vol_24_no_6

The Michigan Review the michigan review

Page

The Campus Affairs Journal at the University of Michigan

Volume XXIV, Number 6

December 6, 2005

MR December 6, 2005

DPS: What have you done for me lately?

Cover Story.......................Page 3 Ludacris Losses................Page 5 Ailing Auto Industry.......Page 11 Editorials..........................Page 4 Columns...........................Page 6 Lassiter Interview...........Page 12

www.michiganreview.com

the michigan review

Page 2

■ The Serpent’s Tooth

A

Serpent’s Tooth

way message of the week: “Ford Field looks like my fraternity house after a party: It reeks of booze and vomit, and everybody’s pissed because we didn’t score.”

lion reward to the next person who kidnaps a young, white female. Fox News Anchor Greta Van Sustren has indicated she will take matters into her own hands if needed.

The Montreal Gazette reports that Andre Boisclair, a gay Quebec politician, recently saw his approval rating among voters jump 11 points after he admitted using cocaine while serving in the provincial parliament. In other news, George W. Bush has hastily scheduled visits to Colombia and San Francisco next week.

Last month’s election results yielded victories by 18-year-olds in Michigan and Iowa, an inmate in a California jail elected to a school board, and Kwame Kilpatrick.

Democracy quickly surrendered. France did too.

Blockbuster posted a $491 million loss in 2005. Executives were rumored to be considering dropping the policy by which customers don’t have to return the shit they borrow to the store.

The Michigan Daily reported the MSA President Jesse Levine was disappointed that Ludacris failed to talk about social justice after his concert. According to inside sources, Ludacris told Levine to F*ck off unless Levine could find him a 734 hoe.

The Stranger, a Seattle newspaper, revealed that Tulane University students, relocated in Washington, are spending their FEMA money on pot, bongs, and beer.

Traditional fiscally conservative Libertarians nationwide have ironically supported this FEMA program, and called for its expansion.

Following the safe returns of a missing 17-year-old exchange student from Oregon and a 14-year-old Pennsylvania girl last month, furious news organizations around the nation have offered a $10 mil-

■

Asked for her sentiments regarding the recent Ludacris concert, one LSA Senior told the Michigan Daily, “You would usually think that Ludacris would be in Detroit or something. It showed the diversity of the student government.” University administrators proptly awarded the student a full scholarship for the most awkward use of the word “diversity” in a sentence that makes no sense whatsoever.

The fact that the Ludacris concert lost $20,000 was an “unqualified success” according to MSA President Jesse Levine.

In other news, Levine announced he has been hired as the new CEO of Enron, stating that the corporation made him a slightly better offer than Worldcom.

Dave Marshall, Deputy Minister of Canada’s Department of Public Works, has issued a ban on the hiring of Caucasians for five months – a legal policy under Canda’s “Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” which permits discrimination to promote “disadvantaged” groups. In other news, the University of Michigan is currently studying the feasability of moving its entire campus to Toronto.

ir: In (A Discourse on Intelligent Design, 10/25), you fundamentally misunderstand the criticism of both (1) the push for acceptance within the scientific community, and (2) the push to have it taught in school.

What I see as the main criticism of (1), is that the fundamental hypothesis is a departure from a core scientific principle, to seek a naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena.

It is unequivocal that the ID hypothesis posits a SUPER-naturalistic explanation. This is not to say that a fundamental implicit hypothesis of any ‘scientific’ study is atheism, but wherever one departs from the search for a naturalistic explanation of observed phenomena -- one departs from scientific inquiry.

But there are certainly more ways of knowing than the scientific method.

As for (2), there are two reasons to exclude an agnostic approach in a classroom.

First, not only do we, in education, seek to understand the world better (which would mitigate for allowing controversy and creative interpretations of data), but we also seek to disseminate knowledge discovered by professional academic researchers to the public. When you say that to disallow ID from high school classrooms is to “censor the public discourse for ‘acceptable’ ideas to be taught,” you VASTLY undersell the ac-

The Michigan Review

The Campus Affairs Journal of Jewish groups demanded an apology the University of Michigan from Michael Jackson last month after he allegedly referred to Jews as “leeches” on an answering machine message.

Michael, sleeping with little boys is one thing, but when you start making fun of the Jews…

A member of Canada’s Parliament wants to introduce legislation to prevent rapper 50 Cent from touring north of the border.

Mr. Cent and his entourage responded by outgunning the entire Canadian military and occupying part of Ontario.

A Canadian hockey coach has been fined

by Ontario Hockey Association for making his players ride stationary bikes naked while being paddled on the ass by hockey sticks. Lloyd Carr called the strategy “tremendous,” and plans to implement it as soon as he finds a substitute for hockey sticks and a solution to avoid seeing Garrett Rivas’s ass.

Russian news outlets recently reported that a male lion set a record by engaging in sexual intercourse 86 times in 24 hours.

Alpha Epsilon Phi vowed to regain their title.

In response to student group allegations that numerous hate crimes on campus go unreported, University Vice President for Student Affairs E. Royster Harper has announced the University will launch a website and hotline designed to facilitate the reporting of these crimes. Some of the early responses include “I saw a black guy eating a cracker” and “My Cheeto looked like a swastika.”

Letter to the Editor

S

December 6, 2005

ceptance of the paradigm of natural selection among all but a tiny minority. It is a fact that the proportion of the world’s scientists who take the ID hypothesis as a plausible critique of evolutionary biology is arbitrarily small.

Your misunderstanding can probably be traced to your assertion that “how someone interprets scientific data is a choice.” Indeed that is a choice for a professional data interpreter but it is a choice which must CONVINCE HER FELLOW SCIENTISTS. Students should NOT be denied an interpretation of data that has been crafted, critiqued, and refined by hundreds of thousands of scientists. The high school science classroom is simply not the place for ID until that idea has sewn substantial and genuine debate among professional scientists.

The second reason that goes back to the critique of (1) is since ID is not science, it does belong in the science classroom. If it belonged in high school at all, it might belong in a social studies, religious studies, or science-in-society class.

James David Dickson Editor in Chief Paul Teske Publisher Sekou Benson Managing Editor Nick Cheolas Content Editor Michael O’Brien Campus Affairs Editor Assistant Editors:

Chris Stieber, Tomiyo Turner Staff: Brian Biglin, Karen Boore, Rebecca Christy, Tom Church, Jane Coaston, Stephen Crabtree, Jay Dickinson, Blake Emerson, Aaron Kaplan, Kole Kurti, Jeremy Linden, Frank Manley, Brian McNally, David Millikan, Amanda Nichols, Adam Paul, Danielle Putnam, Yevgeny Shrago Editor Emeritus: Michael J. Phillips The Michigan Review is the independent, studentrun journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the University. Contributions to The Michigan Review are tax-deductible under section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code. The Michigan Review is not affiliated with any political party or any 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 expressed in this publication do not necessarily those of the advertisers, or of the University of Michigan. We welcome letters, articles, and comments about the journal.

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 mrev @ umich.edu www.michiganreview.com Copyright © 2005, The Michigan Review, Inc. All rights reserved. The Michigan Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.

Respectfully Yours, Michael Aylward Doctoral pre-Candidate in Economics Reader in Complex Systems

mrev@umich.edu

Page 3

the michigan review Campus Affairs

December 6, 2005

Popped-Collar Crime Where do DPS’s priorities lie?

By Adam Paul, ‘08

T

his semester has seen a number of high profile crimes on and around campus. Incidents have ranged from a non-fatal shooting at an offcampus party, to a female student being stabbed while walking home to her apartment, and a string of thefts in residence halls and in study areas such as the Undergraduate and Graduate Libraries.

Most of these thefts were larceny, which DPS defines as “the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away with property from the possession, or constructive possession, of another person.” At the same time students have been complaining that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Ann Arbor Police Department (AAPD) have been stepping up campaigns against underage drinking and loud parties. Given the tensions between students and local authorities it is often difficult to sort out the real activities of law enforcement.

The relationship between DPS and students is further complicated by continuing confusion over what exactly power they have. DPS spokesperson, Diane Brown, explained that DPS is “fully sworn, public police department with jurisdiction over campus property and all property leased by the University.” Because the University is highly integrated with the city, the issue of jurisdiction becomes very important. Main thoroughfares such as State Street switch from University to city and back again several times. Brown explained that it is often “hard to know when one foot is on city property and another is on campus.”

This makes it very difficult for students to even know who has power over them.

If the city of Ann Arbor and the University had the same laws jurisdiction would be less important. However, the diverging ordinances between DPS and the AAPD complicate this issue. A prime example is Ann Arbor’s liberalization of drug policy. The city effectively decriminalized marijuana just over 30 years ago, giving small fines rather than prison sentences, and took a step further with the passage of proposal C last year that legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes.

As Brown explained, the University is unable to follow such ordinances because its charter originates from the state and must follow state law, except in situations where the University has passed its own ordinance with the approval of the Board of Regents.

Data from DPS and the AAPD both indicate an increase in crime but provide divergent results concerning police control over partying. DPS publishes material annually about crime on campus in its Annual Security Report. The report gives data from 2002 through 2004. The report indicates a reduction in the number of burglaries reported to DPS over this period: from 150 in 2002 to 67 in 2003, dropping again to 25 in 2004. The data for this year is not yet available. A slight reduction in the reported number of total thefts and larcenies also occurred over this time period: from 1,387 in 2002 to 1,244 in 2003, to 952 in 2004. The most interesting aspect of these statistics, however, is that they give no indication as to how many of these crime reports actually resulted in arrests. Oddly the only crime that DPS provides arrest information on is liquor, drug, and weapons violations. In these types of crimes DPS provides the actual number of citations (possibly because no one reports liquor violations, they are initiated by officers).

At the same time that DPS was reporting the occurrence of less crime on campus it also showed a spike in liquor law arrests on campus in the last year. There was a rise from the steady 485 liquor law arrests (2002) and 465 (2003) to 547 arrests in (2004).

At the same time the AAPD, whose statistics take into account the entire city, posted more recent data that compares 2005 through the end of October with the same time period in 2004.

The AAPD reported only a slight increase in larcenies, .8%, which is the type of crime that Brown said was most common in reports to DPS. More disturbing the AAPD reported a 35.3% increase in forcible rape and an 8.6% increase in assault. The data from DPS reports very little violent crime. Also the AAPD actually reported a decrease in liquor violations over this period of 19.7% from 793 to 637. This is important because a vast majority of the liquor violations in 2004 (537) occurred on campus. By comparing available data sets it seems clear that most violent crime occurred off-campus but most liquor violations are given out on campus property.

The concentration of liquor violations on campus seems out of place with DPS’ financial incentives. In the case of the city, they are able to keep a large portion of the money that they take in from any number of ordinance violations. The University must split its

revenues between the state, the city and itself. It would seem that even though the city has more money to earn from giving simple citations it has chosen to put its resources toward different purposes.

These reports also justify the perception that crime has spiked on and near campus this semester. Brown affirmed that there has been a “rash of laptop thefts” but that DPS believed they all “could have been prevented.” In response to these thefts DPS increased its patrols during busy study hours at the libraries. A 23 year-old suspect was arrested and has been charged with larceny in a building and receiving and concealing stolen property - both felonies. While only one suspect has been arrested it is believed that this individual may be responsible for a majority of the laptop thefts this fall. Brown expressed concern that students often create “crime of opportunity,” by leaving valuables unattended, opening themselves up to theft.

To aid in student-led crime prevention and to meet legal required public information requirements, DPS also generates its annual Campus Safety Handbook on its website. This 37-page document, which provides some helpful information, was once legally required to be distributed to all faculty, staff, current and prospective students is now provided only online and in limited print form.

The handbook spends a large amount of time explaining certain offenses such as “obscene phone calls” but gives scant advice on how to respond. If a student should receive a suspicious phone call they are encouraged to “Hang up or blow a whistle loudly into the phone.” The most disturbing part of the handbook is the section entitled “Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness” which actually gives little attention to prevention. The page begins with “Recommended Actions Following an Assault.” Rather than focusing on prevention there is instead a focus on coping. This list then proceeds to recommend that students call Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center (SAPAC) before calling DPS or the AAPD. The report does provide some great advice such as that, “In attempted sexual assaults, approximately 50% of the women escape if they yell, and up to 85% escape if they physically resist quickly and vigorously.” Oddly, though, this vital information is buried near the bottom of the page. The report accepts the continued occurrence of sexual assault favoring a policy of trauma mitigation rather

than true prevention. While DPS does do some direct information offerings such as a new video shown to parents and students at all this summer’s orientation sessions, it is yet unclear if these attempts will affect crime on campus.

Despite the several instances of violence, the primary crime perpetrated against students in Ann Arbor remains theft, especially larceny. This small amount of violent crimes has occurred almost exclusively off campus and is under the jurisdiction of the AAPD; however, the “rash” of larcenies has been mostly on campus. DPS can play a vital role in helping to prevent such crime given a well-conceived allocation of resources.

At the same time students must remember that if they leave their belongings unattended at the library their items may be gone when they return. Even asking a stranger to guard one’s things may prove ineffective because, while wellmeaning, strangers probably don’t have your items as their highest priority. DPS can better serve the campus community by finding more effective and interactive ways to distribute information to students and by stepping up patrols in study areas.

Students can better serve themselves by remembering that most of campus is public space, where valuable items should not be left for the taking. MR

Page 4 The Michigan

the michigan review

Review

Editorial

The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. 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.

You can contact the Editorial Board at: mrev@umich.edu

■ From Suite One:

Our Old Economy

W

HICH CAME FIRST, the chicken or the egg?

Michigan’s economy is dying if not dead. Dependant as it is on unionized, highly-paid, low-skilled work that was a better fit in another era, Michigan has failed to attract businesses or encourage entrepreneurship in the state. Brain drain, a process whereby many of the most creative, intelligent, and highly-skilled college graduates leave the state of Michigan for better temperatures and better jobs, has robbed Michigan of its so-called “creative class.”

The creative class, a term coined by public policy expert Richard Florida, is the engine which will drive economic growth in our new economy. Technology and skill-based jobs requiring high levels of education and specialization will compose a greater share of the nation’s economy. Michigan has ignored this fact at its own peril, and now boasts the nation’s largest jobless rates. While places like Chicago, Silicon Valley, or Los Angeles are adept at attracting creative, skilled college graduates, Michigan suffers a brain drain problem. The winners and losers of the brain drain battle are the haves and the have-nots in the new economy.

This is Michigan’s “chicken-egg” dilemma: does the creative class leave Michigan because of the lack of diverse job opportunities and new industries in the state? Or does Michigan fail to attract fresh business or create a business and entrepreneurship-friendly climate because its creative class is in diaspora all around the country?

Michiganders are more likely to debate with one another as to the value and the proper role of unions in preventing jobs cuts, or opine about vague ideas like “corporate responsibility” than to realize and act on the obvious: the industrial, automobile economy is a relic of the past. Rather than begrudging either low-wage workers abroad who have “stolen” “our” jobs, or corporations which make the rational decision to relocate to cheaper areas, we need to plan for the future.

This is not a short-term process and the transition period will be difficult.

For decades, the automobile industry was the bedrock of Southeast Michigan’s economy. Upper-class high school graduates would attend college and lower-class students would fall back on low-skill, high-paying factory jobs requiring only a high school education, if that. While these jobs provided a standard-of-living otherwise unthinkable to a hard-working but largely uneducated workforce, the unions protecting worker rights were almost too good. Healthcare for every worker and his family. High hourly wages.

Automakers’ hands were tied in conceding to union demands, fearing not only the direct impact of a strike, but the indirect effect of the company’s public perception in allowing a strike in a state highly sympathetic to union workers. Now, though, the cost of entitlements is too high to bear for automakers simply trying to stay afloat.

And we haven’t even mentioned globalization. Ten years ago the question was whether automotive jobs would remain in Michigan or relocate to other states; now, departing jobs may exit the hemisphere. There are simply too many people around the world who can make automobiles, and these people won’t demand healthcare, exorbitant hourly wages relative education level or value-added, or overtime. Unions, in their heyday, eked out a sweethearts deal for their employees and created Michigan’s once-thriving middle-class. They wielded power unimaginable today. But that era has passed. Industrialization is on the decline as service industries compose a greater share of the economy. The creative class, not the unionized middle class, will drive the new economy.

Michigan must become the type of state where one could find a good job in public relations; in law; in politics; in advertising, in service-based and skill-demanding jobs. There are simply not enough job opportunities or types of firms in the state to attract investment, nor is there a business-friendly climate which would induce Michiganders themselves to start up new firms or take risks. Only when our cities have jobs that can support the creative class will the Michigan economy live up to its potential.

MR

December 6, 2005

A Modest Monologue Proposal

W

E HERE AT THE Review have a modest proposal. The directors of the Vagina Monologues have stumbled onto something revolutionary. This year’s production of the Vagina Monologues is set to be an all-minority cast, in order to prevent the stereotype that only minority women are abused or that their vaginas are the only ones to be targeted by GHB wielding frat boys. Our diverse staff at the Review salute the organizers of the Vagina Monologues for their stand in favor of diversity and diversification of the diversified diverse cast that will produce this year’s diverse production. In fact, we think this practice should be extended to other public spheres that raise questions about racial stereotypes.

For far too long, the hip hop industry has spoken for only a small portion of the lower-classed-and-repressed-by-cops demographic. While we here at the Review share in the emotions expressed in “F*** the Police” and “Cop Killer,” we also recognize that this is a very Afro-centric world view, focusing only on the trials and tribulations of African-Americans. It is now time to bring forward others to express their emotions. We propose that BET, Def Jam Records, Death Row Records, and all other leaders in the hip-hop industry cut ties with the black artist for a few years, and focus solely on the plight of Asian-Americans.

Sure, it might be viewed as prejudiced to say “Asian-Americans only,” but we would prefer to look at it as an emphasis on an underrepresented voice. Too often do we shove Asian Americans to the support roles and background of hip-hop. An Asian-American-owned body shop modifies the Escalade that is used in the music videos, but when was the last time an Asian-American was featured in a performing artist role? In fact, the last known Asian-American in all of pop music was James Iha, guitarist of Smashing Pumpkins.

How can students be expected to know that violence against women of color is not acceptable when only 40% of the Vagina Monologues cast is comprised of women of color? Likewise, how can students apply the inherent messages of hip-hop music to their own cultures? It is obvious the words of one race cannot be taken to apply to any other race. Therefore, it is time for African-Americans – and even Eminem – to step aside. It is time to hear the underrepresented voices of Asian-American oppression. MR

It Never Did, and Never Will Work

I

t’s easy to sit back, lounge in coffee shops on campus, and discuss the relative “merits” of Marxism. Screenings of The Motorcycle Diaries, a movie focusing on the trials and tribulations of Che Guevera, are ubiquitous on campus, and has been played prominently on Residence Hall Movie Networks. Even a scroungy new hippie dwelling in a dark corner of the basement in the Union sells a flag with the famous face and saying “Hasta la victoria siempre!” Sociology, and a number of other departments on campus, house professors, lecturers, and graduate students who are, if not expressly, than at least tacitly receptive to either Marxist theory, or its implications. The standard reaction to Communism today, a decade and a half removed from the end of theCold War, is a shrug of the shoulders, writing it off as a neat little theory that could have worked but for human imperfection.

It’s remarkably easy to sit back as college students to write off the dangers and implications of central planning, and just assume that the neat, tidy of utopianism of Karl Marx simply failed in China, the Soviet Union, and parts of Southeast Asia and Latin America because it just was not properly implemented. Attempts at living out Communist theory in states wrought disasterous consequences for hundreds of millions of people in the past century, leading to some of the most despotic autocrats and murderous regimes that human history has ever seen.

The abstract theory begets a practical situation of communism--destitution due to central planning, hostility to free speech and religion; the nature of centrally planned economies, F.A. Hayek argued, will necessarily devolve into totalitarianism.

The nations formerly under the Iron Curtain lag behind the West in economic and social freedoms to this very day. But students and professors often blindly drink the Kool-Aid of Marxist philosophy, ignoring the implications for their actual lives, and on good government. Marxism is a consequential idea that cannot be ignored in the classroom, but at the same time, must be treated with a disposition in the minds of students that banishes this shameful ideology.

It does a great deal of disrespect to the tens of millions who perished under the totalitarianism and destitution of Communism to think it at all a good idea, as if mere theory -- as if Communism’s always-flawed implementation is not itself telling.

In the end, though, we can take comfort in the fact that Communism has folded (even Vietnam has heeded the wisdom of the capitalist system), and capitalism and liberty have spread throughout the globe, bringing growth, opportunity, and freedom to millions who had been denied it. MR

Page 5

the michigan review

This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

By Amanda Nichols, ‘08

N

OVEMBER 3, 2005: THE day that will live in Michigan Student Assemly infamy, whether or not they’ll admit it. This, of course, was the day of the Ludacris concert at Hill Auditorium, sponsored by MSA, University Activities Center (UAC), and Hillel. The concert was the first major hip hop act performed on campus. The concert idea originated from Eddie Lee and Jesse Levine’s “Resolution to Support a Kanye West or Ludacris Concert at Hill Auditorium,” first approved 60, on July 26, 2005. The resolution, breaks down both rapper’s musical background and the costs per concert.

Asserting, “both acts have wide crossover appeal,” MSA’s question became about the artists’ availability as well as cost. For Kanye West, the total price was estimated at over $127,000, whereas Ludacris seemed a steal at just over $117,000.

The choice, then, was simple: MSA went with Ludacris, the cheaper option, and set the concert date.

Tickets earmarked exclusively for staff and students went on sale October 14. In her October 20th column, “A-List Overdue on Campus,” The Michigan Daily writer Sowmya Krishnamurthy asserted, “if the two-hour wait at the Michigan Union Ticket Office last Friday was any indication, the rapper’s Nov. 3 performance is eagerly anticipated.” However, ticket sales declined from the opening day rush; the Daily advertised open seats unsold the day of the concert.

The big day came and went, and the concert became most notable for Ludacris telling the crowd, “U of M girls give me U of M head” (paraphrasing a line from his song, “Southern Hospitality”). Although Alexis Frankel, Hillel Program Director, thought “the concert was sold out,” one concertgoer’s estimation was perhaps

By Blake Emerson, ‘09

R

December 6, 2005

Campus Affairs

ecently, the University of Michigan announced that two bas reliefs sculpted by Marshall Fredericks would not be placed back into its original location in the LS&A Building on State Street. “Dream of a Young Man” and “Dream of a Young Girl,” sculpted

by Marshall Fredericks, will be making the trek up to the North Campus Bentley Historical Library, which houses many different historical sculptures and pieces of art special to the University of Michigan.

“Dream of a Young Man” shows a boy dreaming about his ultimate destiny of departing on a ship, metaphorically signaling that man’s ultimate destiny is to explore the endless possibilities of the world. Contrastingly, the “Dream of a Young Girl” portrays a girl being led off by a man and his oxen, metaphorically displaying a traditional, submissive view of women. According to University spokesperson Julie Peterson, the sculptures have created controversy for “at least a decade.” The Provosts over the years have received complaints from students, staff, and alumni, she said, who generally argued that the bas reliefs don’t reflect the modern ideal of education and

more accurate. “I think it was like eighty-seven and a half point five percent full,” said the LSA sophomore; 400 of the 3,300 seats at Hill went unsold. These unsold seats meant MSA, who fronted $40,000 for the concert, lost $20,370. The sponsors admitted that most rap don’t sell out, and had contigency plan if only 2/3 of the tickets were sold, also the sponsers stated it’s impossible to know the exact cost of a concert ahead of time. Despite the Daily’s assertion that MSA should have bought a yacht with the $115,000 spent bringing in the Dirrty South rapper, assembly president Jesse Levine said the concert was an “unqualified success,” while others called it a great sociological experiment.

But can Levine really call a 50% loss an “unqualified success”? The Regents approved a $0.50 increase in student fees over the summer, and funding for student groups has recently decreased. Levine also told the Daily that MSA isn’t a moneymaking body, and clearly they aren’t, judging by such a tremendous fiscal loss—but the issue remains whether they should be a body that loses money so nonchalantly.

MSA allocated under $4,000 for advertising; $3,000 was spent on newspaper and radio media. There was, however, no allocation for television, direct mail, or press releases. In the iPod age, how many students listen to the radio? Perhaps, then, if MSA had invested in other advertisements—and spent more than $900 on posters and flyers—Ludacris would’ve performed to a sold-out auditorium rather than one only “eighty-seven and a half percent full.”

Interestingly, though, Hillel—another sponsoring organization—lost no money; this was a stipulation of their financial support of the concert. Frankel said the concert, “helped bridge cultural gaps. It helped build

bridges with other campus groups that Hillel might not have otherwise interacted with. Take a look at the diversity of the crowd.” It’s easy for Hillel to appreciate the crowd’s diversity with such financial security. Why was Hillel able to establish such a smart fiscal policy while MSA incurred financial losses? Perhaps for future events, MSA should model monetary agreements after Hillel’s artful management of the Ludacris concert.

When contacted about some of his regrets about the concert Eddie Lee said, “Do a lot more publicity. Now we have the benifit of hindsight.” Lee went on to state some of the positive aspects of the event such as: the development of a standard events contract for future events, an act with great cross over appeal, and the fact that DPS claimed it was one of the most calm major events put on by a campus group.

Although MSA’s fiscal decisions were perhaps not the wisest, part of students’ indifference can be blamed on Ludacris. Although he appeared in the ensemble drama Crash this year, his most recent album—entitled The Red Light District—was released in 2004. In contrast, Kanye West’s sophomore disk, Late Registration, debuted this fall. Furthermore, West has had more of a media presence lately, specifically with his now-infamous comment, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Perhaps the blame, if it can be placed at all, belongs to the selection of Ludacris rather than a more current cultural figure. After all, if the mix of groups was interesting in response to Ludacris, imagine the response to Kanye: preppy frat boys, collars popped; sorority girls singing “Workout Plan”; and all the other groups described by the Daily in attendance for Ludacris. MR

The Art of Censorship

progress for both genders.

Since the LSA building had to remove the reliefs to make way for the construction efforts, it gave the administration an opportunity to consider replacing the bas relief. The university consulted both the History and Traditions Committee and the PACWI (Presidential Advisory Committee on Women) for their opinions on the matter. While the History and Traditions Committee generally opposed a relocation or removal of the bas reliefs, PACWI ultimately held sway in the matter, deciding that the bas reliefs were indeed discriminatory.

Since these pieces of art had been original fixtures of the University since the LSA building was finished in 1948, the piece was deemed of sufficient historicity to be placed into the Bentley Historical Library. According to William K. Wallach, associate director of the Library, its mission is “to document the history of the University of Michigan and the activities of students, faculty, administration and staff through the records of various schools, colleges, departments, and student groups.”

University spokesperson Julie Peterson stated that the University supports the decision to relocate because

“they will still remain part of campus history” and doesn’t view the move as censorship because they are simply being moved into a different location.

While the University does not believe that this should be viewed as censorship, the number of people that will view the sculpture will dramatically decrease as a result. William K. Wallach said that somewhere around 3,000 visitors come through the Bentley library annually. While that total may seem high, it is nowhere near the total number of people who will walk through the LSA building once renovations are completed next year. Many students have unfortunately never heard of the Bentley library, and those who have heard of it rarely make the journey to the library’s inconvenient location.

The move begs an important question for the University: Where will it draw the line of censorship? Many students this year were someone shocked by a new sculpture painted by School of Art and Design professor Louis Marinaro at the corner of Glen and Catherine on the north side of central campus. The sculpture shows a nude family, with the man holding his son in what some would call an inappropriate position. Jonathan

Smith, a freshman student in the School of Music, states that it is “kind of sick. It reminds me of Michael Jackson.” While these complaints tend to be scarce, one wonders if the University is willing to hear every complaint about everything that may offend.

Peterson indicated that at the University of Michigan -- Flint, a Lesbian and Transgender group succeeded in removing a historical painting that showed a nude transsexual. On the national scene, John Ashcroft reportedly was the driving force behind removing the nude “Spirit of Justice” from the Justice Department because of his devout Christian views.

Censorship of art is bipartisan and undoubtedly ubiquitous.

The University would be wise to take into consideration that many people think it is wise to see art in a place where students would see it daily. Art and Design sophomore Greg Oberle believes that the bas reliefs should “stand as a lesson of a late 1940s perspective.” While the University of Michigan is trying, nobly, to create a comfortable environment for its students and staff, it must be careful not to place political correctness ahead of education and tradition. MR

the michigan review

Page 6

The Angry Greek

I

t started in elementary school. “You are all unique,” they would tell us. Everybody’s ideas were always special; never wrong. To tell a child so was to damage their precious self-esteem. We were always told to stand up for what we believe in, and fight for what we thought was right.

Fast-forward 10 to 15 years.

These five to ten year olds have all grown up, and now attend the University of Michigan. The children have all changed, believing strongly in certain causes, but the message has not: you are special; you are unique; stand up for what you believe in. And so remains the message with student activists. “Don’t let anybody tell you what to do!” we are told by prominent political scholars such as Eminem and Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day. We are urged to “speak up” and “fight for what you believe in” by former vice presidential candidates.

But at every single level, from elementary school on up, we all seem to miss an important step. Why not actually think about what you believe before chalking up campus, protesting on the diag, or getting petitions signed. I’m sure I’ve enraged a ton of student “activists” with that comment, so please allow me to explain.

December 6, 2005

Columns

Think Before You Act

Anybody can believe in “helping poor families,” run out to the diag, and start gathering petition signatures to increase the minimum wage. It takes very little brain activity to believe in “peace” and to stand on the street corner telling Bush to pull us out of Iraq. It takes far more effort to actively think about the effects of an actual policy change. What happens to small business owners who now have increased capital costs because of a miniNick mum wage increase?

What happens to the Cheolas single mother who works three minimum wage jobs and loses one of them because of the increase? What happens to the future of the Middle East – and America – if we pull out of Iraq right now?

These are complex problems.

In the words of Henry Louis Mencken, “For every complex problem there is a simple solution... and it is wrong.” But figures like John Edwards come to campus telling students to join together and “speak out loudly and ferociously.” What if students “joined together” and “spoke out loudly and ferociously” in favor of

white supremacy? Would our ideas still be special and inherently correct simply because they are our ideas?

“It is time for students to pressure legislators to implement more effective poverty-alleviation strategies,” The Michigan Daily editorial page told us after the John Edwards visit. Right. Because nobody knows how to “implement more effective poverty-alleviation strategies” than University of Michigan Music majors from upper-class, homogenous communities who have never experiened a day of poverty in their life, and have spent even less time reseraching the matter.

It’s time to face the facts. Ideas championed by students are not inherently correct, and thus, the solutions students propose for various complex problems are not necessarily the best. On the other hand, by no means is this to say that student activistm is inherently bad, or that the ideas or policies championed by student activists are necessarily bad ideas. This is simply a plea to those diag fist-pumpers to think critically about the ideas they promote, and how those ideas work in practice in the real world (i.e., not Ann Arbor). How will an increase in the minimum wage effect the economy?

How does immediate US pullout affect

the future of national security?

Engaging these complex issues requires more than chalking the diag. It requires more than calling all opponents of affirmative action “racists,” or all opponents of gay marriage “homophobic” on some signs at a rally. And face it, college students might not be the best sources to turn to when debating “poverty-alleviation strategies.”

Before you send the hate mail, I’m not claiming that student activism has no role in society. But I, for one, believe that far more minds can be swayed in the course of thoughtful, complex debate rather than the simple tactics employed by student activists” Maybe vehement supproters of gay marriage never thought that the same logic could justify polygomy or incest. Perhaps those who oppose affirmative action don’t fully understand who the policy benefits.

Anybody can stand on the diag blabbering about equality, racism, opression, and all the other key liberal catchwords. Few can sit down in a more personal setting, and fully articulate and defend their position. I, for one, have for more respect for the latter. MR

■ The Deep End

T

The Importance of Thoughtfulness

HERE’S A ROCK BAND, Straylight Run, to whom I was listening the other day on the way to class. A band I find particularly prescient in regards to their analysis of the troubling aspects of youth, I was listening to their song, “It’s For the Best,” in which there’s a lyric: “I’ve become content with this life that I lead, /Where I drink too much and don’t believe in much of anything, /And I lie to myself, /And say it’s for the best.” And to a large degree, this might contain so much truth about the dark underbelly of the college experience for so many of us. The popular conception of college is one where American Pie, Girls Gone Wild, and Animal House-like scenarios rule the day. And so often, we chalk this up to maturity, or part of the growth process. “Live and learn” may be good in principle—how, after all, can one know the world if they’ve never gone out and experienced it? But to what degree does this turn into an Epicurean ethos on campus that outweighs other relevant concerns? This is a problem.

When we are young, we dream about the privileges entailed with older age; driving, voting, drinking (legally). And so the tendency exists for us to all try to act older than we really are, or to perhaps try to enjoy the privileges of being older without having the requisite maturity or, in some cases, legal age. And even more often, we eschew the responsibilities associated with those privileges. These indulgences prove that so many of us are unready for the life our faux-maturity entails. And so this social structure reigns, where it dictates that almost the only way to enjoy yourself in college is to buy into

the system. In a cosmopolitan city like Ann Arbor, how many freshman girls, for instance, see any scene other than frat row, or hang out with anyone beyond the same few girls they “bonded” with for practical purposes their first week of school? How many people know what the Firefly club is, or have seen a show at the Blind Pig?

The Straylight Run lyrics, specifically the first line quoted, belie a greater truth to the underside of the youth experience today: contentment. To so many people, this is a time in life where we don’t have to take anything seriously; many would argue that this is the way things should be. This goes beyond your typical college parties, though. An equally important part of the college myth that hangs over our heads is our parents’ greatest fears: that their child leaves the Michael nest only to return home an entirely person—whether with a O’Brien different relatively inconsequential tattoo or piercing, or a wholesale conversion to a different religion or philosophy of life.

The college system encourages doing instead of thinking. Maybe both are needed, in part, to truly appreciate or understand life; but in any case, those who try to do everything in life rarely sit back and reflect on what it all means to them. How many people boast hundreds of people as ‘friends’ on the Facebook, but cannot conclusively reflect and say why they are friends – actual

friends – with many of these people? It’s a great thing to get to know people, but at the same time, these networks and connections are so bland and hollow when things get out of line. The same thinking applies when evaluating the ‘do’ lifestyle elsewhere. Why do we enjoy going to the bar or going to parties? Is it the people, the music, the alcohol? Why are we applying for the business school? Is it because we want to be a good homemaker, is it because we love business, or is it because the only way our parents would let us come to Michigan is if we applied?

Getting caught up in the system is easy to do because it is so powerful. And that’s part of our unthinking nature—we rarely challenge the status quo on campus. This means everything from MSA elections to the liberal ideology that so idly reigns here and on many campuses nationwide. And for so many students, that’s just fine with them. But for those of whom the college years mean their peak, it suggests a hubristic conception of self, and no aspirations or vision for the future—just a blindly hoping things work out in the end. In this regard, the social structure of colleges is really more like a machine than any church or corporation, leaving us all assured of the shared maturity we hold in common because of the proper forms we follow, but without any sense of what that maturity is or means.

I suspect that these unfortunate types perhaps aren’t concerned with criticism, or interested in taking it into account in the first place. And maybe that’s the problem, after all. MR

the michigan review

Page 7

Campus Affairs

Relax, you’ve earned it

A

s FIRST semester winds down, the reality that next semester is my final semester as a Michigan student is slowly sinking in. Second semester of senior year is typically a very special semester full of festivities including bar crawls, Dominicks re-opening, St. Patrick’s Day and graduation parties. Another, lesser known tradition, is that of Senior Bar Golf. Making a resurgance this year, the game will start second semester and challenge the drinking habits of even the most loyal bar patrons.

Contrary to the game of golf, bar golf is a team sport involving two players challenging each other to go the bar every night to fulfill their given point requirements and defeat competing teams in a mental and physical game of bar stamina. Sign up will start later this week at the Brown Jug and you can email seniorbargolf@umich.edu if you have any questions.

The Game: You and your teammate must go to the scheduled bar each night for one hour and drink one drink each in order Paul to score 1 point. The team with the most points at the end of the tournament wins.

Teske Important Dates: Tournament Start Date- Sunday, January 8th 2006; Tournament End Date- Saturday, April 1st 2006; There will be a break Wednesday, February 22nd through Sunday, March 5th for Spring Break.

The Rules: 1. Team must check in at scheduled bar for Sunday through Thursday night. Friday and Saturday are lottery nights where teams can go to any bar of their choice. “Bar of your choice nights” will be on the honor code system and teams must report where they went to seniorbargolf@umich.edu. Each week a record of attendances and points will be emailed to all teams, helping ot ensure the integrity of the game. Discrepencies with points can be resolved by emailing seniorbargolf@umich. edu for resolution. 2. Full team participation scores the team one point, anything less scores zero points. 3. Team must be registered with Senior Bar Golf 2006 and pay entry fee for t-shirt. 4. Team must drink at least one alcoholic beverage for each player and stay for an hour to score a point. 5. Team can go to the required bar anytime of the day on that bar’s given day. 6. Team must have some sort of golf related item on

By Rebecca Christy, ‘08

O

December 6, 2005

persons at all times at the bar. Examples include tees, balls, ball markers (coins DO NOT count), divot repair tools, driver, putter, cleats, etc. If a member is called out by a fellow golfer for not having said items on person, this will lead to a disqualification for that day. 7. You must be a senior or recent alumni to participate.

The Schedule: Sunday- Leopold’s, Monday- Ashley’s, Tuesday- Rick’s, Wednesday- Jug, Thursday- Charlie’s, Friday- Bar of your Choice, Saturday- Bar of your Choice.

Paul Teske didn’t want to write a column this week, so he made a shameless 400 word plug for senior bar golf.

Think you can do better?

Then join the Review email: mrev@umich.edu

Laramie Project Hits Mendelsohn

ne Laramie, Wyoming resident describes what happened in their town following the murder of Matthew Shepard in October of 1998 as “A town defined by an accident.”

Matthew Shepard, a twentyone year old college student at the University of Wyoming, was brutally beaten and left to die tied to a fence in a deserted area. What brought such wide spread attention to the case were the motives of the attackers. Some believe the motive was robbery, other’s believe Shepard was killed because of his sexual orientation.

After midnight on October 7, 1998 Matthew Shepard came into contact with Aaron James McKinney and Russell Arthur Henderson at the Fireside Lounge. Shepard was approached by the two men and eventually left willingly with them. However, the rest of the evening’s events remain in doubt. During both trials of the murderers, prosecutors attempted to use a “gay panic defense” claiming that Matthew Shepard had made sexual passes at the suspects which enraged both and led to his murder. Aaron James McKinney and Russell Arthur Henderson were both convicted for the murder and are currently serving consecutive life terms.

The Laramie Project was written

in response to the Matthew Shepard murder, in order to reflect on the response by citizens of Laramie. The writer Moisés Kaufman, brought members of the Tectonic Theatre Project to Laramie in November of 1998 and conducted over 200 interviews, compiling them into the play.

The interviews reflect a wide range of emotion. A majority of the residents felt a sense of compassion, while some were enraged by the portrayal of Laramie in the media. A portion of the play is dedicated to the Live and Let Live mentality, in which many residents proclaim peace existed if no one became too involved in anyone’s personal business.

The Laramie Project was recently performed at the University of Michigan’s Lydia Mendelsohn theatre.

The play confronts not only the details of the crime, but how the citizens of Laramie responded and the differences between those who recognized the murder of Matthew Shepard as a hate crime and those who did not. The play provokes many to ask the question whether the mentality that may have existed by some of residents of Laramie exists beyond the small rural town. “I’m from Chicago and the same thing which happened in Laramie could happen anywhere,” said University student Sashai Alvarez. Other

students agreed such as Jason Amos, saying, “Discrimination still exists and differs only by how blatant it may appear.”

Probably the most infamous character portrayed in the Laramie Project is Reverend Fred Phelps. Phelps is the head of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. His congregation is known throughout the country for staging protests against events he believes promotes the gay community, including funerals of US soldiers. Phelps and many of his followers travel the country forwarding their message of “God Hates Fags.” Phelps and his followers showed up to protest the funeral of Matthew Shepard and the trials of the accused killers. Their website includes the following message: “Matthew Shepard has been in hell for 2596 days.” Since the trials, Fred Phelps has traveled the country protesting the Laramie Project. A press release from the organization included a visit to local Ann Arbor churches along with the protests against the Laramie Project being performed from November 17 through the 20th. The press release included the following title. “WBC to picket the following sodimite whorehouses masquerading as Ann Arbor Churches.”

In 2004, the motives for the murder were revisited in an interview

done by Elizabeth Vargas on ABC’s 20/20. Both Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson seemed to have changed their motive, and claimed the attack was motivated by robbery and not because of Shepard’s sexuality. McKinney claimed that his original defense of gay panic was not correct. When asked if he targeted Matthew Shepard because he was gay he responded, “No. I did not. … I would say it wasn’t a hate crime. All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him.” Why have McKinney and Henderson suddenly changed their stories? At the trial in 1998, both admitted Matthew Shepard’s homosexuality played a large enough role to drive them to murder. Now it was a matter of robbery and a drug addiction.

When Henderson decided to plead guilty in April of 1999, McKinney’s lawyer Dion Custis, claimed Henderson had fabricated the gay panic story in order to place the blame on McKinney to save himself from receiving the death penalty.

It has been seven years since the murder of Matthew Shepard. The Laramie Project has continued to send a message of acceptance, while genuinely expressing the emotions felt by the city of Laramie, Wyoming. MR

the michigan review

Page 8

December 6, 2005

National and International

Bringing Down Big Oil

Are attempts to tax oil profits justified?

By Chris Steiber, ‘07

O

ver the past few months, the energy market has been volatile. Combining an already-strained oil supply with the devastating visit of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, gas prices rose to near 1970’s-era prices.

Labor Day weekend introduced us to $3.07 per gallon,.

Yet, while the country complained about the dramatic increase in prices, the subsequent decrease, which has been nearly as dramatic, has gone unnoticed. As of the end of November, the price of gasoline had dropped for the eighth consecutive week. At the time of writing, an average gallon of gas cost $2.15, or a drop of 30%, easily qualifying the past two months as the most dramatic price decrease in U.S. history.

With the hysteria over the high taxes, the United States Senate came to the rescue with a plan, the Windfall Profits Tax (WPT). A proposed “temporary” tax on the profits made by oil companies, the WPT was nothing more than an attempt to ride the crest of populist anger to grab more money for a bloated Senate. But this was hardly a partisan exercise, Bill O’Reilly launched a tirade against the oil execs, claiming: “We know there is price gouging going on. You can’t deny it ... You can’t make $10 billion in a quarter unless you are doing that…” (Fox News, 10/27/05) Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist joined the fracas: “If there are those who abuse the free enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans, they ought to be exposed, and they ought to be ashamed.”

(10/27/05) While neither O’ Reilly or Frist supported

By Yevgeny Shrago, ‘09

P

the WPT, each exhibited an alarmingly small knowledge of economics.

Firstly, the profits of “Big Oil” have not been as large as people presume. The costs of exploration, extraction, and refinement make up the majority of gas prices, while profits are only a small fraction. Oil companies’ profit margins are currently 7.7%, while the economy average is 7.9%. Hardly a “windfall.” Secondly, the phobia surrounding large profits are sorely misplaced. Abnormally large profits are what create incentive for innovation, for entrepreneurs to enter the market. Our entire patent system is based on the idea that comparatively large profits need to be protected for creators, in the hopes that “windfalls” might entice new inventions. Thirdly, the Senate’s consternation at high prices was hypocrisy of the greatest sort. The single largest burden on the oil industry has been state and federal taxes. Over the past 25 years, taxes on gas have increased dramatically, from 31¢ per gallon in 1981 (inflation adjusted) to 45¢ today. Imagine, if you will, that gas cost $1.70 per gallon today, and was sinking even more. Like how that sounds? Frustrated why it doesn’t cost that much? Blame Congress.

Fortunately, this amendment didn’t pass, voted down 33-65. While the vote broke down largely based on party lines, members on each side of the aisle expressed frustration at the oil executives, who were ordered to appear in front of a Senate committee. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. said he felt a “growing suspicion that oil companies are taking unfair advantage.” (Domenici, one

should note, worked over $212 million dollars of pork for New Mexicans into the 2005 budget.) The entire debacle was still unsettling, however, as we examined what some Senators do in a moment of economic crisis: grab as much money as possible. There are countless other reasons why the WPT was a bad economic idea, among them: last time we tried the WPT, we reduced domestic oil production by 3-6%; environmentalists are more to blame for high costs by preventing new oil exploration, refineries, or nuclear energy sources from being built; the United States is a price-taker, with OPEC controlling supply, etc. Economists nearly universally rejected the WPT. Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute said recently, “[Congress has considered] the WPT, which is well known to be unsound tax policy.

Congressional economists that I have spoken with are really embarrassed that their principals are pursuing this.” Despite the overwhelming evidence against the WPT, many Senators still pushed the amendment. On Senator Byron Dorgan (D – N.D.)’s website, there is an “oil profits calculator” that calculates the profits earned since you visited the website. The unspoken rationale is “these oil executives are making too much money, so let’s stick it to them.” Yet back in 1999, when crude oil was $10 per barrel, no one was complaining, nor was anybody demanding subsidies for the crippled oil industry. The fact is, our Senate became nothing more than a jealous neighbor, spending time tearing some people down rather than insuring freedoms were protected for all. MR

Chirac Fiddles as Paris Burns

aris is finally quiet. Riots that began on October 27th and lasted for several weeks have ceased, but the underlying issues remain. French president Jacques Chirac appears to have failed to live up to his 1995 inaugural promise to heal France’s social woes. Political inaction has left France wounded and with little direction.

The riots were sparked when two North African teenagers who lived in a rundown Parisian suburb were electrocuted while fleeing French police. This led to a week of riots in Paris’s low-income Muslim suburbs that would soon spread to much of provincial France.

Rioters burned cars, clashed with police and wreaked general havoc throughout the poorer parts of Paris. Prime Minister Dominic De Villepin declared a state of emergency extant; a law that has not been invoked in exactly fifty years. The violence reached such an intensity that the French government declared a “nearnormal situation” when only 215 cars were burned in one day.

The riots are linked to France’s failure to assimilate its large Muslim population. Most of the rioters were second

or third generation Muslims who live in the same rundown, near ghettos that their immigrant parents were concentrated when they emigrated from North Africa. The immigration to France after Algeria’s revolution in the 1950’s led to France having the largest population of Muslims in Europe. The low-income suburbs often have unemployment twice as high as the French national figure, already high at 10%. Male unemployment in these regions is close to 40%. Naturally, these suburbs provide shelter and a fertile recruiting ground for radical imams that seek to take advantage of the social ills.

These riots, however, were driven by disaffected teenagers, not by religious fanatics. Rioters made no religious demands and often were identified as wearing Nike and other Western brands. The Union of Islamic Organizations of France, a leading Islamic groups in France, issued a fatwa condemning the violence, which failed horribly in stemming the violence, demonstrating how little connection the rioters had to religion. It is more important that they are a disaffected minority in a system designed to ignore differences.

All of these tensions are exacer-

bated by the French approach to dealing with ethnic minorities. The official French position is that any resident can become a citizen, and that the legal system must ignore differences based on ethnicity or nationality. This version of colorblindness, however, extends far beyond the normal nondiscrimination found in most Western countries. French laws simply refuse to accept that ethnic differences exist.

Religious symbols such as headscarves are banned in state schools, with the intent of removing ethnic and religious tensions from schools. This position is often seen as hypocritical, as small crosses are still allowed, seemingly signaling that only minorities cause tensions. This refusal to see differences creates a trap in the job market. French law cannot force companies to give Muslim males an equal opportunity for jobs. French employers, unbound by these strictures, rarely hire Muslim males, preferring Muslim women or people of Caucasian heritage. Being relegated to second-class citizen status created a culture of dissatisfaction among men.

Much of the blame for the riots has been placed on Interior Minister Nikolas Sarkozy. Long-viewed as the heir

apparent to Chirac, Sarkozy has lately seen his popularity and political power impinged on by De Villepin. Seeking to court the law and order vote that Chirac lost in the 2002 election, Sarkozy was instrumental in ordering a police crackdown on the riots, calling for a zero tolerance policy. This only served to reinforce the prevailing hatred of the police among Muslims. Sarkozy inflamed the rioters by calling them “dregs” and “scum,” which could be perceived as race-baiting and an appeal to the xenophobic elements of French culture.

Other French political leaders have also seen their popularity fall during the riots. Chirac was widely blamed for refusing to act during the first ten days of the riots, reinforcing his image as out of touch with lower-income citizens. De Villepin first offered a variety of job and housing programs as a way to assuage the rioter’s anger, but soon reversed himself and declared a state of emergency. De Villepin recently buoyed his reputation by facing down striking unions, but his inability to quell the riots damaged him in opinion polls. MR

the michigan review

Page 9

December 6, 2005

National Issues

A War Without Enemy Soldiers

By Tomiyo Turner, ‘07

T

he decision to classify terrorists and suspected terrorists as enemy combatants was a controversial one. The Geneva Convention requires the humane treatment of Prisoners of War, but does not make any specifications about “enemy combatants.” Article Four of the Geneva Convention defines Prisoners of War as individuals falling into one of six categories including “Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces” and “Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.” The Geneva Convention also states, “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.” Prisoners of War have extensive rights, including protection against “physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” Although President Bush has repeatedly asserted, “[T]he United States doesn’t do torture,” the images of Abu Ghraib still haunt Americans.

One month after September 11th a Christian Science Monitor poll showed only 32% or Americans

would condone torture in a “ticking time bomb” scenario. Yet, nearly two years after the events at Abu Ghraib, there are few explicit domestic laws preventing the Department of Defense and other agencies from engaging in torture. Senator John McCain, who was a victim of torture when he was held as a prisoner of war, sponsored and passed an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2006. Recently, this was added to the Defense Authorization Act for FY 2006.

His amendment would ensure no detainee would be treated or interrogated in a way not listed in the United States Army Field Manual of Interrogation. This is significant because Army Field Manual is in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention. The amendment would extend to any US facility, regardless of geographic location, but it provides no method for detainees to challenge abusive practices.

One major misunderstanding about the amendment, which has been perpetuated by liberal blogs, is the notion that Dick Cheney was lobbying Congress to allow torture. He was looking for a CIA exemption to torture, but not to allow torture in general. The McCain amendment would bar any form of torture, regardless of the agency involved and purpose. Mr. Cheney did not oppose the requirement that the Department of Defense be prohibited from engaging in torture, but only that torture may be allowed for intelligence purposes and only when carried out by the CIA.

Another recent Senate amendment to the Defense Authorization Act guarantees detainees with harsh sentences some judicial review, but bars detainees from full access to courts. The Supreme Court held in Rasul v.

Bush that detainees must have access to federal courts in order to contest the legality of their confinement. The Graham Amendment to the defense authorization bill would give any detainee with a sentence of more than 10 years or death an automatic review of by a federal appeals court. This amendment exacerbates the concerns about a detainee’s ability to protest abusive behavior because it would bar those with sentences lighter than 10 years from access to the legal system. Despite this criticism Senator Graham argues, “This goes above and beyond the provisions of the Geneva Convention.” The Geneva Convention states, “They [POWs] shall also have the unrestricted right to apply to the representatives of the Protecting Powers… in order to draw their attention to any points on which they may have complaints to make regarding their conditions of captivity.” However, the Geneva Convention does not require POWs have any access to civil courts, it would merely require immediate access to some judicial fair judicial process. The Graham amendment would also apply exclusively to those being held at Guantanamo Bay.

The White House has threatened to veto the Authorization Act if it includes the McCain amendment after conference. The White House has also expressed opposition to the Graham amendment, claiming it extends beyond the appropriate bounds of Congressional involvement. MR

The Ailing Auto Industry

Examining American automakers in light of recent GM cuts

By Karen Boore, ‘09

J

ust as flu season is coming upon us, it seems fitting to talk about the American auto industry. Though feeling under the weather for some time, its symptoms of ill health have recently become more pronounced. In October, Delphi Corp., a major supplier to both Ford and General Motors, filed for bankruptcy. On November 21, General Motors Corp. announced it would cut 30,000 jobs and close or scale back operations at twelve facilities by 2008. Ford, too, has announced plans to cut at least 4,000 white collar jobs early next year. The American auto industry is ailing.

While the American auto companies have seen great losses recently, their foreign counterparts have not. In fact, it is competition with these companies that has greatly contributed to the American losses. The foreign companies are simply making cars that more Americans want to buy. Many consumers wonder why they should buy American when the Japanese cars are just as attractive, more fuel-efficient, and even more

affordable. In addition to lower sales, the American companies are burdened by greater costs. The younger Japanese companies are not as burdened by pension or health care costs which American labor unions have secured for their members.

Decreased sales in America have caused the American auto companies to bring production in line with demand and look at cost-cutting options. In this, the interests of the investors and the workers are pitted head to head. GM investors are saying that GM’s recent plan will not be enough. They are calling for more drastic cuts, at the same time the United Auto Workers criticize the cuts already made.

Delphi’s recent proposal to cut workers’ wages by more than 60 percent, from $27 per hour to around $10, added insult to injury for the UAW. While the deadline for the union to negotiate cuts with Delphi has been extended, the UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and Vice President Richard Shoemaker have issued the statement, “If Delphi is serious about restarting discussions, taking that insulting proposal off the table would be a good place to start.”

The American automotive industry is looking to the government to aid in its recovery. In a speech at the National Press Club, William C. Ford, Jr., President and CEO of Ford, asked the government for tax incentives for consumers to buy hybrid cars as well as tax incentives for companies to update old manufacturing plants. However, lawmakers are divided on the issue of propping up the industry. While Michigan representatives in Congress have started working on proposals to help, it may be difficult to convince lawmakers from areas less concerned with the industry to vote for such legislation.

Concerns for the workers and job security have also influenced legislation in Lansing, yet it seems that partisan politics is getting in the way. On the same day GM announced its cuts, Governor Jennifer Granholm signed tax bills meant to help manufacturers keep jobs in Michigan and to diversify the state’s economy. However, because she vetoed two bills in the package, which she believed cut business taxes at the expense of the citizens, the other tax cut bills can-

not take effect. While Granholm urged the Republicans in the state legislature to reach a new agreement quickly, they were stunned and disappointed by her vetoes.

If officials within Michigan cannot agree on ways to help its companies and their workers, what hopes are there at the national level?

What is in store for workers has yet to be determined, but it is certain that things are changing. High-paying unskilled jobs are dwindling away. While better educating workers for tomorrow seems like a reasonable solution, some analysts believe that it will not be enough as even the high-tech jobs are being outsourced. As can be seen by Ford’s plans, not even white collar jobs are safe.

The American auto industry is in need of help. No one treatment, however, seems likely to ease its pain.

Rather, changes must be made in many areas. Whether it will nurse itself back to health or can find help in the state and national governments remains to be seen, but right now we can only hope that the industry gets on its feet again soon. MR

the michigan review

Page 10

December 6, 2005

On-Campus Events

Good Journalism, Bad Journalism

By Kole Kurti, ‘09

W

hat went wrong?” This was the question posed by Tom Fenton, a retired foreign correspondent for CBS News, in his speech on the media in America last Tuesday. Mr. Fenton has been within the media establishment for forty-three years, he believes there has been a serious decline in the news. Mr.Fenton put forth many valid criticisms of the American media, but his argument had serious flaws.

Mr. Fenton emphasized the lack of international news coverage. This comes at a time when international news is vital. America is the most powerful and influential country, involved in every major international issue, and the news should reflect this. This is particularly important in an age where America is engaged in a war on terrorism that knows no international boundaries. Mr.Fenton’s point was that the token correspondent in Baghdad that stays inside his hotel room out of fear and has his Iraqi assistants go out and get footage is not enough.

Fenton also expressed his great dissatisfaction with reporting prior to 9-11. It is tragic to look back at the summer before 9-11 when the major news stories were shark attacks. As Fenton pointed out, the Big Three (CBS, NBC, and ABC) did not mention Al-Qaeda once in the months before the attack. Though he makes a good point, it is unfair to simply blame the news stations for overlooking Al-Qaeda since the CIA and FBI failed to recognize the threat. How can the public expect news stations to be better informed than government

By Michael O’Brien, ‘08

A

institutions?

What remains murky about Fenton’s whole argument is whether there really ever was a “Golden Age” in media. It is clear that there are problems with the media today, but was it really all that better in the past? Fenton mentions Walter Cronkite, the former CBS news anchor, as a man to be emulated. One should note that Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America,” mislead the country by portraying the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam war as a major defeat for America when it was a great victory. Also, the old world of media was one where the public had only three stations to choose from.

Now, there is cable news and the Internet.

There is competition and competition always brings about better things. While Fenton did represent the Internet as generally positive, he seemed to have some disdain for cable news, in particular Fox News, which he dismissed as “opinion.” The fact that Fenton dismisses Fox News, which has passed CNN as the most watched cable news network, as something inherently inferior reveals an unwillingness to accept fundamental changes in the news industry The fact that he sees the BBC as the model for all other stations is even scarier. This is the same institution that asked its reporters not to refer to Saddam Hussein as an ex-dictator, but as the former leader of Iraq, since he was technically elected (Just like Adolf Hitler).

One of Fenton’s most farfetched contentions was that reporters were not tough enough on President

Bush, fearing they would be seen as unpatriotic. Fenton seemed to believe that the government has some huge sway on reporters since it can give and take “benefits,” and hence reporters bow down to its authority. He overlooked the fact that liberals run most major media institutions and reporters are more concerned about pleasing their bosses than they are about pleasing the president. The media certainly did not hesitate to talk about the Abu Ghraib Prison situation. The New York Times alone, the “newspaper of record”, had 32 successive front-page stories on the incident. Dan Rather did not hesitate to run a false story about the President’s National Guard service just before the election. And the list goes on, and on, and on. To say that the media was soft on Bush and completely ignore the liberal bias of which conservatives often complain greatly misleading.

When asked about liberal bias in the media, Fenton replied: “[reporters] are open-minded, and if that’s liberal, then we’re liberal.”

Fenton’s advice on the media can be helpful as long as one realizes where he is coming from. This is a left-of-center reporter for one of the Big Three that longs nostalgically for some alleged “Golden Age” of media. His points on the lack of international news and the pre-9-11 reporting are very valid, but his dismissal of Fox News, his negative view towards competition, and his failure to recognize liberal bias in the newsroom greatly hurt his argument. MR

Artist on the Rise: Brandi Carlile

nn Arbor’s music scene can often help christen up-and-coming musical acts for their spot in the music spotlight. Such was the case when Brandi Carlile and her band played at the Blind Pig on the 12th of November. While in town, this emerging talent showcased her latest album, and more, with a set of songs that proved to the audience that Carlile and her band are, so to speak, ‘the real thing’ in music today.

Carlile talked with the Review about her music before the show. The kind and unassuming Carlile spoke about being on tour, and on the verge of her band’s potential emergence on to the national spotlight. “I can only hope [we’re on the verge]” of a larger audience she said, while humbly acknowledging how many other groups are seeking the same thing. But not many bands can boast about the accolades this group can—having been named a top “Artist to Watch”

by Rolling Stone. And if there was ever a compelling case for that position, it was most certainly her performance on campus. She’s also had a song (“What Can I Say”) featured on the hit TV show, and nexus of quality music, Grey’s Anatomy.

But Carlile says the exposure is “not noticeable at all.” But for a new album, and a nascent touring schedule— the maturity of her debut album and the intensity of her concert testify towards a more polished product than Carlile would let on to. Listing everybody from Patsy Kline to Jeff Buckley to Elton John as influences, her music takes on an aura of a mixture of folk, pop, and rock all at once.

And these influences manifest themselves onstage. Her voice all at once encapsulates pop, soul, and rock—and tacitly channels a bit of Janis Joplin. The docile Carlile transformed onstage into a passionate stage presence. The audience was easily won over. The show featured a mixture of the best selections from the debut album, as well as other songs. And the range of Carlile and her band was as impressive as the studio album—ranging from all acoustics, to thoroughly rocking numbers. And if this wasn’t enough proof of Carlile’s versatility, her cameo during Marc Broussard’s “Lonely Night in Georgia” (for whom she was opening) was.

And a good deal of the performance’s luster was thanks to the band

chemistry. Carlile is flanked by “The Twins,” Tim and Phil (on guitar and bass, respectively), of whom she speaks as if they were her own siblings. The band’s chemistry is “such a natural thing,” she says. “We don’t know how lucky we are— we leave the drama at home.” Carlile and her band exhibit such closeness offstage, and their tight performance onstage reflects that.

The Twins and Carlile are responsible for the bulk of the writing and recording of the songs performed at the show, and on the album. While brother Tim writes many of the love songs, Carlile says, hers tend to be a bit on the darker side. She says of the typical songwriting process, “In order to write a good song, you have to be happy and bored—and that’s not a good thing.” She continues, “[Our] music is so moody, it’s hard to describe. It’s not very categorizable.”

But when asked about why a college student might appreciate the album, Carlile hits the nail on the head.

“This is one of the most honest albums in a while,” she proclaims, “There’s no gloss on it at all.” The album was recorded mostly as live band performances in-studio, from the band’s home in Wash-

ington State. The depth of the lyrics, and superiority of the songwriting easily shine through on the album. And this honesty in writing and production was entirely tangible in live performance, as well.

And perhaps this honesty on her album and in performance is this starlet’s greatest asset. In a time where pop songs are easily recycled, and lyrics are cheap at a dime-a-dozen, Brandi Carlile’s music is refreshing. There’s good reason why her and her band have so much potential—they’re hard to resist. They easily won over Ann Arbor’s Blind Pig, and can just as easily win over dominance on the iPods of most Michigan students, given the chance. Her album deserves a chance.

Check it out. MR

Page 11

the michigan review Commentary

December 6, 2005

Losing the Battle, Winning the War

By Jay Dickinson, ‘08

E

VEN BEFORE I CAME to Michigan, that commercial with the guy in Michigan colors and the girl in Ohio State colors making out on a couch made me gag. The small consolation I now have is the knowledge that no self-respecting Michigan man would ever date a girl from Ohio State. Unfortunately, I do not have the consolation of knowing that we beat the shit out of our biggest football rival.

The Michigan versus Ohio State rivalry in football began with their first game in 1897. Michigan won that game and shut-out OSU 34 to 0 and dominated the series until 1919. That year the tables were turned and the Buckeyes won 13 to 3. The Michigan-Ohio State game has always been important, but it was not always the last game of the season. This practice began in 1935 and, except for one year, the tradition has continued. Often the game has determined who the winner of the Big Ten is, as well as who will represent the conference in the Rose Bowl.

Of all the coaching match-ups in the long Michigan vs. Ohio State rivalry, none has been more intense and, at times, bitter than that between Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler. For ten years the two dominated the “Big 2,” consisting of OSU and UM, and the “Little 8,” with the rest of the Big Ten Conference teams, splitting ten conference titles between and finishing second eight times. Hayes supposedly could not bring himself to even speak the name of “that school up north,” and Schembechler, who played for Hayes at Miami of Ohio and was an Ohio State assistant coach, savored nothing more than putting it to his old mentor. After a decade of memorable on-field stratagems, sideline antics, and locker room psychological ploys, the two coaches came out

almost dead-even, Schembechler holding a slim 5-4-1 advantage.

The whole week leading up to the Michigan v. Ohio State game has grown beyond the football game to even include the annual blood battle, which benefits the Red Cross, food collection for food banks, and spirit events such as banner contests. Ohio State and Michigan have turned the rivalry into an event that helps people across school lines. I am proud to say that I donated blood, but that (despite my own efforts), we lost this year’s Blood Battle—marking two years in a row where the tradition of the team winning the battle lost The Big Game was broken.

Looking at the big picture, I think it important to realize that we are a better school than Ohio State is. We have more wins over Ohio State. Our stadium is bigger. Our colors are better. Our fight song is better—John Phillips Sousa (someone who knows something about marches) called ‘The Victors’ the best fight song ever written. The education we are getting is overwhelmingly better. Hell, Michigan is just a better state than Ohio. What is important for students is not let one win get them down; know that you are better than everyone at Ohio State and know that our school is a better place to be. If there’s some consolation we can hang onto, it’s that we don’t have to go to Ohio State, and that we get to live in Ann Arbor, instead of being stuck in Columbus.

And for the record, the commercial with the Michigan guy and Ohio State girl making out on the couch, still makes me gag.

Oh how I hate Ohio State. MR

We at the Review wish you all a happy two week break coincidentally placed around December 25.

We would also love for you to come write for us next semester.

Email us at: mrev@umich.edu or visit our website: www.michiganreview.com

Page 12

the michigan review Interview

December 6, 2005

Five Questions With Professor Matt Lassiter

Staff writer Jane Coaston sat down with Assistant Professor of History Matt Lassiter recently to talk about his classes, American history, and politics.

M

atthew Lassiter, two years after winning the Golden Apple Award which “honors those teachers who consistently teach each lecture as if it were their last, and strive not only to disseminate knowledge but to inspire and engage students in its pursuit,” remains one of the University’s most popular and respected professors.

His lectures on issues of suburbanization and the American Dream continue to be extremely popular, and he is a leading authority on politics and youth.

Why do you think your lectures have been so popular, and what research are you doing now?

Saying that he does not want to compare himself with other members of the history department, Lassiter said that he does try to approach lectures from a student perspective by bringing them to the present, presenting issues that students are “fluent and engaged with.” He tries to end lectures by speaking on current events, including the Iraq War and the gay marriage debate- a real advantage of teaching courses that deal in modern United States history. He also tries to enhance lectures with is own research and unpublished ideas, which are often new to him as well.

He also mentioned the importance of multimedia, noting that opportunities related to the Internet have “revolutionized” lecture writing but have also made it more difficult to keep the attention of a class. He noted that he has improved in his usage of PowerPoint and other lecture technologies.

In the area of new research, he just finished a book entitled The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South about political issues of sprawl and racial integration in the cities of Atlanta and Charlotte. He is now writing a book entitled Suburban Crisis: The Pursuit and Defense of the American Dream, which his based loosely on his course, History of American Suburbia. He conceptualized the course several years ago as a way of thinking about the book, which is a broad look at suburban issues, pop culture, and public policies.

In what ways have the American suburbs changed?

Lassiter began by first noting the increasing diversity of the American suburb, with growing populations of African-Americans, Asian Americans, and

Latino-Americans. But school and housing segregation patterns are still stark, with divisions on racial lines still extremely defined. He spoke about the movement of whites from the suburbs, making them now a sort of “horizontal city.”

Whites move to suburbs further from the main city base, and minorities move into the suburbs they have left behind. But as people have moved out of the cities, young professionals are repopulating, an interesting trend in many cities, but not Detroit.

Asked why Detroit has not experienced this phenomenon, he said that Detroit is racially polarized, with long historical tensions between the city and the suburbs. There has also been a lack of significant economic activity (which is beginning to change), and he has his doubts as to whether Detroit can capture the young professional housing market, pointing to fears of crime as a major deterrent. Also, young people from affluent areas who attend the University of Michigan for example would be more likely to leave the state of Michigan or move to areas such as Royal Oak. High unemployment has also retarded the growth of Detroit’s young professional population. Because of a lack of cities catering to young professionals, Michigan is losing its young people, and the median age of the state’s population is growing steadily higher- “a huge problem,” in Lassiter’s estimation.

had a reputation of being liberal, but has actually been quite conservative on many issues, most importantly those regarding homeowner’s rights.

When asked about the national perception of student apathy, Lassiter said that apathy has been a false label used by the baby boomer generation against students. He stated that there is an enormous amount of political activism, but for smaller scale issues. Most important social issues have college student issues, he said, drawing a parallel to the birth of modern conservatism and its link to Young Americans for Freedom. He said that some young people say that there is no “big issue”- our generation does not have an event that equals the divisiveness of the Vietnam War and other issues, not even the Iraq conflict. “But people forget that college students said the same thing in 1965 - there is no big issue,” he said, noting that it is a reoccurring theme in American history. He then spoke on current divisiveness within campus politics, noting BAMN for example. He said that tensions have always existed around political movements and that the campus Left has been hurt by rifts between the coalition of the middle versus the coalition of more extreme elements.

What do you think about claims of student apathy, on campus and nation-wide?

Lassiter said that he believed that the “Green Belt” idea (that is, an area surrounding Ann Arbor where development would be off-limits) is a great idea, if done comprehensively. Ann Arbor’s program is too limited to stop sprawl, he said, and might only redirect it. But the “Green Belt” issue has had a beneficial effect- it has restarted the debate on density and affordable housing and what kind of city Ann Arbor will become, drawing in MSA and graduate student involvement.

Lassiter noted that many people cannot afford to live in Ann Arbor, due to a scarcity of moderate income housing despite the soft rental market. The power of the neighborhood associations is a factor, but Lassiter said that renters and students could become a powerful political coalition to fight for student housing rights.

Lassiter pointed to the most recent city elections, which projected a turnout of about 8%. He said that that showed that not only students were apathetic, but students get a majority of the blame. Asked why he believed that students vote in such small numbers in Ann Arbor elections, he elaborated on the fact that many students genuinely want to vote, but in their home community.

He used the 2004 presidential election to show that students will vote if given the opportunity, but he placed some of the blame on the state of Michigan itself, saying that it has laws meant to prevent students from voting (such as those based on permanent address versus where registered). He also noted a lack of choice in Ann Arbor city elections, saying, “Some of the Democrats on council are Republicans pretending to be Democrats.” He explained by saying that city council has

You were an advocate of Ann Arbor’s “green belt proposal” to combat urban sprawl. What are your thoughts on it now?

What is your opinion on the recent Conservative political successes?

Lassiter said that Conservatives

have been more likely to win elections than to actually enact policy, pointing to the example of the privatization of Social Security that was a hot-button election topic. But he also said that the Christian Right has proven to be a powerful political mechanism. He is not entirely convinced that Conservative political wins show a conservative turn in policies, saying that President Bush won on foreign policy and high turnout of religious conservatives. Lassiter then said that a majority of the public supports Democratic policies, but does not trust Democrats when they are in office. He pointed to the likelihood of younger voters to be for gay marriage and against the War on Drugs. He stated that he believes that with the dying out of the Old Conservatives, a new breed of Conservatives with less concern for the “culture war” will come to political prominence. They will be more like the Compassionate Conservative model and less like the “angry conservative” of early nineteen-nineties politics. Lassiter said that there is little to no support for radical conservative reform in the American electorate - Americans tend to want environmental protection, education, protection of Social Security and medical care programs, less money going to wasteful government programs (welfare, for example), and a tough foreign policy. But American politics needs to move back to the middle to best serve the nation on those issues.

Conservatives, he said, want a traditional populist policy with greater importance of the people. However Lassiter said that one of the most interesting developments has been the growth of conservatism on campus. While conservatives tend to dominate corporate America and liberals are still seen as controlling “the academy” with a majority of those involved in the humanities identifying themselves as liberals (though conservatives tend to emerge in areas linked to business and law), conservatives have made a concerted effort to reach students.

“I think that conservative foundations, leaders, and organizations didn’t leave this to chance- they have put their money where their hopes are,” he said. “[W]hen it comes to targeting college students, conservative groups are doing it better.”

He noted that Democrats condescended to young activists in the last presidential election, adding that conservatives would never think of dismissing younger voters.

MR