vol_24_no_9

The Michigan Review

MR

the michigan review

Page

March 16, 2006

The Campus Affairs Journal at the University of Michigan

March 16, 2006

Volume XXIV, Number 9

The Book Review Issue

O

ur campus is renonwned for its academics and scholarship, and yet students spend

little or no time on extra-curricular reading. This issue, we’re devoting a portion to reviews of works of literature and non-fiction that command the attention of today’s educated class.

See Pages 9 through 11

Analyzing the facts:

A Syrian connection?:

Mohammed cartoons:

Nick Cheolas sheds light on September’s infamous “hate crime” against the Asian community Page 3

Michael Balkin re-examines the WMD controversy

Why we decided not to publish them

Page 8

Pages 4 &5

www.michiganreview.com

Page 2

the michigan review Serpent’s Tooth

■ Advertisment

March 16, 2006 The Michigan Review The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan 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

Staff: Michael Balkin, Brian Biglin, Karen Boore, Rebecca Christy, Tom Church, Jane Coaston, Stephen Crabtree, Blake Emerson, Kole Kurti, Jeremy Linden, Matt MacKinnon, Brian McNally, Natalie Newton, Amanda Nichols, Adam Paul, Danielle Putnam, Yevgeny Shrago

Join The Michigan Review!

Next meeting:

Tuesday, March 21 @ 7 pm Room 351 in the Michigan League Email:

mrev@umich.edu for details Or visit:

www.michiganreview.com

Editor Emeritus: Michael J. Phillips The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the 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 © 2006, The Michigan Review, Inc. All rights reserved. The Michigan Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.

mrev@umich.edu

the michigan review

Page 3

March 16, 2006

Campus Affairs

Truth Still Matters

Revisiting the infamous “hate crime” of 2005

By Nick Cheolas, ‘07

B

ACK IN OCTOBER, this newspaper editorialized on the now-infamous “Asian urination” incident, and the aftermath that swept across this campus like a firestorm. In fact, news of this incident made its way across the country, as students at UC Berkley protested this “hate crime” at U of M. Here in Ann Arbor, student groups mobilized, others called for the prosecution and expulsion of the students, and President Coleman herself issued a statement to the entire student body.

Amidst this upheaval, the Michigan Review pleaded for sanity, arguing that the facts should dictate the proper course of action.

As is often the case on this campus, the facts were pushed to the curb by an effort to combat the “cold” campus environment. When it was revealed that the suspects involved disputed the accusations, campus groups were quick to note that the truth didn’t matter, and that incidents of ethnic intimidation occurred daily – we would just have to take their word for it.

The firestorm itself would die down, but the sentiments bred during the “crisis” would not. To this day, the “Asian urination” incident is still cited as evidence of the “harsh” campus climate faced by minority students.

The Michigan Daily seems to have failed to provide even a rudimentary analysis of the reports and facts in the case. The last Daily article on the incident was published on September 26, 2005. The investigation itself, however, was not completed until January 2006. This is not to say that the Daily is responsible for misinforming the campus public – the near-annual boycotts remind its editors of the perils of publishing content even remotely offensive to minorities.

As a result of its non-coverage, the police investigation – determining, as best as can be done, the “facts” of the incident – has been largely ignored by the campus community. Many students who called for the expulsion and prosecution of these suspects may have no clue if any of the suspects were eventually charged, exactly what those charges are, and whether those charges have any merit. As it now stands, only one of the two suspects has been charged. Stephen Williamson, who allegedly urinated on the couple, was charged with two counts of assault, one count of indecent exposure, and once count of obscene conduct. Charges for ethnic intimidation were not filed.

Few on this campus know the facts surrounding this incident, and obviously, fewer can claim to have been present on that fateful night. However, an analysis of first-hand accounts of the incident can provide a far more accurate picture of the events than can the hysteria surrounding the incident. While hype may carry the most weight on this campus, thankfully, truth does matter in a court of law.

THE INCIDENT:

Reports obtained by the Michigan Review – including witness statements, interviews, investigation notes, and police reports – show that general details surrounding the incident can be established. Shortly after 10pm on Thursday, September 15th, two students were walking below the balcony of an apartment on the 600 block of South Forest. Those two students, a male and a female, both of Asian descent, felt a liquid substance hit

them as they walked below the balcony of two students who had been playing beer pong. An exchange of profanities ensued, and the two Asian students proceeded on their way to a local restaurant. Approximately 45 minutes later, the male victim returned with four of his friends. The exchange of profanities resumed, including a face-to-face confrontation on the sidewalk in front of the apartment complex. At some point, the suspects would dump a bucket of liquid off of their balcony.

Shortly thereafter, the female victim returned to the scene, and then called 911. When the Ann Arbor police arrived, the 21-year-old suspect was unable to coax his 20-year-old friend out of their apartment, and was subsequently arrested and booked for ethnic intimidation.

THE DETAILS:

While the above events are largely agreed upon by all parties, there are two major details of the confrontation which remain highly disputed. The Asian victims claim to have been urinated upon, while the Caucasian subjects claim to have simply thrown a cup of beer – from a game of beer pong – over the balcony. When the male victim returned to the scene with his friends, they allegedly encountered “racial slurs.” However, the only “slurs” cited by the victims in the case include a reference to a “green card,” and a reference to “learning to speak English.” The suspects argue that they never made a reference to a green card, and told the Asian students “you need to speak English” only after the victim and his friends began to speak in a foreign language.

THE INCONSISTENCIES:

All told, about 10 individuals were interviewed by the Ann Arbor Police Department: the two victims, two suspects, and six witnesses (three friends of the victims, a parking lot attendant, and two witnesses from the apartment complex). As such, there are bound to be inconsistencies among the 10 accounts of the event.

However, absent physical evidence, we must rely on witness accounts of the incident to determine the course of events. This, logically, requires the witnesses to establish a certain degree of credibility. In other words, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and thus, on the victims and their supporting witnesses.

While reviewing the documents, it is apparent that the credibility of the victims, and some of their supporting witnesses, is rather questionable. For example, according to officers on the scene, both the male and female victim stated that they had observed the suspect, Stephen Willimason, urinating on them from his balcony. However, on September 20th, both suspects admit that they indeed did not observe the suspect urinating.

As Ann Arbor Police Detective Amy Ellinger writes, “I asked [male victim] if he saw the suspect urinating or saw his exposed penis. [Male victim] said, “No’” Likewise, when Ellinger asked the female victim how she knew the suspect was urinating, the female victim replied that “she didn’t know for sure,” and that she not only did not observe the suspect’s penis, but that “[the female victim] did not look at the suspects at all.”

A month later, however, the story would change. In an interview on October 18th, the male victim who once claimed he did not see the suspect urinating, now claims to have “looked up and seen [Williamson] urinating.” Furthermore, the male victim was able to identify the suspect as “the skinny one with long

hair,” and even gave a description of the suspect’s stance while “urinating.”

The female victim follows suit. On September 20th, she wasn’t sure if the suspect was indeed urinating because she “did not look at the suspects at all.” However, on October 18th, she states that after feeling drops of water strike her, she “looked up to where it had come from and saw two guys at the balcony laughing.” She then goes on to state that she “knew he urinated on me by the way he was standing.”

Regardless, the Asian students were not the only ones to witness this alleged assault. Parking lot attendant Cheryl Clifton claims to have witnessed the incident from the structure adjacent to the apartment building. Her testimony, however, appears to be the most incredible of all those interviewed. For example, Clifton told investigators that “one guy was leaning over the balcony, looking like he was peeing.” When asked which suspect she was referring to, Clifton responded “He was bigger than the other [suspect]. The other guy with the long hair was just standing there (Williamson).”

In other words, this attendant implicated the wrong person. Furthermore, while Clifton was apparently able to determine that “[the suspect’s] hands were in front of his body and his knees were bent,” she could not tell if the suspects were drinking alcohol because, as she told investigators, “there was a tree blocking her view.”

Clifton goes on to claim that the suspects yelled “All you guys do is come from another country, take our money and go to school free” – a statement completely uncorroborated by the victims or any other witness. Furthermore, Clifton alleges that the suspects “threw glass. I could hear glass breaking on the ground” – another statement backed up by no other party in the conflict.

The inconsistencies don’t end there. In notes which appear to be derived from the 911 call, the female victim states that the suspects were throwing eggs and other unspecified objects from the balcony. There seems to be no mention of urination. The victims also allege that there were “beer caps” on the ground, and, as Clifton alleges, glass was thrown at the victims. However, when the police arrived, they only found “a large amount of soapy water on the ground.” There is no mention of glass, bottle caps, eggs, or any other objects found on the ground.

This soapy water is also of great contention.

While the suspects contend they were simply cleaning out an old keg filled with stale beer, the victims allege that the water was thrown to wash away the urine. In regard to this accusation, the female suspect told police “after [she] told the suspects that she was going to call the police, the two suspects threw soapy water in buckets down onto the sidewalk, she believes in an attempt to wash away the urine” – implying that she had witnessed this act. However, she later tells investigators that “when she first got back to the area…there was a large amount of water and beer caps on the ground” – admitting that she had never witnessed the act.

THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE:

Despite the inconsistencies, the shirt the alleged female victim was wearing that night could have

See “Asians” on Page 4

Page 4

the michigan review

March 16, 2006

Campus Affairs resent, to the Muslims who hold up the cartoons then burn them in effigy, a symbol of their discontent and disfranchisement in Europe, where they have been marginal The Michigan Review is the independent, stuized from mainstream society. And for the Europeans, including the many continental dent-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion papers which chose to reprint the cartoon, the Muhammad cartoons have left the at the University of Michigan. Unsigned editorials repmedia sphere, and have as well become a symbol of Europe’s struggles to co-exist with resent the opinion of the Editorial Board. Ergo, they are the Muslims in their ranks. In Europe, the cartoons are a symbol of the threat many unequivocally correct and just. Signed articles, letters, Europeans feel wearing on their weak, declining culture, posed, on one hand, by the and cartoons represent the opinions of the author, and European Union’s attempt to establish “European identity,” and on the other hand by not necessarily those of the Review. an immigrant population seen as encroaching upon their lives. The European way of

You can contact the Editorial Board at: life was under attack by a hostile, non-assimilating minority, and Flemming Rose (who mrev@umich.edu commissioned and printed the cartoons for the Jyllands-Posten) and other editors, the Muhammad cartoons provided an opportunity to include Muslims in their culture by showing that they, too, could be mocked.

Given this context, it has become clear that printing the cartoons is not an act of journalism. Many European papers that have reprinted the cartoons have waved the banner of journalism, but the choice to print the cartoons is, most often, a shot across the bow of the world’s Islamic population. The act is in the grain of a base political attack, and no journalistic excuse can justify that. Nor do the laws of journalism OR A NATION THAT so highly values its freedom of the press, it’s no surprise (which every critic of every paper’s decision to publish or not publish the cartoons that the recent controversy over cartoons negatively characterizing the prophet seems to have taken a sudden interest in), to the extent that it would proscribe an Muhammad has spawned a debate in America. With the countervailing responsibili- American re-printing of the cartoons, ties of journalistic responsibilities to both provide news and yet make responsible It’s arguable that the decision whether or not to publish the cartoons is more decisions in mind, The Michigan Review has chosen not to publish the cartoons. Our worthy of editorial space than the cartoons themselves. While the cartoons are no lonstand is the one that most all college papers should make, and our logic may also be ger news items, but symbols of Europe’s struggle to integrate its Muslims, any paper applicable to national news outlets, as well. which printed the cartoons would itself become the headline news item. While our

The cartoon controversy is real news of the most fundamental kind. If one editors have a responsibility to explain controversial editorial decisions to the public, event highlights just how wide the cultural gaps are in both the War on Terror and the we are unwilling to make The Michigan Review a news item; we were infinitely less ever-expanding system of globalized economies and liberalized economies, this may willing to reduce our nearly 25 year history on campus to a cartoon. The Michigan well be it. It shows just how contentious things are in Europe between its native citi- Review simply provides sharp analysis of the news; it is not itself newsworthy. Still, zens and its large Muslim population; a microcosm of the world over, in many ways. the choice has been the cause of much soul-searching in Suite One, and begs the obviThose who argue for publishing the cartoons argue that the importance and profile ous question: This issue of the Michigan Review carries stories on Hamas’s election in of what has happened in the aftermath of the first publishing, in Denmark. But such Israel and the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Why are they newsworthy in our simple justification does not rationalize what would otherwise be a poor decision, lack- campus affairs journal, whereas cartoons which ignited massive-scale riots aren’t? ing in judgment.

The key difference is that our analysis on the Weapons of Mass Destruction

First, and contrary to popular belief, publishing the cartoons is not the covers an underreported, not an overreported, topic to which we can add facts and benchmark of a free press. Newsworthiness guarantees no event or person coverage. perspective. Here, our writers fill the gaps left behind by mainstream media. MeanBut it is similarly the responsibility of news sources to disseminate that which informs while, the election of Hamas in Palestine is more telling of Islamic sentiment in the the public to the fullest extent. But reprinting the Muhammad cartoons does not make political square than are Muslim overreactions to cartoons (and forgeries), which were our press any more free. The free press is one that operates without the interference baited by other Muslims. of a government who might dictate to a newspaper whether or not the cartoons must We are unswayed by flimsy arguments about what some prematurely deem be published. a “clash of civilizations” and our perceived duty to defend Western Civilization. Our However, a discussion on free speech is incomplete without mentioning the editor’s ideology is staid, and independent of any outside pressure. We do not subscribe to independence from the public as an essential element of free speech. An editor’s abil- any single idea because of simple political orientation, although our thought process is ity to make the decision independently, of government and public pressure, is one we as dynamic as we try to be. But of utmost importance is maintaining solid, consistent must cherish; the judgment call is alive and well. principles of a conservative and libertarian framework that are fairly applied to all.

The context of publishing the cartoons is such that a reprint would be ethi- Our principles dictate that we refrain from rallying under the banner of either side in cally dubious. The cartoons, after their first printing in Europe quickly left the sphere Europe. And so, we deliberately choose not to publish the cartoons, and believe the of acerbic commentary, and morphed quickly into a banner under which zealots on paper is better for that decision. MR both sides have organized. The cartoons are no longer news, but symbols. They rep-

The Michigan Review

■ From Suite One:

F

Why We Chose Not to Publish the Cartoons

“Asians” from Page 3 provided an objective clue as to what transpired. The female victim told detectives that she had not yet washed her shirt from the night in question, and that the urine of the suspect was still present on said shirt.

As such, the AAPD secured warrants to take buccal swabs for analysis from both suspects in the case, with the hope that the substance on the shirt could be identified as urine, and then attributed to either one of the suspects. Despite the fact that the analysis of the shirt was still pending in early January, charges were authorized against Stephen Williamson – and denied for the other suspect – on January 6th.

Regardless, when the Michigan State Police crime lab completed its analysis, they determined, in the words of Forensic Scientist Andrea Halvorson, that “chemical testing did not indicate the presence of creatinine on the shirt. Creatinine is found in high concentrations in

urine.” In short, there is no forensic evidence to indicate the presence of the suspect’s urine on the victim’s shirt.

**

As The Michigan Review wrote when this story broke, something surely happened that night. We don’t claim to know the facts any more than the vast majority of this campus, but the best evidence available has been detailed above.

To be charged with a crime is no laughing matter – especially a racially-motivated crime at the University of Michigan. Even acquittal fails to repair the damaged reputation, months of torment, and financial loss sustained. Even an acquittal will fail to convince many, especially when the facts of the matter were ignored from the start.

But the facts are as follows – a student has been charged with four crimes, carrying the possibility of jail time and registration as a sex offender. He was charged with these crimes based on the testimony of two victims who can’t seem to figure out if they actually had

or had not observed the suspect urinating, a parking lot attendant whose testimony is not even corroborated by the victims themselves, other witnesses who dispute the victims’ claims, and a urine-less t-shirt.

The truth about what happened on that fateful night should be even further established as this matter proceeds to trial on March 21. While we may never agree, with any degree of certainty, on what happened last September, we can say with all certainty that this incident clearly bespeaks the hysteria and tension surrounding race relations on this campus - be they true or not. MR

the michigan review

Page 5

MR vs. The Michigan Daily

T

March 16, 2006

he Michigan economy is in dire straits, as the state boasts one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and faces a massive brain drain disperses its talented young graduates across the country. Governor Granholm has outlined a plan to help improve conditions in the state, but questions still remain. Below, the Michigan Review faces off against the Michigan Daily, detailing their respective plans to improve the state economy.

MR

D

By Nick Cheolas ‘07 - Content Editor, Michigan Review

o good businesses attract smart employees, or does a skilled population attract business? The answer to this question will determine the form of Michigan politicians’ attempts to revive Michigan’s ailing economy in years to come.

It appears, though, that the latter is the case. What’s accepted as a given is the need to revive the economy. Not only do an estimated 1,000 Detroiters leave the city per month, but Michigan is hemorrhaging residents as well. According to a recent Detroit News editorial, Michigan lost nearly 80,000 people over the last two years, and is the largest repopulator of other states.

Worse than the abnormally high amount of people leaving Michigan is the type of people who leave it. I’m sure we all know plenty of fellow U-M students who plan on leaving the state after graduation, preferring metropolitan locations with several fields of employment to a Michigan economy that’s a one-trick pony at best – and even that pony is galloping out of town. The very people who could save the failing Michigan economy leave because -- irony of ironies -- the economy cannot support their ambitions. Save innovative thinking, this could be the vicious cycle to which Michigan is doomed.

But economic improvement is often misconsidered. We debate whether small-scale tax cuts create an entrepreneurial climate in Michigan, which encourages risk-taking and innovation. Whether or not the Michigan Single Business Tax is eliminated is immaterial to the state’s economic prospects. It’ll grab headlines and inspire plenty of rhetoric in Lansing, but it won’t seriously affect the number of businesses in Michigan. Businesses don’t relocate wholly or even largely on account of taxes -- if so, why do businesses continue to operate in New York and California? Because of the skill and education level of the population, who are the potential workforce and consumer base for a firm’s products. Innovative technology firms simply can’t count on the Michigan workforce being educated enough to fulfill its needs. The only way to keep the 6,000 U-M grads and the thousands of other young graduates in Michigan is to create an atmosphere which supports their ambitions. In this day and age young people are justifiably loathe putting their trust in one employer, one corporation, or one industry, and would find the opportunity to chart their own course empowering.

Many on both sides of the political aisle agree that education is the key to prosperity. As many high-paying factory jobs are leaving the state, and country, it has become increasingly difficult to find employment without a college degree. However, the traditional approach to “improving” education – through increased funding and stiffer requirements – has been misguided and fundamentally flawed.

Make no mistake, school funding and high standards matter, but they are by no means the solution to Michigan’s economic crisis. Quite frankly, those who fail to graduate, fail to care about graduation requirements. Also, all the standards in the world matter little to a teacher in charge of 35 who have no motivation to learn, no role models, no aspirations, and no real sense of how education can improve their life.

The bottom line is that the current K-12 educational system – regardless of funding or standards – is designed strictly to impart knowledge and polish skills.

Nothing in the current system provides motivation, mentorship, or the personal relationships that are critical for many students – particularly those who come from lowincome families – to succeed. Scholarship money and graduation standards have little effect when students drop out before the 11th grade.

Take the American university system – responsible for keeping us ahead of the curve despite our lackluster K-12 test scores in relation to the rest of the world.

Students are allowed to choose a college which best suits their needs; one where they feel they can excel in a certain field of interest. Competition to attract students results in newer facilities and innovative programs. Nothing in the constrained K-12 system provides this type of environment.

State legislators – many with little or no experience with educational policy – can allocate all the money and implement all the requirements they wish. But until Michigan stops trying to educate the children of single-parent, welfare homes in Flint the same way as children of doctors and lawyers from Birmingham, we will never achieve the educated workforce needed for a vibrant economy. MR

By Christopher Zbrozek ‘06 - Editorial page editor, Michigan Daily

B

ack in the 1950s, Flint — yes, that Flint — had one of the highest per-capita incomes of any city in the country. The wages “Generous Motors” and other industrial firms paid to line workers straight out of high school made an education almost superfluous then. Those days will not return. The state’s economy — and particularly its manufacturing sector — has been collapsing for years, driving residents from the state in search of greener economic pastures. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Metro Detroit led the nation in the outflow of its young adults between 2000 and 2002, well before automotive suppliers like Delphi and, now, Dana Corp. went bankrupt.

To revitalize the state’s economy, Michigan needs neither the greater protectionism some on the labor left advocate nor the slash-and-burn tax policies of the political right. Rather, the manufacturing-dependent state that was once the Arsenal of Democracy must develop and retain a highly educated workforce that can compete in the high-tech, knowledge-based fields that are shaping the 21st century economy.

Protectionist tariffs — such as the 25 percent duty on trucks imported from Thailand likely to be axed in an upcoming U.S.-Thai free trade deal — might provide some temporary breathing room for Michigan manufacturing workers, if at the expense of broader national economic growth. There is, however, hardly enough political support for increased protectionism to override the broader trends embodied by the so-called Washington Consensus. And Michigan’s leaders can do little but beg to change the nation’s trade policies anyway.

The notion that slashing the state’s taxes will return it to prosperity, promoted by many an ardently pro-free-trade Republican, is even further off-base. The argument that the cost of doing business in Michigan drives companies away might have made a bit of sense when the state’s competitors for unskilled manufacturing jobs were nonunion states in the South. But in an era when we face competition from foreign workers paid less in a day than even poorly paid American workers make in an hour, no state in the union can hope to attract much investment through the comparative advantage of low-wage labor.

The path Michigan needs to follow is that set by states such as California and Massachusetts, where a commitment to education and a culture of entrepreneurship that starts at research universities and extends to start-up firms has built a knowledge economy hardly affected by the ongoing decline of American manufacturing.

The alternative model is Alabama, which recently lost out in its bid for a new Toyota plant to a better-educated workforce in Ontario. Alabama has low taxes and lousy schools, and Japanese automakers with plants in the South have had trouble training poorly educated workers there — in some cases, even needing to use “pictorials” to teach illiterate workers how to operate complicated machinery.

Michigan needs to boost its standards for K-12 schools. We need to make sure all residents, not just affluent suburbanites, have access to higher education. We need to commit to retraining workers whose jobs have left for good. We need not just a greater number of college graduates but a greater proportion of recent grads who will stay in Michigan. “Cool Cities” might not be enough; one useful idea that’s been tossed around is making some student loans forgivable on condition of working at a Michigan company.

So far, the state’s political climate hasn’t allowed this agenda to flourish.

There are, however, some recent signs Lansing might be starting to get it. This year’s budget includes a slight uptick in higher ed funding, although not enough to offset four years of cuts. It looks like we might actually see a tougher high school curriculum. And despite much political wrangling, there is a version of Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s plan to invest in growing high-tech firms going forward.

That’s good, because Michigan has some great potential economic strengths.

We’re the global hub for automotive engineering. We’ve got solid research universities.

We’re in a strong position to develop the alternative energy sources our nation — and the world — will need to shift away from fossil fuels. The next few years may be tough, but with foresight and determination, we can build a stronger economy to replace the manufacturing jobs that are rusting away.

the michigan review

Page 6

■ The Deep End

W

March 16, 2006

Opinion

On College Freedom

e think we know what freedom is.

As college students, these are supposed to be the most “free” days of our lives; days where opportunities abound on the horizon, and we frolic about campus with nary a care in the world. But more often that not, the notion we hold of “freedom” is often entirely facile, leading many students into a kind of mindless cycle of college life, thinking they’re free while only acting against it.

Liberty and freedom must be two of the least understood concepts among our generation. They’re something that are supposed to be common and understood as basic civics at this point in our lives; common undertones to the American experience that we’re expected to know. Many take a one-dimensional approach, though, thinking that freedom simply means having options or choices; anything that takes away any available choice is wrong. The multitudes of options, for many, are the first-order good in experiencing freedom. But for so many in our generation, the most important component of having liberty is that we use it—and to its fullest extent. This is only a false sense of independence, leaving us acting without guidance. We amble through life with no sense of direction or purpose, leaving our most important needs and intentions unfulfilled.

We’re loath to impose any sanction on ourselves that will limit our options. We go to Michigan.

We’re supposed to be smarter than that. And yet so many college students follow the tradition of, what seems, has always been practiced. That is, we continue to act in the “Whoo! College-Means-No-Parents!” way.

We get in line and are shuffle through our four years, often losing sight of anything meaningful in our lives.

We may graduate and be able to say we did it all. And we may travel back on alumni weekends and look back on these times as our glory days. [Many times, one might be left to wonder how the writers of Old School and American Pie are more able to shape the modern college experience than even the most influential university

president.] But the type of freedom we live is illusory, leading us astray from any complex, real college experience. That is maybe the most disheartening element of the college experience today.

This attitude is simple, and at the same time, all-too-simplistic. Having no parental authority planning our lives, dictating what choices we can make, is a very good thing. But the availability of options hardly means that we must exercise them all to get the most out of our lives. For a certain proportion of students, though, having “freedom” as college students means exercising every option possible that had previously been unavailable. The argument goes such that the truly liberated are only those who take advantages of the full experiences and options now available. Those Michael who fall short of doing everything they can fall short of knowing freeO’Brien dom.

Freedom and liberty, though, do not exist in a vacuum of morality, responsibility, or even personal and emotional tumult. Our sense of freedom as college students seems entirely constructed. College is a time to figure ourselves out, some argue. They think that developing any system of ideals that binds ourselves is antithetical to the entire experiment that the college experience is supposed to be. And we buy into it – cogs in the collegiate wheel.

It’s cliché, but freedom does very much imply responsibility. “Good” isn’t exercising and utilizing every option available to us while we still have time.

Rather, what is good, and what should be our first priority, is discerning which of all the available options to us are “good,” particularly to the exclusion of that which is objectively “bad.” Ignoring our individual duty to sort through the murky does not absolve us of our culpability for our decisions, it only multiplies it. Taking the time

and effort to decide right and wrong—through thought, prayer, discussion, reading yoga, whatever—is critical to maintaining freedom for ourselves and others, and the responsible exercise thereof.

Exercising all of our options isn’t necessarily a good thing. I have the option of eating Wendy’s from the Union every night for dinner; that freedom scarcely makes it a good idea. Perhaps more relevant to the college experience, I may have the option of going on a bender and skipping all my classes. But that doesn’t make it a good thing, either, even aside from what would assume its practical effects on my academics. The point is that our actions and words operate within a much larger context than their effects on ourselves. Indeed, pretending that all of our actions need only be concerned with our personal or physical integrity is an act of self-centeredness. Man is fundamentally social, and while some acts are more personal than others, this is no free pass to live life recklessly, with little thought or regard for others.

As a generation, we often ignore that true freedom is something complex and more meaningful than doing or trying everything. Living out freedom is the result of careful thought and consideration. It’s knowing why we choose to do something. It’s having the fortitude of character to be able to decide for oneself to which activities and things we must object, and not being afraid to live out that decision under duress of others. It’s about knowing that true freedom means understanding that, in living life to its fullest, we often forfeit a number of “rights” we like to maintain—whether it is to a romantic power, our God, our principles, or even sometimes civil authority. Having freedom means making the choices necessary to develop ourselves fully, not wading idly into the quite limiting paradigm of college freedom into which so many buy.

And in the end, we still think we know what freedom is. MR

Love us? Hate us?

Write us!

Visit our blog:

www.michiganreview.com or email us:

mrev@umich.edu

the michigan review

Page 7

March 16, 2006

Local Affairs

The Future for a Super City

Will the big game have a lasting impact?

By Jane Coaston, ‘08

T

he dust has finally settled from Super Bowl XL, held in Detroit on February 5th. Though a majority of the discussion regarding the game was related to Roethlisberger versus Hasselbeck, the question of possible economic ramifications for the struggling metropolis also made headlines. The question “could the millions of dollars invested into renovations, clean-up, advertising, security, and improvements within city networks pay off, rescuing Detroit from the economic downturn in which it has spent much of the past three decades?” was heavily debated. The dollar amount of direct financial impact on the city of Detroit has been projected by some studies to be as high as $302 million. But for many economists, the numbers are considerably lower, and though positive, not enough to change city dynamics.

In a document entitled “Likely Economic Impact of Super Bowl XL” published by the Anderson Economic Group, a Michigan-based consulting firm, the dollar amount for estimated direct financial impact hovers around $50 million, with this number stemming from

projections of visitor expenditures (for example, assuming that the average hotel room costs $200, and a majority of visitors will pay for their lodging themselves), ticket sales and sponsorships. This number also includes the anticipated costs encompassed within hosting the Super Bowl. The paper views the Super Bowl as a continuation of positive economic momentum as evidenced by the Ryder Cup and the MLB All-Star Game, both also held in Detroit in the past two years. But the economic impact of the Super Bowl as compared with the estimated costs to the city has been recently criticized. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, reporter Mark Yost noted that research done by several economists showed that, in previous Super Bowls, the economic impact, when combined with tax data and compared with its pre-Super Bowl status, and any revenues would be matched by costs.

Perhaps the true lasting impact that Super Bowl XL could have on the Detroit area, and what many civic leaders are banking on, is a change in perception. Since the late nineteen-sixties, Detroit has experienced a precipitous economic and cultural downturn. Due to

the decline in the American car industry (based primarily in the Detroit region), crime and gang-related problems, and “white flight,” Detroit has been regarded as a prime example of the downfall of the American city.

With the NFL’s decision to award Super Bowl XL to Detroit, came the attendant hope that an influx of tourists would catalyze a “renaissance” of the city’s image. The desire to pull in visitors from the neighboring suburbs of Grosse Pointe, Farmington Hills, Birmingham and others and to showcase the city’s cultural attributes played a major role in expenditures on city improvement. Whether or not it worked, however, remains to be seen. For example, many celebrities did not rent lofts or apartments within the city of Detroit itself, preferring the larger, safer housing in the suburbs. In fact, many of the celebrities who attended the game rented homes in Grosse Pointe.

According to Natalie Fedirko, a Grosse Pointe native, many celebrities saw very little of the city of Detroit. But many suburban residents did visit downtown to attend Super Bowl-related events and cultural activities.

The direct impact of the Super

Bowl on the Detroit economy is assuredly positive. Corporations did spend money, as did tourists and city residents.

But the true question is what city leaders will do with windfall profits from the big game. Recent Super Bowl locations have not been lucky with financial payouts. After last year’s Super Bowl in Jacksonville, civil leaders expected a large bonus from the festivities surrounding the game. But media criticism of the locale influenced decision-making for tourists, and the game may have actually cost Jacksonville $12 million. Detroit has its own problems- a massive deficit, a court-ordered reorganization of the police department, closings and controversy within the Detroit Public Schools, and political wrangling on City Council. Could the money and publicity that came with Super Bowl XL lead to changes within city government that could fix problems and alleviate strain within Detroit’s infrastructure?

Those answers lie within the mayor’s office, the chambers of City Council, and the governor’s mansion. MR

Following up the Monologues

By Amanda Nichols, ‘08

A

The show amidst the controversy

s many on campus already know, this year’s production of The Vagina Monologues was “worried about colorful vaginas,” and decided to cast only women of color. However, under fire from charges of racism, the producers eased off their hard-nosed stance and declared “color” a self-defined trait.

The production was indeed colorful; along with the water-colored individual, the performers were of all racial and ethnic groups, including one woman who described herself as “pink.” In fact, there were several women in the cast who would be traditionally referred to as white. However, these conventional distinctions did not seem to hinder the production or the organizers.

For example, in the monologue called, “The Woman Who Loved To Make Vaginas Happy,” the woman performing lists the various moans she’s been able to elicit from women. In this skit, the cast stood in a semicircle around the performer and each woman performed a different moan. In an attempt to push the ethnic envelope, an African American woman performed the WASP moan (appropriately, it was silent) and a white woman performed the black moan.

But this was about as far as the production went to dissuade commonly held perceptions of racial identity. The composition of the audience was more interesting than the actual composition of 2006’s “colorful” cast. The Power Center, although not sold out, was full, and much of the audience can be best described as

second-wave feminists: older, upper-middle class white women with their husbands and friends. In a January teach-in, the organizers of the Monologues cited this was the exact audience they wanted to avoid; the producers and directors referred to their attempt to cast only women of color as a tactic to include a greater variety of female communities in their audience. Of course, there were people of all colors in the audience as well, but much of this year’s viewing population did not appear to be UM students.

Regardless of the color of this year’s cast, the Monologues were well performed. Dedicated to the women of Bosnia before its performance, “My Vagina Was My Village” was particularly moving and performed with great emotional depth. Of course, “The Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy” and the circle of moans elicited a large response from the crowd. The perpetually popular monologue called “My Angry Vagina” also was a crowd-pleaser.

And then there was the monologue dedicated to Native American women. Called “Crooked Braid,” it detailed the abuse incurred by these women at the hands of their male counterparts. A shocking description of the violence of reservation life, the monologue was powerful and effective—until the end. Through the reading of a statement from a UM American Culture professor, the 2006 Monologues asserted that, before European colonization, violence did not exist in Native American communities. While this may be true, this history of col-

onization is questionably attributed a causal role in the present-day violence against Native American women.

Screaming, “We want our men back,” the women performing this monologue blamed the reservation system and the US government for their husbands’ and boyfriends’ alcohol abuse and subsequent sexual and physical assaults against they and their children.

In the context of a feminist play, this mentality of excuses rather than accountability seems to discredit assertions regarding one reclaiming power over oneself and one’s body. Can one really control oneself if the government can cause alcoholism and violence? Can this really be a play to end violence against women and girls if it allows present-day men to blame Jacksonianera government policies? Can the Monologues really prove that the white man brought violence into North America, and how can they claim seventeenth-century settlers are responsible for twenty-first century actions?

While the Monologues caused controversy this year with their all-colored stance, the most offensive and harmful thing about the play was the statement claiming Native American men are not responsible for their own actions. This statement directly clashes with the Monologues’ central message of empowerment, and effectively discredits any attempts by Ensler or the V-DAY organization to end violence against women and girls.

After all, can it ever really stop if the US government is to blame? MR

Page 8

the michigan review Commentary

Book Review: Heaven on Earth

By Nick Cheolas, ‘07

S

ocialism was the faith in which I was raised.

It was my father’s faith and my father’s before him.”

So begins Joshua Muravchik’s Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism. Similar to F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, Heaven on Earth traces the roots of Socialism, its rise to power, and its precipitous decline.

Muravchik documents the history of Socialism as if it were a faith. But unlike Islam or Christianity, which took centuries to spread, socialism spread like wildfire across the globe in mere decades. At its height, nearly two thirds of the globe subscribed to Socialist or Communist ideology.

Muravchik traces the roots of this “faith” from the days of the French revolution and a man named Francois-Noel Babeuf. Babeuf, in effect, took the ideals of the French revolution, namely equality. True equality, Babeuf reasoned, would require a complete overhaul of the economic system, and an abolition of all private property.

Babeuf’s ideas were seized upon by the likes of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who transformed the dying ideology into a pseudo-religion. These men also incorporated Socialism into the course of history, reasoning that Socialism was the inevitable result of an oppressive capitalist system. Still, the ideology remained rather dormant throughout the 19th century.

The early 20th century provided socialists with their first victories, supporting the hypothesis that history flowed from capitalism to socialism. Vladimir Lenin’s model in Russia provided what many called a skewed version of socialism. However, this skewed form of so-

By Michael Balkin, ‘09

I

March 16, 2006

cialism, and the debates surrounding it, would give birth to the governments of Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s.

As Muravchik argues, “the leap from Lenin to Mussolini was no bigger than that from Marx to Lenin; each man distilled theory from the exigencies of revolutionary action.” And so emerges a familiar trend: the malleable theory of socialism has so often found itself twisted to serve the desires of those who implement it.

After examining World War II socialist governments, Muravchik examines the explosion of the ideology, reaching an apex in the 1970s, and the rise of “social democracy.” From the ashes of World War II, socialist and communist regimes emerged around the glove. So too is another irony of socialism – a system believed to be the inevitable result of capitalist oppression and greed took hold only within devastated, desperate societies.

But just as Muravchik details the rise of socialism, he also details its rapid descent, and attributes that descent to two major factors. First, socialism was an incredibility appealing ideology, but far more appealing in theory than in practice. Once implemented, socialism repeatedly failed to improve the lot of the downtrodden, and often times exacerbated the death, misery, and destruction that gave socialism its initial appeal. Second, socialism failed to gain momentum in the nation that, theoretically, should have been ripe for a socialist revolution: the United States of America. “As America’s continued economic success mocked socialism’s failures, various Third World nations began to rethink their economic direction,” writes Muravchik. Even America’s mortal enemies, China and the USSR, instituted reforms that would result in the crumbing of socialist regimes

worldwide.

Muravchik paints a picture of socialism through the eyes of those who knew it best. He remains quite unbiased and refrains from argumentation, thus not fearing to highlight the positive aspects of socialism or its greatest (and worst) leaders. He does not fault many who believed so fervently in the ideology; it indeed was (and still is) a remarkably appealing system – especially on paper.

Heaven on Earth thus serves as an objective chronological history of socialism, and Muravchik lets the facts make his argument. He leaves room for the traditional argument that socialism remains a desirable ideology, but it has simply been implemented in perverse, destructive forms around the globe. However, Muravchik’s historical narrative highlights the aspects of socialism that seem to serve as a predisposition toward tyranny and chaos.

Overall, Heaven on Earth is a remarkably complete and objective account of the rise and fall of socialism – told by a man raised in the socialist faith. As Muravchik writes, socialism was “man’s most ambitious attempt to supplant religion with a doctrine about how life ought to be lived that claimed grounding in science rather than revelation.” This doctrine, at its peak, ruled more than half of the world, and while its “successes” were usually among desperate third-world nations, many adherents could be found within the most successful capitalist nation on earth. Muravchik’s book is a great read – especially for ambitious, idealistic college students: those most susceptible to the follies of their predecessors. MR

Iraq’s WMDs: The Untold Story

n the summer of 2002, the Zeyzoun dam collapsed in northern Syria. The destruction of the dam led to severe flooding which caused the deaths of dozens of Syrians and destroyed more than 300 homes. Saddam Hussein, expectedly, was the first to offer assistance and aid personnel to Syria; the two Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria were said to be “cousin regimes” ever since their relations began to thaw in 1997. The leadership in Iraq then proceeded to deliver the aid via civilian airliners - or so the world thought.

Based on new testimony from a former Iraqi Air Force general named Georges Sada, who provided details of the inner workings of the Iraqi regime in his new book Saddam’s Secrets, it seems as though Hussein was transporting more than just aid in those “civilian” airliners. Gen. Sada claims that Hussein used the civilian airliners to move weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the Iraq war began in 2003. Sada additionally asserts that passenger seats were removed from the aircraft to allow for easier transport of the various weapons. There were 56 flights in total. Gen. Sada also claims that two of the pilots that flew into Syria came to him with first-hand accounts of what actually was being transported. He alleges that the two pilots saw “big yellow bins with skulls on them” being loaded onto the so-called civilian airliners. Additionally, Sada’s assertions have been corroborated by another former military commander under Hussein, Ali Ibrahim.

The story of the missing WMDs goes further.

David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations, was assigned to the Talill Air Base in Nasiriyah at the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His assigned task was to acquire intelligence on the whereabouts of prominent Baathists and WMDs. He was to convey the information to the group of American weapons inspectors assembling in Iraq that would later be called the Iraq Survey Group. Gaubatz said he walked the streets of Nasiriyah, conducting interviews with local civilians, local policemen, and former Iraqi military officials.

During the run-up to the war, Gaubatz was taken by these informants to four locations. Three of the locales were in Nasiriyah and one was near the port of Umm Qasr. In each instance, he was shown underground concrete bunkers whose tunnels were purposefully flooded. He was told, by nearly all of his sources, that the facilities contained stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. In addition, Mr. Gaubatz received information detailing that the bunkers held missiles whose range surpassed the distance mandated by U.N. sanctions. But, as a result of the 5 feet thick concrete walls and the flooded tunnels, he was never able to enter the underground sites. However, he did file extensive reports that included testimony from multiple sources, photos, and precise grid coordinates. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) to come to the sites.

The ISG almost never arrived and, when they did, they were not properly equipped to blast through the walls

or pump out the flooded tunnels. To this day, the sites have not been properly inspected. Additionally, David Kay and Charles Duelfer, both chief inspectors for the ISG, declined to be interviewed when this story broke.

The story gets deeper still. Saddam Hussein, for some unknown reason, decided to make cassette tapes of discussions he had with advisors in his office.

These tapes were acquired by the intelligence community recently and no one has disputed their authenticity.

There are dozens, possibly hundreds, of hours still to be translated. The first 12 hours of the tapes are extremely damaging. Opponents of the war with Iraq believed that Hussein got rid of his weapons after the Gulf War in 1991.

However, the recordings show, Saddam’s sonin-law, Hussein Kamel, bragging about fooling the inspectors after the Gulf War. In addition, as late as 2000, Saddam Hussein can be heard talking about his extensive plans to build a nuclear weapon. Perhaps the most chilling part of the tapes is when Saddam and his advisors describe how easy it would be to launch a Biological weapon attack in Washington, D.C., using “proxies,” or agents that could not be connected to the Iraqi government.

In 2002, Al Gore said, “We know that that [Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” With new evidence helping to muddy the waters as to what we know vis-a-vis Iraq’s WMDs, perhaps old Al’s assertions will finally turn out to be true. MR

the michigan review

Page 9

March 16, 2006

Book Reviews

Book Review: Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire

By Adam Paul, ‘08

A

merica is an empire and it can exert imperial pressure to make the world better off: that is the driving belief of Niall Ferguson’s Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. Ferguson is a Professor of History at Harvard University as well as a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College at Oxford University and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His new book challenges the commonly held belief that empires are tyrannical and argues that a “liberal empire” of the United States is the best option for order and stability in the modern world. Ferguson defines “liberal empire” as one that “underwrites the free international exchange of commodities, labor and capital but creates… peace and order, the rule of law, [and] non-corrupt administration.” He first compares the rise of the United States Empire to older empires, especially the British Empire, and then examines current events to explain the steps necessary to avoid a decline in US power.

Ferguson spends a great deal of time defending his first assertion that America is an empire. He claims, “Not merely that the United States is an em-

pire but that is has always been an empire.” He explains that the shock many Americans feel at being called in empire demonstrates that we are an “empire in denial” meaning that the US finds imperialism in conflict with its own emphasis on freedom and self-determination. Ferguson demonstrates that this imperial guilt” causes the US to place restrictive limits on its own power.

Ferguson’s strongest example is that of US-led reconstruction of Japan and Germany after World War II. He argues that while the US wanted to create a new capitalist democracy in Japan it did so “by an absolute monarch in the person of [General] MacArthur.” Ferguson calls this tension between the desire for freedom and the need to impose it “the Imperialism of Anti-Imperialism,” a state in which the US uses imperial power to elevate the status of its allies. This idea was in full force during the Cold War when the “American notion of containment, predicated though it was on the threat from another, malignant empire, was itself implicitly an imperial undertaking.” Compared to the USSR, Ferguson refers to US political and military dominance after WWII as an “empire based

on consent” that sought to better its dependants. Ferguson also questions the merits of decolonization. He states that the practice has often “led not to democracy but, after the briefest of interludes, to indigenous dictatorship.” He explains that due to corruption, weak institutions, and civil strife many of the countries that became independent after WWI, particularly the Philippines, Egypt, India, and Vietnam, all had higher real per capita GDP’s before there independence than they do toady, almost 70 years later.

Using history, Ferguson calls for a more aggressive US foreign policy.

He claims that continued US presence in Iraq is the only way to breed democracy there. Yet Ferguson explains that three factors may limit the ability of the US to act as an effective empire. The first two, an economic deficit that has made the US the world’s largest debtor and a manpower deficit that restrains US military intervention, Ferguson claims can be overcome. The more difficult is America’s “attention deficit” caused by rotations in power due to frequent elections and the public’s desire to avoid long-term foreign presence and military casualties. One of Ferguson’s primary goals is to convince

Book Review: On Bullshit

By Karen Boore, ‘09

B

ullshit. You’ve heard it. I’ve heard it.

We’ve all heard it. Many of us have even made our contribution to its prevalence in our world. Some more than others, it seems. But what is bullshit? While we are able to identify it in action, how would we define it? In his latest book, On Bullshit, Harry G. Frankfurt, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University, attempts to define bullshit through philosophical analysis, tracing out the structure of the concept we call bullshit.

Frankfurt first builds off of the work in Max Black’s The Prevalence of Humbug. Black defined humbug, assumed to be just a more polite term for bullshit, as “deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, of somebody’s own thoughts, feelings, or attitudes.” While this complex definition fits tightly to some examples, Frankfurt finds it lacking, and investigates further to accurately identify the fundamental characteristics of bullshit.

In his quest for the meaning of bullshit, Frankfurt consults the Oxford English Dictionary. His etymological analysis of bull and bull sessions reveals some of the nuances in the use of the word bullshit. He also includes a somewhat humorous comparison of “hot air” and bullshit to actual shit! It turns out that they’re indeed quite similar. Just as excrement has been depleted of all nutrients, hot air and bullshit are devoid of any “informative content.” Furthermore, just as excrement is simply “dumped,” so too is bullshit simply crap that is emitted. While this comparison is done quite seriously,

the mere fact that a philosophical analysis is concerned with excrement is likely to amuse some readers.

Frankfurt exposes bullshit, not lies, as the greatest enemy of the truth. Frankfurt regards a “lack of connection to a concern with truth” and an “indifference to how things really are” as the essence of bullshit.

Although liars know the truth and reject its authority, Frankfurt says a liar is still responding to it and “he is to that extent respectful of it.” The bullshitter, conversely, “does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out or makes them up, to suit his purpose.” Thus, in its total lack of regard for truth, bullshit poses a greater threat to it than lies.

Frankfurt points out that some people whom he calls “antirealists” consider it impossible to really have access to the truth and an “objective reality.” While some facts are hard to obtain, Frankfurt makes a strong point to say that when a person becomes less concerned with the ideal of correctness and transfers their truthseeking efforts to simply trying to be ‘true to himself’ a grave mistake is being made. Being true to oneself and not considering the truth in the world, which cannot be unconnected from oneself, is just another form of bullshit.

Whether or not there is more bullshit now than in times gone by, Frankfurt does not attempt to determine. However, he does assert that the incidence of bullshit is great. Press briefings in Washington, the presentation of the war in Iraq, and the mindless dedication to political parties are just a few things that reek of

his reader that America can and should play a positive role as an imperial power.

Ferguson asserts that the end of US unipolarity would not create a new power but would lead to apolarity-- “a global vacuum of power.” Ferguson discredits two contenders to US power, the EU and China, as being unable to take on global dominance in part due to aging populations.

Ferguson’s argues that empires are a rational way to generate social order and that it is the nation-state that is the “historical novelty.” Much of the criticism of his book has not been on this premise but rather on his tendency to digress to often superfluous examples.

John Lewis Gaddis of the New York Times criticizes the book for sounding like “a series of previously published essays too hastily stitched together.” The book is sure to be eagerly accepted by those seeking a more aggressive foreign policy but its Victorian-like demands that America play a paternal role and bring “civilization” to the world are unlikely to appeal to those Ferguson most wants to convince. MR

bullshit in our nation today. As bullshit’s place in our culture is so ingrained, Frankfurt’s essay presents an opportunity for discourse on the matter.

Popular Comedy Central satires “The Colbert Report” and “The Daily Show” seem to be increasing the awareness of America’s bullshit problem. The comedic use of “truthiness” popularized by Stephen Colbert and its ensuing popularity (it was chosen as the American Dialect Society’s 2005 Word of the Year) is a further indication. The word’s relationship to bullshit is evident as it is currently defined as “the quality by which a person purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination.”

With its relevance to contemporary issues and culture, On Bullshit is well worth the read. The size of the book - a mere 80 pages - greatly contrasts with the preponderance of bullshit in our world. Frankfurt is no hypocrite - be assured that, while the subject is bullshit, he will not bullshit you. The analysis is strict and philosophical with the clear intention of seeking the truth.

Frankfurt leaves the reader to consider his own encounters with bullshit and question its role in society. Indeed, we can all benefit from greater awareness of it. No shit.

MR

the michigan review

Page 10

March 16, 2006

Book Reviews

Book Review: When Affirmative Action Was White

By Sekou Benson, ‘06

F

rom the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative ballot proposal intended for this years state ballot to the Grutter vs. Bollinger Supreme Court case decided almost three years ago, affirmative action or racial preferences has been a dominate issue at the University of Michigan and the state of Michigan at large.

Ira Katzenelson, a political science professor at Columbia University, seeks to put the current situation of affirmative action in a historical context in his recent book, When Affirmative Action Was White. The book short in length (270 pages) makes the case that from the New Deal era to the situation following the GI bill after World War II the government instituted federal funded programs and policies that helped lead to the rise of the white middle class that largely excluded African Americans

The Wagner Act passed in the early 1930s, was, on its face, a colorblind policy. The act allowed for workers in most industries and occupations to unionize without fear of reprisal from their employers and also instituted minimum safety and income requirements for workers.

This act is created as one of the crown jewels of the New Deal and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration. To formulate the passage of the act there were certain concessions that had to be made to gain the support of Southern Democrats. One of the concessions was an exemption clause that excluded domestic and agrarian workers from the new rules. This was significant because most of the upper class Southern white families that had maids and large farms depended on the Black population for labor.

Besides the customary exclusion of certain indus-

By Brian Biglin, ‘08

I

n Crunchy Cons, Dallas Morning News editor and former National Review columnist Rod Dreher has given us a masterpiece that will spur on much-needed intellectual discourse.

This book serves multiple purposes. It lays out the intellectual and ideological sensibilities of so-called ‘crunchy’ conservatives, making it more a book of ideas than a series of political stances. In addition, it illustrates the diversity of Republican voters, and casts aside baseless generalizations of gun-loving country bumpkins or SUV-driving McMansion builders.

Crunchy Cons comes at a time when the Republicans are on top, but true conservativism is hardly taking grasp in America, and this book is an outlet for Republicans left confused by the actions of their government. The book makes powerful statements about our political arena, calling it out as too hate-filled to too stereotype-driven. There is excessive double talk and lacking priority on faith and family. Dreher asserts that most Republicans talk big but do not come through when it comes to helping families, unless you count the focus on banning gay marriage.

The book begins with the ‘Crunchy Con manifesto,’ which declares, among other things, that modern conservatism is too focused on materialism and not

tries Katzenelson points to the use of federal funds being dispersed at the state level as a way to institutionalize discrimination. This was no more apparent than the funds allocated by the second GI bill, an act passed after World War II, to help military veterans. To his credit Katzenelson points out the numerous opportunities and gains achieved

by African Americans because of the bill such as subsidized home loans, education grants, and business loans.

But the problem with the bill, in Katzenelson’s view, was the state mandated systems and institutions that dealt directly with the bill especially in the south. An example used was the collegiate system in the south, where many of the leading institutions in the south such as the University of Alabama and Mississippi had exclusionary racial policies. Many African American veterans had to seek education at historical black institutions, which lacked many of the programs of the white institutions and did not have the funds to meet the high demand for their educational services. An example used was Virginia State University which was described as one of the top Black colleges but lacked a library for its students.

Another barrier to African American progress was white-dominated agencies at the state level, which were responsible for distributing federal GI bill funds.

Katznelson points out Southern agencies were reluctant to give African Americans the funds and training needed to be skilled farm workers because it would rupture the Southern way of life putting Blacks on equal playing field and diminish the number of cheap agrarian laborers the South depended on.

In his last chapter of the book Katznelson wraps it up by making the case for affirmative action based on

the premise that preferential treatment given to African Americans by educational institutions and business can be justified based on past discriminatory policies. Katznelson rejects the diversity rationale laid out by the University of Michigan and other leading academic institutions. Paradoxically, Katznelson supports the concurrent opinion laid out by Lewis Powell in the famous Supreme Court Case University of California vs. Bakke, which relied on the diversity argument over the systematic discrimination argument laid out by Justice Thurgood Marshall. The point of agreement for Katznelson is the strict scrutiny approach laid out by Justice Powell for affirmative action programs.

Unlike many legal experts, Katznelson does not view the principle of strict scrutiny as unreasonable standard that cannot be reached, but instead views it as a way that insures affirmative action policies are clearly intended to make the world a color blind society.

Katznelson’s book is an amazing reference that showcases how systematic and institutional discrimination by the government has caused harm to Black Americans, and why affirmative actions are justified to achieve this goal. One weakness of the book is that one gets the impression that discrimination is strictly limited to the Southern half of the country, and the north was discrimination free. Many of the statistics illustrated in the book such as unemployment insurance and financial benefits incurred through the GI Bill had blacks on an equal playfield with the white population in the North. The book failed to illustrate any circumstances of Northern discrimination besides a brief mention of Princeton University’s strict discriminatory admission’s policy. MR

Book Review: Crunchy Cons focused enough on the family and our culture; that the free market is superior form of economic organization, but that leaders are too quick to cater to big business and major developers; that small and local business should be fostered, and that conservatives need to put the ‘conserve’ back into our name, meaning restraining suburban sprawl, respecting natural resources, and living in previously built environments like cities, rather than building dehumanizing new ones; and that there should be a greater place for culture, beauty (not just luxury), and pursuits like art appreciation among conservatives, and that this should go on without mainstream Republicans decrying you as an “elitist.”

The book makes clear why crunchy conservatives almost exclusively vote Republican today. Dreher writes that despite their critiques of consumerism and outward development, and their concern for the environment (both of which he insists are just different, older strains of conservatism), crunchy cons are conscious of “evil, and the duty of good men and women to confront it with violence if necessary.”

Dreher, a traditional Catholic, defers often on issues like this to the words of the current Pope and his predecessor, and in his chapter on religion, finds common ground which he holds with Orthodox Christians, conservative Jews, and some evangelical Christians.

Dreher paints the portrait of dif-

ferent crunchy conservatives through the many interviews done for this book. It seems like every point he makes is being illustrated by a strong example. In doing this, one sees the diversity of crunchy conservatives. There are families from the suburbs who decry the plastic nature of their own suburb and the bombardment of technology in everyday life, and call themselves Teddy Roosevelt Republicans. There is the pro-life, vegetarian, Buddhist crunchy conservative who speaks of the virtues of President Bush, and there are naturalist conservatives from the West, urban homeschooling conservatives, and cosmopolitan conservatives from New York, Ann Arbor, and Berkeley.

Dreher is not afraid to bash fellow conservatives. He criticizes conservatives who “poke fun at the sanctimony of environmentalists, and try to convince [themselves] that the sprawling crapulence of big-box stores, strip malls, monotonous housing developments, and other degrading manifestations of our built environment somehow represent progress?”

He really lays into some conservatives when he questions their moral high ground: “We want God back in the public square, but for too many of us, religion is a pious veneer over our unconscious worship of materialism. We want a faith that makes us feel good about ourselves, not one that makes demands we’d rather not obey. We’ve turned religion into another

consumer good.”

From his chapter which introduces crunchy conservatism, Dreher goes on to discuss big ideas, continuing to use anecdotes and paint pictures of different types of conservatives along the way, with powerful chapters on Home, Education, and Religion. In ‘Home,’ Dreher uses anecdotes to make a remarkably strong case against suburban sprawl, arguing that modern suburban life is not good for raising family; an attention-grabbing statement, but one Dreher makes well.

Dreher is remarkably well spoken, bordering on philosophical, in his final two chapters, dealing mainly with religion.

Most crunchy conservatives are deeply religious, and their spirituality is much more than a veneer. Rather, it is something crunchy cons take seriously, especially in determining their lifestyle and cultural politics. According to Dreher, the days of finding common truths in the ‘permanent things,’ especially among conservative religious people, should be upon us.

The Republican establishment may be bristling at this book, but for those who wish to think deeper about the direction of this country and learn a little bit about the diversity within real conservative thought, then read this book. And, more than likely, enjoy it very much. MR

the michigan review

Page 11

March 16, 2006

Book Reviews

Book Review: Blood Diamonds

By Natalie Newton, ‘09

I

t has been said that diamonds are forever, and with no end in sight to the brutal civil war that continues to ravage the diamondiferous West African nation of Sierra Leone, the old adage seems to be proving itself true.

The nature of diamond mining and its industry has long been as elusive and mysterious as the rough stones themselves, leaving only a bloody trail of West African refugees and sparkling cut stones in its wake.

Journalist Greg Campbell, in his latest book, Blood Diamonds (Westview Press, 2004, 251 pages, $15.95), seeks to document the journey of the stones, from their humble origins in the jungle bush of Sierra Leone, through the hands of the rebel group Revolutionary United Front who controls their mining, into the pockets of corrupt Lebanese and European diamond dealers, and finally into the American jewelry stores that account for 80% of global diamond sales

Commonly called ‘conflict diamonds,’ referring to the internal struggle of the nations that produce them, diamonds from Sierra Leone, the Republic of Congo, and Angola, are some of the most destructive and yet least-publicized consumer products on the market.

While Campbell struggles to untangle the complicated knot of rebel groups, monopolistic diamond distributors, and post-colonial dictators that contribute to the ‘conflict,’ his powerful and at times, disturbing, account of the path of a stone from Sierra Leone sheds muchneeded light on an otherwise unexposed human rights violation that is only just beginning to gain the global

attention it deserves.

Central to Campbell’s discussion of conflict diamonds is the role of DeBeers, the world’s largest diamond distributor, and one of many villains that in Campbell’s mind, in the conflict. Since the initial discovery of diamonds in Sierra Leone and other parts of West Africa, DeBeers has quickly come to dominate the industry through their chokehold on the resource. If the entire global supply of known diamonds were being cut and sold as they were mined, the price of diamonds would drop so low, they would certainly no longer be considered a luxury item, and would in fact become nearly worthless. Campbell argues that DeBeers, having complete elastic control over supply, has therefore been able to create their own demand through innovative marketing and by cooperating with the rebel groups, especially the RUF, that now mine and sell the diamonds.

The existence of conflict diamonds allows DeBeers to buy essentially all diamonds mined from Sierra Leone at absurdly low prices, and then resell them at whatever inflated price they choose, and the lack of media attention over the obvious human rights conflict of cooperation with the rebel groups has done nothing to damage its reputation.

In his discussion of rebel diamonds, Campbell understandably begins with the narrative of a Sierra Leonean victim of the RUF, the rebel group that currently controls both the diamond mines and the native population with terror tactics that include mass rape, torture, random executions, looting, and cannibalism. The central victim lost his hands in 1996 as part of the RUF’s response to Sierra Leone’s president Kabbah’s plea for

his countrymen to “join hands in peace.” While the narratives of Sierra Leone’s countless victims are both stirring and disturbing, the issue of conflict diamonds remains murky even as Campbell discusses the history behind diamond mining in Africa, a world imitative of a bad pulp novel, full of shady characters and dubious business.

The 2004 edition of Blood Diamonds includes a new and much needed epilogue by Campbell, in which he addresses the ultimately futile resolution attempts made by the United Nations and Western nations in Sierra Leone. For the first time in the book Campbell takes on a protagonistic and personal voice, speaking for himself rather than retelling the life stories of refugees and victims, and finally gets political rather than personal. When the sale of conflict diamonds can simultaneously be tied to legitimate Western industry, organized crime, terrorist groups, and rebel armies, the subject matter begs to be discussed in a political context, which Campbell only just manages to fulfill sufficiently.

Campbell, a freelance journalist, takes a typically vagabondistic approach to his subject matter, and the book is constructed much as if he were learning along with the reader as he attempts to toil through the dense ‘heart of darkness’ of his experiences in Sierra Leone, creating a narrative that is a confused blend of personal experience infused with the occasional statistic, added as an afterthought. Though lacking in a clear direction or point of view, Blood Diamonds serves as a good representation of a civil war without explanation or direction itself. MR

Book Review: End of Racism

By Brian McNally, ‘08

I

t’s an old cliche that you can’t judge a book by its cover. Yet the blurbs for a book can tell several things, including its target demographic and the famous personalities that have read the book and enjoyed it. The End of Racism by Dinesh D’Souza, the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution, is no different, though the praise for it seems to create a paradox.

D’Souza is well known for his books What’s So Great About America and Illiberal Education, which have pushed a conservative agenda supported by vast amounts of research, especially into primary source material, but the majority of the praise for Racism comes from a different source.

Quotes from traditionally liberal spokesmen, including a former head of the NAACP, the Director of an African and Afro-American Studies Program, a former chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the New York Civil Rights Coalition, praise D’Souza’s research and conclusions. In fact, Margaret Bush Wilson, the former head of the NAACP, writes that The End of Racism is “A rich and provocative book . . . If the leitmotif of American society is experimentation, let’s consider some new approaches to the problems of economic disparity and poverty, including D’Souza’s.”

D’Souza starts with the problem: the affirmative action, welfare increases, and quota systems employed by the liberals for the past 30 years have done little to help the black community, and may be partially responsible for the explosion of out of wedlock births,

incarceration, and illiteracy rates of inner city blacks.

He also explores the “White Problem”: whites see that “America does not have a race problem but rather a black problem” and that slavery ended long ago, yet programs are still in place specifically for blacks. Multiculturalism is also attacked, specifically the faulty relativism that is inherent in the system, which the author experienced firsthand as an Indian-American.

The End of Racism explores the conditions which warranted these programs, dating back to the ethnocentric values inherent in all cultures, the scientific basis of racism, slavery, the Civil Rights marches of the 60s under Martin Luther King, Jr and the radical approach taken by Malcolm X. Each chapter connects back to the previous ones, as the philosophy adopted by different leaders reflects views that had diverged and evolved along separate lines.

The actions of what D’Souza terms the “Race Merchants” are also exposed, from the constant inflation of white racism, to the driving purpose behind such actions: the income and influence of such people is derived from fear. He documents the rise of the KKK and other white supremacist groups after the Civil War, and how their methods and ideology have ironically changed to model those of the “Black Power” and Afro-centric movements.

No aspect of racism is left untouched, as rational discrimination, the difference between anti-Semitism and racism, the debunking of the ignorance and racism connection, and the vilification of conservative blacks as “Uncle Toms” are all covered in great detail, along with

the author’s suggestions as to how these issues should be dealt with in the future.

Finally, D’Souza presents his solution, involving the serious rethinking of relativism, racism, and multiculturalism. His advice is that of an old proverb: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. While D’Souza admits there are pitfalls in these ways of thinking, there are also bright points which may lead to the lessening of ethnocentricism and the outright elimination of racism. Whatever the solution is, he points out that it will depend on our generation and our children’s generation to find it.

The End of Racism will force conservatives to come to grips with startling truths about the cyclic nature of despair in America’s inner cities and the benefits of a multicultural education. It will force liberals to realize that the solutions that they have implemented over the past 30 years have not solved the problem, but in many cases have exasperated it. The End of Racism lays forth a very good blueprint for the path ahead, one that involves the elimination of the racial demagogues as well as the racism deniers. In light of recent events at the University of Michigan, this book is a must read for those interested in the history of racism, the myths connected with racism, and what we can do to end it. MR

the michigan review

Page 12

By Adam Paul, ‘08

T

he Google search engine has become so popular that “Googling” has become a daily event for millions of Americans. The Chinese may soon feel the same way. Several weeks ago, Google launched google.cn, a new Chinese language site that runs inside China. But subject to Chinese law, certain filters that block out content that the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) finds objectionable were required: For example, searches for “Tiananmen Square,” links to websites that display the square’s giant portraits of Mao rather than websites that showcase pictures from the 1989 student protests. These actions have some in Congress, including Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), calling for US technology firms to pull out of China. While Google’s new endeavor has been tailored to specifications set by the CCP, it raises the prospect that Chinese dissidents will be better off than they were without the system.

The Chinese government has taken great efforts to censor the Internet in the past, and has imposed similar restraints on other American firms doing business inside the country before. When Yahoo! began service in China in 1999, it was forced to filter web searches involv-

By Yevgeny Shrago, ‘08

W

March 16, 2006

International Affairs

Google in China ing sensitive subjects like “freedom” or “revolutionary movements.” Yahoo! also began an e-mail service to which the Chinese government has demanded access in the past. The Chinese government has used messages from these e-mail accounts to put several dissidents in jail, including former civil servant Li Zhi who was incarcerated for posting an essay online.

Unlike Yahoo!, Google seems to be taking only the absolute minimal steps towards compliance to Chinese laws.

Google’s new search engine is the first to tell users if their searches have been filtered due to “laws, regulations and policies.” Secondly, unlike Yahoo!, Google has decided not to begin e-mail or blog services in China. The move comes from the company’s desire to avoid having to hand user information over to the Chinese government.

As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof explains, “Google strikes me as innocent of wrongdoing” because it “kept its unexpurgated Chinese-language search engine available.”

Although it runs slower, Chinese users can still access an unfiltered Chineselanguage version of Google. While the Chinese government has asked Google to cut off access to the unfiltered version, Google doesn’t seem to be backing down.

According to Philip Pan of the Washington

Post, Google’s VP for global communications, Ellito Schrage, testified to Congress “We will not terminate the availability of our unfiltered Chinese-language Google. com service.”

The Post also indicates that Beijing is threatening Google for its resistance. A state-operated Chinese newspaper called Google an “uninvited guest.” The Chinese government claims that Google is operating in China without an Internet content provider license and is playing up the censorship issue to divert attention away from its licensing issue. Google claims that it operates under a license held by a Chinese firm, Ganji.com, which the Post explains is an “arrangement that is common for foreign Internet firms in China.”

When Congress held hearings on Google, spokesmen heard the informal Google slogan “Don’t be Evil” continuously thrown back at them. Leading the charge was Representative Smith, who made an analogy that helping the Chinese government to censor the Internet was like helping Nazis find Anne Frank.

Google representatives made clear that the company’s exit from China would leave China’s 110 million Internet users (the world’s largest national market) at the hands of state run search en-

The Future for Hamas

hat is the price of clean governance? Palestinian voters in the West Bank and Gaza have decided that a government they trust to eliminate corruption compensates them amply for lost humanitarian funding and millions of dollars lost in tax revenue.

Hamas carried the day, seizing a surprise majority in the Palestinian Authority’s parliament, allowing it to form a government independent of Fatah, the previous regime.

Now, Hamas must face the consequences of shifting from being an ideologically-based outsider group to an engaged political insider. The Western world is watching, hoping that Hamas will follow the example of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), laying down its arms, rather than that of Hezbollah, which has joined Lebanon’s government, but still maintains a militia, and has ties to Iran.

Hamas originated in the late 1980’s, around the time of the first intifada, as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that is currently powerful, and illegal, in many secular states, such as Egypt. In most states, the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced violence, favoring political engagement and negotiation. Even in Egypt’s recent election, the Brotherhood did extremely well, causing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to jail several prominent partisans for “election misconduct.”

These actions only serve to reinforce the groundswell of support for the Brotherhood, demonstrating that a course of repressive action would be a losing one for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas or Is-

rael’s acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Both leaders will have a major stake in keeping Hamas at the table and talking, if only for their own political futures.

The danger for Israel and the secular Mr. Abbas lies in a major split with Hamas. Known for agitation and suicide bombings, Hamas refuses to accept Israel’s right to exist, believing that no Muslim has the right to sell any land within the borders of current day Israel and Palestine. Leaders of Hamas eagerly accepted credit for many suicide bombings, as well as forcing Ariel Sharon’s to dismantle Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. Although Sharon never acknowledged the influence of terror, many Palestinians agreed with the sentiments espoused by Hamas. A breakdown in negotiation, coupled with Hamas’s new position of power, could lead to a major resumption of suicide bombings and Israeli repression that marred earlier peace talks.

Simultaneously with these claims of political success, Hamas constructed a social charity network, allowing it to win the hearts of disaffected Palestinians. These voters had grown tired of Fatah corruption, characterized by preferential appointments verging on nepotism and mysterious misappropriations of monies earmarked for the millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps. Hamas provided food, medical services and other necessities of life to refugees, increasing its popularity while reinforcing its message of an Islamic influence in any Palestinian state. Hamas will be hard pressed to maintain this generous policy when the hard realities of itspolitical power comes home to roost.

gines such as Baidu that do even more to limit searches than Google does. Google maintains that their engine is the best option in China.

As the number of Internet users in China continues to grow, Google will likely become an even more powerful tool for getting information into China.

As it stands, China only employs about 30,000 censors who struggle to maintain the government’s grip on information as the number of Internet users continues to grow. A study done by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard found that while China has been able to block 90% of searches for “Tiananmen massacre,” it has only been able to filter 31% of searches for independence movements in Tibet. With the arrival of Google, the Chinese will likely become even more ineffective at blocking the Internet. Furthermore, given Google’s openness about what the Chinese government is forcing it to do, Google is likely to expose any further requests by the Chinese government to public view.

It seems that Congress would do more harm by terminating Google’s Chinese operations than by allowing it to slowly erode Communist censorship in China.

MR

With Hamas poised to take power, the European Union and the United States are taking steps to ensure their money will not be used to fund Hamas’ military wing. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated during her recent visit to the Middle East that as long as America regards Hamas as a terrorist organization, the flow of funds from the US to the Palestinian Authority will cease. The EU has expressed similar sentiments.

Much of this money will likely be replaced by wealthy sympathizers with Hamas, likely with ties to Syria or Saudi Arabia. A far larger hit to the PA’s cash flow will come when Israel fails to turn over the $55 million dollars in revenues it collects for the PA annually. This loss of funds may go a long way towards either bringing Hamas to the table, or alienating it from the Palestinian populace.

The ultimate goal of Israel and the US remains peace in the Middle East, with Israel’s continued existence assured. Accomplishing this requires a PA willing to cooperate and acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, something Mr. Abbas accepted in his negotiations with the Israelis. Although Hamas’ election may be a step back in the peace process, it is not necessarily its death.

Co-opting Hamas, bringing it to the table and making it understand the political reality - that Israel is not going away - may create a leadership that can credibly accept Israel without claims of corruption or American domination. This unprecedented, seemingly undesirable turn of events, may work out for everyone. MR