Mrs. Anderson in second grade! Oh yeah, lest I forget to mention that the reason it felt like this was because she spoke to us on a slightly lower level than that of my schoolhouse days at age seven. Silly undergraduates we were…clearly we must be talked down to, threatened with the confiscation of ringing cell phones, and ridiculed for asking certain questions. This must be what it takes to enlighten us to the wonderful ways of the left. (6)The time BAMN came in and took up 30 minutes of class time (class time that my student loans paid for) to force upon us their ludicrous ideology, and left to thunderous applause initiated by the professor. (5)The day we watched a scene from a movie and the professor stopped it after a humorous scene, only to explain the joke to us because she could tell that “the laughter was racially divided.” It’s nice to see we’re moving past this racial divide. Keep up the good work. (4)When we were graciously informed that the song “Cop Killer” should not be censored…..are there no societal norms of decency anymore? Should we just create products that advocate the murder of whoever we don’t like? Good idea. I’m coming out with a
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW CAMPUS/NATIONAL new single next month….”BAMN Killer.” (3)The lovely informational session we had on the history of the movie industry. It was all well and good until we learned how each era of Hollywood irrevocably oppressed the proletariats. Damn, they have us all figured out…..we must join forces with the movie industry to squash the rebellion. 2)The day our professor came to our discussion section. Ever-ready to listen to the opinions of others, the professor forced a ridiculous stance regarding an insignificant media event on the class, cutting off anyone who was disagreeing with or questioning the argument. (Which amounted to the entire class!) Way to foster the learning environment. These liberals….always open to new ideas. (1)The day we learned about how oppressive the internet is….the conclusive proof was found in a survey from 1995!! Apparently, only white males were dialing in via their Apple II’s back then. Clearly, this is still relevant. I am sure nothing has changed since then...that pesky “information revolution” must have been a figment of my imagination. (When asked about this, the professor assured us that these statistics – gathered in 199394 are still perfectly valid…no need to worry!) With all that being said, I did learn one or two things in the class. Best of all, I got an “A.” I only wish that perhaps ideas other than those that were spilling off the left side of the cliff might have been presented for our analysis. It seems only fair to allow people the right to form their own opinions based on both sides of an issue—especially in an educational atmosphere. I also wish that we could have been treated as though we were young adults at a prestigious university, rather than as delinquents in a high school classroom. Oh well, I guess it’s the price you pay when you go to a liberal university. MR
BUSH
Continued from Page 1 toward garnering support for policies that will both involve and assist all citizens. At the top of the President’s list of priorities is equitable government support for both secular and faith-based charities. Of course, the mere mention of public funds for religious groups will snap church/state police to rapt attention. In a Tuesday (01/27) speech to a Christian grade-school in Washington, President Bush, joined in attendance by a diverse Congressional entourage, including Sen.’s. Joseph Lieberman, Rick Santorum, Mark Souder, and Tony Hall, was quick to respond to his critics. “Government,” he said, “cannot fund and will not fund religious activities.” But, he said, by the same token, denying government dollars to “faith-based” charity programs is paramount to discrimination based upon religious conviction. In fact, it seems quite antithetical for Bush’s opponents to argue against public funds for religious charities. If the end goal of the separation of church and state was fairness to all citizens, regardless of creed, why should government preferentially send money to those charitable organizations whose creeds are secular? If the end goal of the separation of church and state was to strengthen a feeling of belonging to a community, why should those organizations that wish to bind broken communities be excluded from access to funds for that purpose? It is clear that the separation of church and state is intended to deter government from advancing the teachings of any one religious body. In this regard, the President’s plan is completely within the limits of the law. As Bush says, charitable government funds shall only be
AFFAIRS
Page 3
allocated for non-religious activities. And if any unscrupulous body decides to divert such funds toward a religious cause, private civil liberties groups will undoubtedly be there to check such abuses with necessary litigation. Quite outside the opposition addressed previously, many churches themselves are concerned that government money may come with government regulation. This is an important issue to consider, especially when it may dictate the way in which the charitable activities will be performed. If, as some churches will want to do, the charitable organization wishes to use its newfound resources as a means of conscription to the religious cause, state funding would certainly be out of line. For this reason, government funds should be distributed with very stringent criteria regarding their use. To avoid lawsuits from vigilant external parties, the charitable group will need to adopt strict accounting measures. Although this will undoubtedly saddle local churches with unwanted new responsibilities, additional resources will, at the same time, serve to alleviate the cost of staff needed to oversee compliance with federal guidelines. On a final note, constitutional scholars such as William Allen are quick to mention that the Founding Fathers forbade government “establishment of religion” not that the state might be protected from any church, but that the church might be protected from a powerful state. Even if the clause was intended to save the state from a threatening church, Bush’s plan to send public money to religious charity is no clear menace. On the contrary, the plan offers to help a compelling state interest: that of the health, home, and happiness of its citizens. MR
Serpent’s Special!
Subscribe To The Michigan Review! For a tax-deductible contribution of $35 or more, you’ll receive a year’s subscription to the Michigan Review, which includes 14 biweekly issues plus our annual summer new student issue. Your subscription will allow you to keep tabs on the radical left that infests Ann Arbor, and it will also updated you on the continued erosion of traditional academic standards and the politicization of the classroom. Reclaim the University of Michigan from the infiltration of the Left, subscribe to the Michigan Review!
Please send my subscription to: Name: Address:
Please make check or money order payable to: The Michigan Review 911 N. University Avenue, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1265
While Harvard expressed interest in making Lee “Mophead” Bollinger its next president, it has also expressed interest in having Bollinger perform in a somewhat lesser capacity.
Page 4
FROM SUITE ONE
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW EDITORIALS
February 7, 2001
Worse Than A Crime, A Blunder: Three Strategic Mistakes of Leftism
M
ODERN LEFTISTS ARE typically attacked on moral grounds— their lack of respect for civil liberties and the liberal/rationalist tradition of the Enlightenment. What hasn’t been done enough is to point out the flaws in leftism relative to a value that everybody (hopefully) shares, regardless of personal politics: practicality and common sense. 1. No Justice, No Peace The most obvious clash between leftism and practicality is victim politics. If a reasonable person wants something from another reasonable person, they negotiate; they bargain until they arrive at a win-win solution; a carrot. If a winwin solution is absolutely not possible, one
may have to make a demand leveraged by power; a stick. When one does make demands, the intelligent thing to do is exercise as little power as possible. Just the right amount of power to teach the other party some respect without foreclosing on the possibility that in the future they will ‘learn their lesson’ and seek out win-win interactions. Obviously, there are cases where there is no possibility for future cooperation at all— if you’re being mugged, forget about speaking softly and carrying a big stick, just draw whatever weapon you’ve got and use it as effectively as you can! If one lacks both a carrot and a stick, one cannot count on getting what one wants; it’s time to rethink strategy until a carrot or stick can be found. Like BAMN
Pardon Me! Clinton’s pardons abused power
J
ANUARY 20 TH , 2001 will be remembered simply as the date yet another President took office. It will part of the pictograph in history books where one notices Bush Sr. is only one space away from Bush Jr. But the scandal that took place on January 19th should never be forgotten. The eve of the Presidential Inauguration has been known to be subject to many controversial, occasionally humorous, 11 th -hour activities by lame-duck Presidents and their administrations. However, not since President Adams and the Midnight Judges has the power of the Oval Office been abused so thoroughly as it was last month. Bubba’s last act as The Most Powerful Man in the World was to pardon 176 convicted criminals, many of whom were connected to the Arkansas-based Rose Law Firm and the Clintler-family Whitewater scandal. Included in this “Great Break-Out”, according to the National Review, were Susan Rosenberg, a former Weather Underground Radical convicted of hauling explosives and weapons used for terrorist attacks in 1984, Mel Reynolds, convicted of bank fraud and pedophilia, and Marc Rich, who was on the lamb for buying oil illegally from Iran while that country held US citizens hostage, as well as racketeering and 51 counts of tax evasion. The list goes on… This is only one part of a great deal of vandalism committed by the departing administration. From writing “Bush Licker” on one wall of the White House to removing all the “W’s” on the keyboards of computers, Herr Clintler’s cronies made sure the incoming
administration was not welcome. The departing ex-President (now scumbag-atlarge) did not feel it was enough to rape the Constitution and leave it crumpled and whimpering in the corner; he must add insult to injury, and play pranks on the incoming administration; to the tune of $200,000. This obvious demonstration of indiscretion and ethical wrongdoing is almost expected from one of the most ethically corrupt administrations in the history of the country. The Clinton Administration should be held accountable for the wrongdoings that it committed. To allow obvious criminals and social deviants to walk free is a disgrace to the country and a mockery of the Constitution. While legal and Constitutional, the Presidential-issued, late-night pardons are an obvious parting shot by the losing side. To allow any justlyconvicted criminal to walk out of prison solely because they were owed a favor is not only corrupt, it is evil. The Presidential power of pardon was placed in the Constitution so that the President could have the power to check the Supreme Court, not so he could let his friends loose when he had nothing to lose. In collaboration with all of the other ethically impure actions the Clinton administration took, this one takes the cake. It is not enough that our nation’s leader has presented himself as a liar, thief and traitor; now he appears as a vandal and “way out” for convicted felons. Hopefully, the next four years will return honor and dignity to the highest office in the land. God knows the last eight have tarnished it.MR
and its parent organization, Revolutionary Worker’s League, leftist pressure groups ignore any opportunities for negotiations. They often don’t even issue a demand leveraged by power, whether real or imaginary. Instead, they proceed as if everyone who disagrees with them is like the above-mentioned mugger. They play their trump card right from the beginning, and unfortunately for them, this trump card turns out to just be a lot of noise and name-calling. Nevertheless, oil companies and logging companies are falling over themselves to show everybody how green they are. The Republican Party wraps itself in the mantle of ‘compassionate’ conservatism. The University of Michigan loses a lucrative contract with Nike because it won’t stand up to a small group of professional activists trespassing on University property. What’s more remarkable is that an organization such as BAMN, which couldn’t bring anything to the table if it tried— neither votes to a politician, nor significant investor or consumer dollars to a corporation, nor prestige or school spirit to a campus— doesn’t even realize its own outrageous fortune at being able to influence policy at all. They have the gall to make demands from a position of weakness, and don’t even bother to say ‘thank you’ when the ‘patriarchal’ ‘imperialist’ ‘corporate’ system decides to humor them. As if there’s some overarching morality inherent in the fabric of reality and having this morality on your side is all the reason anybody should ever need to do what you tell them. 2. Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem Like genes, things people believe are mix-n-match. Let’s call these belief-atoms ‘memes’. Like genes, some memes tend to cluster together— for example, by historic coincidence, feminism happens to have allied with Gay-rights and AfricanAmerican-rights while fiscal conservatism happens to have allied with religion. There are African-American conservatives. There are Libertarian Gay people. There are Christians opposed to capital punishment and U.S. imperialism abroad. If you wish to buy into a prepackaged ideology, that’s your prerogative, but don’t get fooled into thinking that’s the only option. Leftists don’t own a single one of ‘their’ causes. They can’t claim any inherent monopoly over opposition to, say, domestic violence or hate crimes. If you are being asked to accept two memes, unless the connection between them is self-evident to you, you have every right to demand a line of reasoning leading
from the memes you already have accepted to each of the new, probationary memes. If you are being asked to ally with somebody and doing so is not a direct imperative of your existing memes, you have every right to demand a practical/ strategic justification of why this alliance is beneficial. 3. Equality Leftism tacitly places a high priority on the equality of all people (or, in the case of environmentalist leftism, equality of all organisms) and critics rarely challenge this logic. Where did this equality meme come from, anyway? It’s not even false— it’s meaningless because it is an incomplete statement. Equality with respect to what? Let’s for argument’s sake suppose we’re talking about equality with respect to the Ultimate Good. This is a question of personal conviction, but there is a working approximation of the Ultimate Good that won’t be too far off from the consensus of most creeds— the survival of our species and ultimately its spread through the universe. With respect to this Ultimate Good, it’s self evident that every human being cannot possibly have equal value. That doesn’t mean that we should shun those we think have lesser value for a simple reason— we are extremely bad at appraising this value. The point of the tolerance meme as handed down by our Enlightenment liberal heritage is not that everyone and everything literally has equal value, but rather as a heuristic to keep us erring on the safe side. A person doesn’t have to make a detectable contribution to group survival; he can even be a passive ‘drain’ on the group’s resources because you never know. There is no need to act against him until it is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is not only failing to contribute but is actively and significantly harming individuals or society as a whole. This particular topic can be stalemated by challenging the working definition of Ultimate Good. That’s easier said than done because 1) species survival subsumes so many other codes of ethics and 2) one would have to come up with some nonreducible definition of Ultimate Good with respect to which all humans really would be equal. In summary, the equality mantra of leftism is illogical; insisting on linking all supposedly leftist causes is intellectually dishonest; and demanding that others conform to the demands of one’s own morality without either a reward or a credible threat is downright lousy strategy. MR By Alex Bokov
February 7, 2001
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW COLUMNS
DON T DO ANYTHING I WOULDN T DO
Page 5
A & F: Screwing Kids Since 1892
I
ALWAYS DREAMED of being an Abercrombie boy; actually I believe the preferred nomenclature is “Abercrombie Boi.” My great-greatgrandfather, James Wilson I, was an Abercrombie enthusiast, but not of the contemporary strain. He and Teddy Roosevelt actually went on a safari together a l m o s t completely outfitted by what was then the leading outfitter, Abercrombie James and Fitch. But Justin things have Wilson changed since the days of yore. I have always been, and probably always will be, your typical tee shirt and jeans kind of guy. But during my formative years, Abercrombie aficionados were “the sh*t.” They attracted women like a piece of road kill attracts flies, and just seemed to have life easier than me. Meanwhile, I was still wearing my tee shirt and jeans, chugging away – it seemed endless. In my old age, I’ve come to understand a little more about Abercrombie and Fitch, and what makes it the single most powerful marketing force among American youth. Its power stems from the strong tendency of teens, and even some of us, to put more value on material goods and appearance than more endearing personality characteristics – teens like eye candy. Along with that, clique formation and mob behavior are also dominant behaviors, and, of course, all of this requires a means of identification. Abercrombie’s marketers found the niche and have managed to fully capitalize on it. Now the real question is what this is doing to America’s youth. Before I go any further, I have two superfluous rants that I have to get off my chest: The first regards the nature of Abercrombie stores. I’ve ventured (or been dragged) into A & F a few times. From the very start I always felt a little out of my element. I was surrounded by sorority-chicks-to-be and jocks clad in their trademark of choice, A & F. I made it past the giant homoerotic poster in the front, only to find myself assaulted by a cacophony of obnoxiously loud techno music. Maybe it’s just me, but this is not exactly conducive to buying pants or a stupid shirt. After looking around and realizing that they were charging at least
double any reasonable price for most of their stuff, I usually wondered down to the GAP. I just can’t stand A & F stores, and it’s not like their catalogues are much better. The second rant is simple; I’ve had enough with these damn A & F “sports teams.” You know what I’m talking about: the A & F soccer teams and A & F hockey teams. What’s next, A & F League Bowling or A & F Lawn Darts? I mean, is the Men’s Warehouse going to start training an Olympic bobsled team? And where do these teams of theirs play? Grosse Pointe? Long Island? Is there an IM Sports league just for them that I don’t know about? Seriously, if you heed any of my advice, don’t buy this crap, it’s just stupid. All it says is that you weren’t good enough to make it onto a real team, so you just bought the shirt. Ok, on to the good stuff. This critique could easily take a left turn into oblivion, so I feel it necessary
“catalogs” and “shorts.” Maybe the SearsRoebuck catalog is their next target. A judge realized the frivolous nature of the lawsuit and dismissed it, but that doesn’t let A & F off the hook. They have, and continue to work to form a monopoly on the youth clothing market. Everyone already knows that American Eagle and the rest are SOL when it comes to popularity; they are the Pepsi of colas, the Beta-max of video tapes, the MSU of Big Ten universities. This kind of business practice, while effective, is disingenuous in that it stifles competition, drives up prices, and generally messes up the market. This is not to say that A & F’s clothing is sub standard quality-wise. This is not the case at all; they do provide a product. But don’t take my word for it, the proof is in the pudding. In 1998, A & F had 156 stores and posted record earnings of over $500 million. Meanwhile, American Eagle, with its 336 stores, barely
It’s no secret that A & F targets gay youth. Their stores, their website, their catalog, hell, even their shopping bags are covered in half naked men. to say that I believe that capitalism is the life blood of our economy. I also believe in the First Amendment and all its trapping. If A & F wants to sell anal beads (I don’t even know what they are, but they sound disgusting.) and dildos, that is their prerogative. Along with that, any and all marketing strategies that promote goods are, in my opinion, fair game. But these both fall on the supply-side of the equation. We, the demanders, also have a say in what is produced and how it is marketed. That being said, the critique begins. A & F’s problems began in 1997 with its introduction of A & F Quarterly, its pseudo-magazine/catalog. Earlier that year, A & F had already brought attention to American Eagle’s alleged copying practice, citing a particular pair of plain forest green shorts that were similar. Three months after A & F Quarterly debuted, American Eagle released American Quarterly, their own catalog. That was evidently the proverbial straw, because A & F proceeded to sue American Eagle for “intentional and systematic copying of Abercrombie’s brand, its images and business practices.” Evidently A & F though it had exclusive rights to
made $400 million. That’s half the profit, judging by the number of stores. What is the catalysis for A & F’s success? Marketing, but therein lies the balance of the problem. A & F’s marketing strategy revolves around sex, and lots of it. The problem stems from their targeted demographic, kids – not teens, not college students, kids. Following Phillip Morris’ lead, A & F realized that it needed to hook kids young and ride them as long as possible. Of course they like the older crowd as well, but that is not where the money is. Children of soccer moms and executive dads who “just can’t live without” those $80 cargo pants are A & F’s aim. Now, lets get back to that pudding I was talking about before. The 1999 Christmas A & F Quarterly, “Naughty or Nice,” included some “questionable material” (read: porn). More specifically, it featured an interview with porn-star Jenna Jameson and was smattered with a bunch of naked photos of men and women, or should I say boys and girls. Tell me this, if this is a catalog, what kind of clothing do naked people sell? More recently, the fall A & F Quarterly featured a photo spread of a male lap-dancer, well,
dancing. The material was so “questionable,” Attorney Generals in Michigan and Indiana contemplated citing A & F for violating public decency laws, citing laws requiring proof of age in order to sell their catalogues. Since then, A & F has required proof of age and shrink-wrapped the more recent issues. Balderdash, if a pimply faced fourteen year-old wants a catalog, he’s going to get one. Now, notice I said “he.” There is something to be said about the homosexual tendency of A & F. It’s no secret that A & F targets gay youth. Their stores, their website, their catalog, hell, even their shopping bags are covered in half naked men. Those half-naked photos are shot by Bruce Weber, a well-known erotic gay photographer. Lisa Lenior, of the Chicago Sun Times, explained that “Greek god-like images are a Weber trademark, where men become sexual objects with their chiseled physiques serving as hangers for boxers and cargo pants.” These kids are at a critical and confusing stage in their life, and the last thing they need is some two-bit corporate clothing manufacturer to exemplify an alternative lifestyle, and then taunt them with sultry gay imagery. Now, I’m not saying that being gay is wrong, or anything remotely like that – that is a whole other column. What I am saying is that A & F shouldn’t have any role in influencing these kids, especially when it comes to such a delicate issue. What it all boils down to is simple: sex sells. But so does a bunch of colorcoordinated people dancing to “They Call Me Mellow Yellow.” Which technique they choose is up to them, the suppliers – where we shop is up to us, the demanders. That is the point of all of this. Kids, they look up to us; they emulate us. Now, ask yourself, do you want your little brother or sister assimilating themselves into little A & F drones? You want a bunch of little sex charged kids, procreating like jackrabbits, running around all looking the same? And while it’s totally reprehensible for the government to censor or ban A & F into oblivion, you can do something. Take off that damn hat and moth ball the sweater. Go buy some original clothing, and for gods sake, stop wearing those f*cking A & F team shirts. I hate those – a lot. MR Thanks to the guys at the Cornell Review who inspired this column.
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW SPECIAL TRIBUTE
Page 6
February 7, 2001
REAGAN AT 90
BY R. COLIN PAINTER
O
VER TWO CENTURIES ago, our forefathers brought into being a Great Republic, her key devotions being the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That Great Republic remains today, having survived a tumultuous, yet prosperous history. As we bid farewell to the 20th century it does well to pay careful attention to one of those great men so rare in history. Like Alexander or Caesar, or perhaps more aptly, Washington or Lincoln, Ronald Wilson Reagan looms large in the annals of
heroes. Ronald Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois, on Feb. 6, 1911 to an unassuming family that was hardworking and devoted to the American dream. Reagan was very much his parents’ son, and he remembered their lessons and ethics throughout his life. After graduating from Eureka College, he began a career as a radio announcer, covering local sports interests. A business trip to California in 1937 resulted in a deal with Warner Bros. to play a radio announcer in the movie “Love is on the Air.” Reagan then went on to star in more than 50 movies, including “Knute Rockne—All American” and “King’s Row.” His role as George Gipp earned him the famous moniker, “the Gipper.” Reagan took a break from acting in 1942 and served in active duty for three years in the US Army, attaining the rank of Captain. In 1947 he was elected president of the Screen Actor’s Guild, and served that office for five one-year terms. In 1949 his marriage to Jane Wyman ended in divorce, and in 1952 he married Nancy Davis, with whom they had two children. During this time, Reagan, who had until then been a New Deal Democrat, began to mature in his political philosophies, and he slowly became a conservative Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater, the father of modern American conservatism. In 1962 he officially joined the GOP. Several Republican elders of California suggested that he continue with his political campaign and run for governor. Reagan beat incumbent Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr., by a margin of over one million votes, the largest plurality by which a sitting governor has lost an election throughout American history. Reagan served two four-year terms as governor of California, and then turned his focus to the presidency. During Ford’s and Carter’s presidencies, the nation’s military readiness, economic prosperity, and prestige quickly plummeted. The time was right for a new political order, a phenomenon later called the “Reagan Revolution.” Reagan handily beat George H.W. Bush for the GOP nomination in 1980, and brushed aside Carter’s impotent and ineffective campaign to win the general election by a landslide—he swept all but 6 states. All but the most outrageously liberal experts on domestic policy agreed Reagan’s ideas (called “Reaganomics” by the media) were the medicine necessary to heal the country’s wounds after Carter’s meddling. Reagan quickly and decisively slashed the federal budget by $39 billion, and followed by greasing the wheels of industry with a whopping 25% tax cut for the poor and middle class. Unemployment, which had hovered at 10% under Carter, plummeted to a mere 5.5% by the end of Reagan’s presidency in 1988. Inflation, which had also peaked under Carter at 13.5%, gradually fell to 4-6%—all of this without the Internet or the “New Economy.” Reagan’s White House further ravaged the bloated federal budget by deregulating inefficient and wasteful industries, including the airlines—Reagan further demonstrated his strength as a leader and revolutionary when a strike by the air traffic controller’s union threatened to bring the nation to a screeching halt. Reagan, as a former union president, reacted brilliantly— he fired every last one of the controllers and hired new ones, reaffirming his loyalty to the conservative philosophy of his mentor, Barry Goldwater. The people adored him. He gave them the strong leader for which they had been yearning. In 1984 he won by a huge landslide; he won every state but Minnesota (and Washington DC) and grabbed 525 electoral votes, the most in US history. More important than his domestic successes, however, were President Reagan’s skillful breakthroughs in foreign policy. He took a hard-line with the Soviets at first, due to an atrocity which occurred in the Far East. In 1983 a Soviet MIG shot down a civilian South Korean airliner, killing hundreds of men, women, and children. The world, and America specifically, reacted with indignation and outrage at the brutal massacre perpetrated by the “Evil Empire,” and this event helped shape foreign policy during the rest of Reagan’s years in office. Other tragedies during his Presidency also led him to decisive action on the behalf of peace and freedom. In 1983 a crazed Muslim extremist exploded a bomb in the barracks of a US Marine peacekeeping contingent in Beirut, Lebanon, murdering 241 Americans. Two years later, Libyan terrorists hijacked TWA 847, holding 39 passengers hostage for 17 days and murdering an American sailor on furlough who was on board. A few months later, Muslim terrorists hijacked the Italian ocean liner Achille Lauro, and murdered an elderly American passenger. Reagan responded with lethal force against American threats around the globe. As for the Soviet Union, Reagan’s brilliant mix of peaceful summits and steady military buildup caused an implosion of the Soviet military-industrial machine, and was the direct cause for the disintegration of the communist bloc and the subsequent establishment of democracy throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia, a sweet breath of freedom for hundreds of millions of people who had until then lived as slaves under the brutal regimes of repressive police states. Reagan is in the twilight of his years now, but he casts a long shadow over his successors—his strength in a decade of fear and uncertainty was a beacon in a cold world, inspiring those yearning for freedom around the globe, from East Berlin (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”) to Tiananmen Square in Beijing. He also changed the face of American politics—he took the new Goldwater conservatism and made it mainstream, refreshing the old and decrepit federal machine and giving new vibrancy to the nation’s government, setting the stage for the “New Economy” based on deregulation, the Internet and the free flow of information across the planet. He knew, unlike most Democrats, that the American people could be trusted, and indeed, HAD to be trusted to run their own affairs. This is a tribute to a brave American, and it is fitting to end with a quote from his Second Inaugural Address which accurately sums of his firmest of beliefs, his faith in the average American; “No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the ... moral courage of free men and women.”MR
“Governme
“My fellow legislation th
February 7, 2001
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW SPECIAL TRIBUTE
Page 7
“It’s Morning Again in America.” “With our eyes fixed on the future, but recognizing the realities of today. . . . we will achieve our destiny to “It is not my intention to do away with be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see.” government. It is rather to make it work — work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. This Administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy. “
“It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history.... [It is] the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” “Republicans believe every day is the fourth of July, Democrats believe every days is April 15th.”
“Did you hear that the communists now have a million dollar lottery for their people? The winners get a dollar for a million years.”
“The key to restoring the health of the economy lies in cutting taxes. At the same time, we need to get the waste out of federal spending.” “In closing, let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your president. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn “Sometimes when a cabinet meeting starts to ahead.” drag, I wonder what would happen is the jar on the table was filled with jalapeno jelly beans.”
“Government does not solve problems - it subsidizes them.”
“My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”
Page 8
SCIENTIA
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW COLUMNS
ET
February 7, 2001
VERITAS
So This is Compassionate Conservatism?
About three months ago, I did something I’m not proud of: I voted for George W. Bush. No, there was no poorly constructed ballot behind this fact; I fully intended to vote for our new president and if the election were held again I still would. In fact, I have defended Bush for president more than many conservatives I know, although this may be because I saw that some of his actions did not have so many clear merits. Even so, if the man who I barely supported for president and who has busily worked at eroding Matthew my confidence in Franczak him since entering office slips up any No, we didn’t screw up, that is his real column picture. further, I may be making a Baldwinesque threat to move to international waters. I voted for Bush and possibly will again in 2004 for one important reason: He is not Al Gore. Although I agree with the Naderites in the assessment that when they are compared on paper and from a reasonably distant ideological viewpoint Bush and Gore dissolve into a blob of centrist goo, poll-driven politics, and stupid catchphrases characteristic of Compassionate (but still) Conservatives and New (but not improved) Democrats, the style and tone each of these two would bring to office is starkly different. There was a reason Al Gore could never make his way clear of Bill Clinton’s shadow; Al Gore is Bill Clinton’s shadow. Clinton’s silhouette maintains self-righteousness, dishonesty, lack of respect for the law and Constitution, underhanded tactics, hypocrisy, of the original, but lacks the charisma, shameless opportunism, and unyielding commitment to do what is popular over what is right that was responsible for Bill Clinton’s success. Instead, the void was filled with a whining know-it-all attitude and nasal drone. Incapable of wheeling and dealing with the opposition and without any real ideas of his own, Gore would have introduced an age of gridlock where the economic stagnation that is starting to rear its head would plunge us into recession with no more action from the president than an exaggerated sigh. This made it quite easy for Bush to become the lesser of two evils, seeing as all he had to do was promise to restore a little dignity to the presidency and cut taxes to win me over. As far as the second goes, I can’t complain about Bush’s push to start chipping away at those tax rates ASAP. However, how Bush has decided
to accomplish the former is giving me some trouble. Instead of simply refraining from nailing interns, lying under oath, and accepting illegal campaign contributions, thereby gradually reestablishing the American people’s respect for the office of the presidency, Bush has decided to go for the quick fix and simply throw in a little God. During the campaign, Bush, billing himself as right-leaning but still willing to reach out to Democrats and compromise in order to get things done, which seemed like the right attitude for someone who had to work with a closely divided congress on many touchy issues. Instead, Bush appears to be catering to the religious right, pressing a controversial social agenda while trying to wed God and government in faithbased initiatives. In retrospect, it should have been apparent that Bush would try
establishing the sort of coalition that could make progress on education reform, tax cuts, and other items on the Bush agenda with a degree of bipartisan support. However, some of these appointees happened to be pro-choice, a fact which was not to the liking of the social conservatives who made it known that their continued backing was contingent upon Bush placing a little more emphasis on the second part of “compassionate conservatism.” Bush was presented with the fork in the road every president must face. He could either try to reach out to moderates across the aisle and risk losing the support of the extremes of his own party or appease the strong conservatives and hope he does not burn too many bridges in the process; Bush swerved to the right. Senator John Ashcroft was nominated for Attorney General.
This made it quite easy for Bush to become the lesser of two evils, seeing as all he had to do was promise to restore a little dignity to the presidency and cut taxes to win me over. dousing the Oval Office with divinity in an attempt to clean the various Clinton stains. After all, invoking God in the public realm is just the sort of innovative political tactic you would expect from a guy who has a dog named “Spot;” even the extremely “inventive” Gore campaign tried it in its emphasis of Joe Lieberman’s strong religious convictions. Of course there were warning signs. Back in the days of the Republican primary, pressure from the moderate McCain placed Bush in the arms of the religious right, a group that normally occupies itself with reading the Bible, trying to get prayer in schools, condemning homosexuals, and ruining the Republican convention. McCain, in his typical fashion, took the bull by the horns and said some less than diplomatic things about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, a factor which probably contributed to the fall of the McCain presidential bid by galvanizing the far right’s support for Bush. After the primaries, the religious right took backstage as the quadrennial rush of the presidential candidates to the center began in preparation for the general election. But as soon as it became apparent that Bush had won the election (or stolen it via an oligarchical coup if that explanation is more to your liking), it was time to pay the dues. Bush’s cabinet started off with an array of moderate Republicans and it looked like the administration was on its way to
Ashcroft, of course, is sufficiently qualified for the post, having served as a state attorney general, governor, and a member of the US Senate. The problem is that John Ashcroft is the sort of politician that puts the “religiously conservative” in “religiously conservative Southern Republican” and unlike many other high level positions, like the head of the EPA or Secretary of State, the Attorney General has the power to make some decisions on extremely partisan issues involved in the enforcement of our nation’s laws. Although the charges by critics that Ashcroft would not enforce laws he does not agree with will not likely hold true, the discretionary aspects of his post would likely be used for partisan plans, a fear shared by both Democrats and some moderate Republicans. The charge of racism some have leveled against Ashcroft seems to be more of a political gambit than a legitimate concern, as Ashcroft’s colleagues, including the lead Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, dismiss it. Thus Ashcroft seems, although not ideal, at least tolerable and I assumed he was just there to appease the social conservatives. But soon after Bush was inaugurated it became apparent that the diplomacy was over. One of Bush’s first actions was to ban funding international groups that provided abortions. Despite the fact that I agree that the government should not
be paying for a procedure many Americans, myself included, believe to be on some level murder, I was shocked at Bush’s timing. Not only did he chose to act at a moment when Democrats already were having fits about confirming Ashcroft, but he did it on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling. The pro-choice side was infuriated, the pro-life side was ecstatic, and battle lines were drawn. Not missing a beat, when asked, Bush supported a ban on the use of tissue from aborted fetuses for research, an action which would severely limit research on stem cells, the not fully differentiated cells from which other tissues develop, which show great promise for treating a wide variety of diseases affecting tissues that do not regenerate well within adults, particularly the nervous system. Banning such research is as backward as the 19th century laws that forced scientists to illegally dig up the freshly dead in order to study human anatomy. Finally, Bush’s latest initiative in what seems to be turning into a campaign to alienate anybody who is less socially conservative than your average Missouri Republican is the faith-based charity initiative. Like many others who believe that separation of church and state, although not the text of the 1st Amendment, is a very good idea, I am suspicious of the government, wary of organized religion, and absolutely frightened when the two are combined. The problem with Bush’s faithbased charity plan is that it seems to have no purpose other than channeling government funds into the coffers of religious organizations. Groups that are religiously aligned are already allowed to form charities capable of receiving government funds, for example The Salvation Army and Catholic Charities, but they must be fiscally independent 501(C)(3) non-profit organizations. This distinction is appropriate since religious organizations are exempted from civil rights regulations and it assures that the money does not end up going to the direct promotion of that particular faith. Bush’s plan, however, allows the funding to flow directly into the accounts of the religious organization, creating the very difficult task of assuring that the money is properly directed to the charitable operations rather than the religious ones. Furthermore, the mere fact that a charity is directly associated with a given religion is disadvantageous in the fact that people who follow a different faith probably would not be comfortable approaching that organization for help. This action is even more troubling when it is considered that it may be just part of an incremental move
See CONSERVATIVES Page 10
February 7, 2001
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW CAMPUS/NATIONAL AFFAIRS
Page 9
Bush Enjoys Honeymoon, Early Success BY CHRIS WHITE
T
HE HONEYMOON CAN be considered one of the most enjoyable times in an early marriage. In Washington, the same is true with an early presidency. Though President Bush was only elected by a slim majority, he has found success in his early days as president with the exception of Linda Chavez. All of his Cabinet designates have made it through the confirmation process. John Ashcroft made it through the round of attacks and was the last to be confirmed on February 1st. Bush has also gained support among several Hill Democrats, which is considered to be a key to success due to the razor-thin majority held by Republicans. Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, complimented the new leader by saying, “He is doing a good job,” and commended him for “reaching out so often.” The Texan’s compassionate conservatism was even able to sway Sen. Edward Kennedy, DMassachusetts, who explained, “I found him feisty, I found him engaged.” Missing “Ws” on keyboards, cut phone lines, and $200,000 worth of other damage to the white house could not dampen the new administration’s spirit. Though reminders of Clinton have surfaced in the form of pranks played by his staff, the immoral days of Bush’s predecessor have begun to erode. On his first truly active day in office, Bush told
FLIP-FLOP Continued from Page 1 students in this university find Planned Parenthood objectionable. Even to the point that they think Planned Parenthood commits murder . . . . SAFE House is a locally operated house for battered women that everyone can agree to support,” said Tietz. Yet, when put to the ultimate test, Tietz’s resolution failed to pass. And among those supporting the original resolution, in which some of the donations would go to support the abortion-rights Planned Parenthood, was Matt Nolan. “What’s amazing about Nolan’s metamorphoses from a pro-life zealot to a pro-abortion feminist was that it occurred within the short time of twentyfour hours,” said YAF representative Chip Englander, a U-M student who marched with Nolan just hours earlier in Washington D.C. Said Tietz of Nolan’s surprising vote, “This is a guy who earlier that day would have agreed that the number one killer of
his staff, “We must remember the high standards that come with high office…I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct.” Upon receiving the office of presidency, Bush wasted no time. Typical of when the White House changes hands, the new President blocked many of Clinton’s final acts that were not yet printed
increase standardized testing, and increased funding for early reading programs, and also included in the plan are controversial school vouchers, in which parents would receive federal funding to move their children out of failing schools. Bush has said he would like the legislation in place by summer so that school districts would have time to enact policies for the 2001-2002 academic year.
While President Bush was using his early days to create a coalition between parties in the divided House and Senate, his administration quietly passed some conservative measures. in the federal registrar. Some of these issues, including setting aside more federally protected land and new labor laws, had been heavily contested by Republicans. The primary focus of Bush’s first week was education reform. “We must confront the scandal of illiteracy in America ... We must address the low standing of American test scores amongst industrialized nations in math and science, the very subjects most likely to affect our future competitiveness,” stated the president. Central to the administration’s plan are initiatives that would give increased power to states and localities,
Another central issue is Bush’s ten year tax cut plan, in which over $1.6 trillion in taxes are to be eliminated. These cuts would reduce federal income tax rates for all tax brackets, eliminate the estate tax, and lower the marriage penalty. Though the plan has been widely opposed by Hill Democrats, it got a boost last week when Sen. Zell Miller, D-Georgia, spoke for the cuts. Also aiding the president’s effort is the slowing economy – a tax cut would put more money in people’s pockets and spur economic growth. Appearing on Fox News Sunday on January 28th, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi claimed that the package would “pass
women in America is abortion . . . and [within a few hours] he said that it’s ‘prowoman’ to kill women . . . whether or not that’s true is debatable, but that’s his belief. He believes abortion is murder. He believes it kills women.” Tietz and Englander have been asking the very questions that many students on campus have been asking: why did someone attend a pro-life rally in Washington D.C. one day, only to return to Ann Arbor and cast a vote supporting Planned Parenthood the next? Said Nolan in response to the accusations, “While some people might see my participation at the March for Life as contradictory to my vote at the MSA meeting, I obviously don’t . . . the March was wonderful, and I am 100% pro-life. At the same time, there are services (medical procedures, counseling, etc.) that women need that Planned Parenthood provides. Less than 10% of their services are abortion requests, and they suggest alternatives at any rate.” According to the March for Life’s webpage, “the MARCH FOR LIFE is the collective effort of grassroots pro-life
Americans to assure that our laws protect the right to life of each human being. An important step is adoption of a Mandatory HUMAN LIFE AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States. Such an amendment would require that individuals and society provide protection for the right to life of each human being in existence at fertilization.” On the same note, Priests for Life argued that the march was organized in order to give a “voice to the children.” Separately, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America would like to “ensure that women have the right to seek and obtain medically safe, legal abortions under dignified conditions and at reasonable cost,” and it goes on further to say that “abortion must always be a matter of personal choice.” Thus, Nolan’s vote comes to the forefront of the student assembly debate and election that is to come in the following weeks. It is likely at this point that Doug Tietz will be running atop the Michigan Party ticket, and similarly Matt Nolan will likely be running atop the Blue Party ticket. Chip Englander, who attended
easily” before July 4th of this year. While President Bush was using his early days to create a coalition between parties in the divided House and Senate, his administration quietly passed some conservative measures. On January 22nd, he reenacted the executive order banning the use of federal funds on international planning groups that offered abortion or abortion counseling. This sparked limited controversy, as Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, explained, “Certainly we can’t count on the White House now.” Another controversial step was to create, through an executive order, a new White House office that will be responsible for helping “faith based” groups obtain federal tax dollars. There is some worry in Washington that religious groups will compete with federal and other secular groups for federal funding. There is also concern that separation between church and state may be in jeopardy. Bush, amongst these concerns, calmly stated, “Real change starts street by street, heart by heart — one soul, one conscience at a time.” The plan is part of the administration’s goal to move responsibility from government to the private sector. Though Bush has found success in his early days, there is no doubt that he has many battles ahead. With the almost evenly divided House and Senate, Bush has to continue to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum as he carefully wades his way through Washington politics.MR the March for Life with Nolan, has been associated with Tietz in his bid for the presidency, while Nolan’s vice presidential nominee will in all likelihood be Jessica Cash, the current MSA Budget and Priorities Committee Chair and exrunning mate of Tietz’s back when the Wolverine Party existed. All this creates a huge mess, but that is nothing compared to the bad blood between the four. Currently, Tietz, Nolan and Cash all sit on the MSA, while Tietz, Cash and Englander are all active members of College Republicans (CRs). Tietz and Englander sit on the executive board of CRs (while Cash failed in her attempts to be VP), and Cash and Nolan own commission chairs on the MSA. All four consider themselves Republicans, but according to some, only two have proven to be consistent in their views. Along with Nolan, Cash also voted to give half of the donations to Planned Parenthood. Inevitably, this leaves the students with an interesting mix of characters from which they can choose their next student body president. MR
Page 11
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW FEATURES
Music News Public Will Have to Swallow More Vitamin C
Tool Announces New Album and Release Date
The same pop girl who unleashed the sentimental “Graduation Song” and motivational “Smile” is reaffirming her place in the world as a woman with her new album “More.” Definitely not a record for anyone whose body produces testosterone, Vitamin C’s new album has the letters “TRL” written all over it: songtitles like “As Long As You’re Loving Me” and a remake of the 80’s hit “I Know What Boys Want.”
The progressive-rock band, known for its strange clay-mation videos and hard surreal sound, has finished mastering its next album, entitled “Lateralus.” Although in December Tool released a CD and DVD set containing unreleased studio and live tracks, the band has not released any new material since their 1996 “Aenima.” The group plans to release the new album on April 21, 2001 and music videos and tour arrangements are in development. Part of the delay between albums might have been due to the fact that during the last two years the band’s frontman, Maynard James Keenan, known for his ethereal vocals, has been pursuing side projects such as the successful A Perfect Circle, which caught alternative rock enthusiasts’ attention this past year by becoming the first new band to debut at #1.
Pearl Jam To Sell “Bootlegs” of Tour Pearl Jam announced on its fan web site (tenclub.net) that it would shortly be releasing authorized “bootlegs” of the first leg of the band’s North American (Binaural) tour. The release will include twenty three double-disc live master recordings.
CONSERVATIVES Continued from Page 8 towards funding religion with government money. Pat Robertson, who seems to have had the Bush administration’s ear so far, has already complained that giving religions money but telling them not to preach is an unfeasible state of affairs and I doubt he believes the remedy to this is not to give government money to religious organizations at all. Of course none of this sat well with the ACLU, another powerful liberal interest group. After managing to anger the NAACP, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU, three of the most powerful liberal interest groups, within a couple weeks of entering office, the Bush administration has engaged in an intensive effort to win over congressional Democrats with a combination of charm and willingness to compromise on taxes and education. Bush has already offered to strike vouchers from his education plan, which makes it essentially the same as Al Gore’s. Furthermore, Bush has been silent about Social Security, the other big issue of the 2000 election. Hopefully the Bush administration will soon realize that sliding in on a razor thin margin in Florida does not give it a mandate to push a strongly conservative social agenda at the expense of the issues he campaigned on. The man who claims to read the Bible every day should remember that he was elected to represent the American people, not to represent his faith. Until then I will be shopping around for a seaworthy houseboat. MR
Ozzfest List of Performers Released The touring hard-rock concert festival recently announced the band lineup for its next summer tour. The list includes Black Sabbath, Marilyn Manson, Slipknot, Linking Park, Disturbed and
Papa Roach. Ozzy Osbourne, the man behind Ozzfest and touted rock legend, has announced on VH1 that he would be promoting a brand-new studio release for this next tour. The festival will have approximately 30 performances and will start on June 8 in Chicago. Grammy Nominees Posted On February 21, the Recording Academy will once again suck millions of mindless viewers into watching its overhyped and drawn-out 2000 Grammy awards show, for which it recently announced all of its nominees. For “Album of the Year,” contenders are Beck for Midnite Vultures, Eminem for Marshall Mathers LP, Radiohead for Kid A, Paul Simon for You’re the One and finally Steely Dan for Two Against One. For “Song of the Year” the competition includes U2 for “Beautiful Day,” Faith Hill for “Breathe,” Lee Ann Womack for “I Hope You Dance,” Macy Gray for “I Try” and Destiny’s Child for “Say My Name.” As with all awards shows, expect some celebrity to wear something or say something outrageous. MR
Who Needs a Degree? BY KURT RADEMACHER
I
NTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY classes at the University of Michigan require students to place themselves at the mercy of upperclassman and grad students playing doctor. I proved that watching TV makes men like large chests and small waists. I felt like asking for a diagnosis, but I’m a little anxious when it comes to pop psychology. Since graduating the school of One Intro Psych Class I’ve been diagnosing people in every direction because I’m more qualified to do so than, at the very least, a graduating high school senor. I’m a valuable commodity. The older gentlemen across from me, without even knowing it, is either obsessive or compulsive. Hell, maybe he’s both. Two more people are speaking only what I believe to be French – I’ll tag them with some Freudian infirmity– an obsession with computer smut – because Freud was big with the French. It’s connected to their childhood. I, of course, am the model of mental health – except for my bent opinion of beauty due to excessive television viewing.
I probably have an inferiority complex, or superiority one, or maybe a complex that’s relatively well adjusted. I’m suffering from writer’s block and a chronic lack of inspiration, although I don’t think that’s any kind of psychological diagnoses – at least not one they teach in introductory psych. Should I choose to take another psych class I might find it labeled as a mental illness there. There is a some kind of psychology interview occurring before me now – an interview of some sort or another – about past experiences and likes and dislikes. Maybe its just an interview of a member of the Backstreet Boys. They’re all completely crazy, although the gentlemen being interviewed before me seems oddly even-tempered. So even tempered that he’s probably crazy too. I think I would have labeled the psych teacher somehow mentally ill – but I can’t because he could have probably proved me wrong. I would have inevitably ended up labeled crazy because that’s the way its done in the psych business – or at least I’ve imagined it that way before. It’s like a street fight - with diagnoses replacing the roundhouse. Out of the eight people I can see from
February 7, 2001
RECENT ALBUM RELEASES Less Than Jake - "Greased" Vitamin C - "More" UPCOMING ALBUM RELEASES Week of February 6 Jeff Beck - “You Had It Coming” moe. - "dither" Week of February 13 John Frusciante - "To Record Only Water For Ten Days" Paul Oakenfold - “In Roots Of ” NOTABLE CONCERT DATES February 13 – Taproot Pontiac Theatre, Pontiac February 14 – Aretha Franklin Music Hall Center, Detroit February 15 – Carl Cox Motor, Detroit February 15 - Backstreet Boys /Destiny’s Child - Silverdome, Pontiac February 22 – Erykah Badu Fox Theatre, Detroit February 22 - Orgy Clutch Cargo, Pontiac February 23 – The Temptations Fox Theatre, Detroit February 24 – Buddy Guy Michigan Theatre, Ann Arbor here, three are talking on cell phones. This is a coffee house, and that’s more than are drinking coffee. I suspect nobody has any idea where they are – some sort of disassociative disorder. In the psychology business they call it being crazy – or at least that’s the way I imagine it. A forth person just pulled out a phone. Certainly some sort of oral fixation – too much thumb sucking as a child. Also, dreams about stairs and horseback riding. Nobody seems at all happy – although contentment doesn’t seem too rare: we’ll call it extremely mild depression. If the man walking past me were dreaming about himself walking past me I’d be insulted by the Freudian interpretation. He’s talking on a phone now – and I haven’t the slightest clue how Freud was interpret that in a dream. I’m sure it would nauseate me.MR
FACE-OFF February 7, 2001
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW FEATURES
STOP ME IF YOU VE HEARD THIS ONE
Page 11
The Good Señor Enjoys Long Walks in the Park...
S
O I WAS perusing through the “Weekend” insert in the Michigan Daily the other day when I happened upon an article by an attractive young lady. Naturally, I was very interested in what she had to say (read: I was bored and had nothing even remotely better to do), so I began to read her article. It turns out that this vivacious vixen, whom I’ll refer to as “Meredith Ann Keller,” author of the oh-so-cleverly El Señor titled column, Guípe “Keller Instincts,” was having a bit of a problem when it comes to the dating scene here in old Ann Arbor town, a problem that can only be solved by everyone’s favorite Casanova, El Señor Guípe! As I read Meredith’s heartfelt column, my own heart begin to fill with pain. Then I realized that I was in the midst of another heart attack. I knew they screwed up that quadruple bypass. Stupid Catholic hospitals. Anyway, I couldn’t help but begin to identify with this nineteen year
old native of Bloomfield Hills (God bless the University Directory) who, despite the “decent genetic hand” she had been dealt (read: she’s hot!), she never seems to find that special someone. Yes Meredith, I agree, the Saturday sleepover does start to get old after the first five hundred times. Realizing that I was the solution to all of Meredith’s problems in life, I decided to respond to her extended personal ad.
“Hey babe! You’re hot! Let’s get it on!” And so I sent an email to Ms. Keller using the address published in the Daily. Using all of the charm and personability that can be conveyed over email, I informed her of my feelings regarding her article, and how I’d “be honored if you would accompany me to dinner, a movie, or whatever it is that you love to do.” Now how could kind, sweet girl turn down an offer like that? Right now you’re probably thinking, “Señor, have you gone mad? When was the last time you successfully picked up a girl who looks like that?” Ah, but you don’t understand. This girl isn’t like all the others. The mere fact that she would use her column to attempt to get a date shows that she is far more laid back and
In honor of Valentines Day
The Review Introduces:
Personals for Really Bitter Desperate Guys Men Seeking Women
A fixer-upper SAM seeks any female. Must be able to deal with non-substance induced mood swings and prolonged periods of brooding, but with a good sense of humor who doesn’t drink or smoke. Turn-ons: conservative women with a sense of humor who like the simpler things in life, ladylike behavior a must. Turn-offs: smoking, liberals, women who have no regard for my feelings for them who later go on to date good friends of mine who don’t know the meaning of loyal - YOU BASTARD SON-OF-ABITCH, I’VE GOING TO KILL YOU IF IT’S THE LAST THING I DO! I TRUSTED YOU, YOU WERE
easy going than those stuck up sorority snobs who turn their noses up at people like you and me, right? And if I email her, offering to take her out in a suave and polite manner, she’s sure to respond positively, right? (You do know what’s coming next, don’t you?) WRONG! Not only did Meredith NOT go out with me, she refrained from even acknowledging my existence. There
SUPPOSED TO BE MY FRIEND!!! BUT NOW I HAVE MADE IT MY MISSION IN LIFE TO MAKE YOU SUFFER FOR WHAT YOU’VE DONE TO ME, AND ONE DAY, AS GOD AS MY WITNESS, I’VE GOING TO SKIN YOU ALIVE, THEN ROLL YOU AROUND IN ROAD SALT, THEN FINISH YOU OFF WITH A BLOWTORCH AND A CHAINSAW!!! SLEEP WITH ONE EYE OPEN, BECAUSE I WON’T REST UNTIL YOU DIE A PAINFUL DEATH!!! umm, feminists, and women who aren’t content with what God gave them. If interested, email yehj@umich.edu
I want a cuddle buddy, please...
wasn’t even a nice little rejection letter telling me how she couldn’t go out with me because of various deaths in her immediate and/or extended family. I even emailed her a second time, just in case she accidentally deleted my initial email without reading it (hey, it could happen), but once again, I received no response. Well, it wasn’t until after the rejection (or lack thereof ) that I realized my mistake. Apparently the idea that an attractive girl could actually be looking for substance in a guy is simply a fantasy. Instead of trying to be polite, intelligent, and an all around nice guy, I should’ve written an email that went something like this: “Hey babe! You’re hot! Let’s get it on!” I’m sure it would have elicited a SWM (read: on the rebound) seeks SF: Yeah, it’s been a while since I’ve been in the game, but I’m back on my feet now and looking for that special someone. She doesn’t have to be the “perfect” woman, because for one, no such woman exists, and secondly, I’m far from “perfect” myself. All I really want is that we can be perfect for each other . . . . Likes: someone who smiles a lot and who can brighten up my day when it’s going pretty shitty and I’m at the Review till 6 am on a Sunday night . . . someone who is soft and likes to curl up and be held while watching a movie . . . someone who likes being kissed on the forehead, cheeks and neck . . . .
prompt response. But on the brighter side of things, that article by Meredith did give me a brilliant idea. Using her column as a way of meeting members of the opposite sex was a stroke of genius. So, in the tradition of Ms. Keller, I’ve decided to do the same. Of course, considering I’m about to reach my word limit for the week, I’ll have to make my personal ad short and sweet: Local columnist seeks vixen. Are you looking for something more than just wild, tawdry sex? Or are you simply looking for wild, tawdry sex? Either way, El Señor Guípe is the man for you! Armed with his keller, er, killer wit, the good Señor will give you a night to remember. Interested? Send an email to dguipe@umich.edu. Well, there you have it. And just to show that there are no hard feelings against Meredith, I’ve decided to plug her offer here in the Review. In her column, she asked anyone interested in going out with her on a “blind date” to email her at makeller@umich.edu. Once again, that address is makeller@umich.edu. I encourage you all to take advantage of this wonderful opportunity. And when you email her, tell her Guípe sent you!MR
weather machine, or stolen nuclear weapon from a hidden base within a hollowed out volcano or at the bottom of the ocean your ideal romantic evening? If so, then I may just be the man for you. Email him at mfrancza@engin.umich.edu and maybe we can plot elaborate but easily escapable deaths for secret agents attempting to foil our diabolical schemes together.
Dislikes: Gore supporters, pre-meds and atheists . . . Interested ladies can reach me at leedc@umich.edu or (for those on the edge) call me blind at 668-1003.
I ll give you the world, OR DIE TRYING! Do you like intelligent and ambitious men? Is holding the world hostage using a death ray, mind control device,
Come on ladies, how can you say no to a face like this? PLEASE, oh pretty please call him at 668-1003 or email him at leedc@umich.edu.