Issuu on Google+

January 10, 2001

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW —

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW MR The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan

Volume 19, Number 9

January 10, 2001

Liberal In-Fighting

In This Issue:

A New Liberal Voice Emerges to Challange BAMN, Exposes Communist Ties BY BRAD SPRECHER

W

4

5,8 It wasn’t us. This is not the work of the Review, we swear. We totally agree, but this isn’t us.

Finally Bush Stocks Something other than his Liquor Cabinet

H

OLDING TRUE TO his promises, president-elect George W. Bush has nominated a highly qualified and ideologically diverse team for his upcoming administration. Drawing from fellow governors, former legislators, prior presidential administrations, and Texas

From Suite One

Some more gloating from us (hey, after 8 years of Clinton, I think we deserve it, dammit!) Plus, shouldn’t constituent’s time be for...umm ...constituents? (read, students.) And Michigan gets a concealed carry law that the liberals are hopping mad over.

Filling the Cabinet

BY MATTHEW FRANCZAK

Serpent’s Tooth

The election’s finally over, so it’s time for the jokes to fly! And hey, we’ve got another mass meeting!

ITHIN THE LAST month on the University’s Ann Arbor campus, a new voice has emerged in opposition to the “Mass Militant Civil Rights Movement” proposed by the leaders of BAMN, UM’s activist front for the Detroit-based Revolutionary Worker’s League (RWL). To the surprise of the Review staff and conservatives and liberals alike, the latest criticism of BAMN’s violent rhetoric has come from an unnamed left-leaning campuscommunity group with political interests. The group has recently engaged in a flyering campaign in the dorms and upon campus kiosks with the intent of revealing

See BAMN Facts Page 3

2

officials, he has assembled a cabinet with ideological backgrounds ranging from a solid Democrat to a controversial conservative. Yet, partisanship from both sides threatens Bush’s efforts to construct an administration reflective of his plans to build a broad consensus in a nearly evenly divided government. Bush’s appointees have a

variety of backgrounds involving public service at the state and national levels as well as experience in the private sector. John Ashcroft, Christine Whitman, and Tommy Thompson have gubernatorial experience in Missouri, New Jersey, and Wisconsin respectively. Ashcroft and Spence Abraham, the nominee for the head of the Department

of Energy, also had served in the Senate but lost their reelection bids in 2000. Norman Mineta, the choice for Secretary of Transportation, also served as a Californian congressman. From Texas, Bush brings Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as the Texas Secretary of State and as a Texas Supreme Court justice, and Rod

See CABINET Page 10

For the Republicans and other decent people out there, a clip-and-save so you can gloat in front of all your liberal friends still bitching about the election.

BUSH WINS! Gore Concedes...Finally www.michiganreview.com

Columns

Justin and Dustin are up at bat this time. Dustin talks about the pain of selling out to the Left for a grade and Justin talks about undoing 8 years of liberal Clinton crap.

6-7

Features

Wanna join a fraternity? Or do you like getting plastered and not paying for you own booze? Then our map to the frats should come in handy.

??

Music

Ooh, whoops, no music this time. Can you handle it?

11

El Señor Guípe

El Señor Guípe talks about...ah screw it. Damn, get a load of that jacket!

First three copies free,additional copies 50 cents. Stealing is Illegal and a sin (Exodus 20:15)


Page 2

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW — SERPENTS TOOTH

SERPENTS TOOTH George magazine announced last week that it will be shutting down this March. To be consistent with current market trends, CEO Jack Kliger also announced that the magazine will be changing its name to George.com. In other dotcom news, it’s been rumored that William Shatner has finally quit as spokesman of Priceline.com. For those of you not keeping up with the news, Priceline.com is where members can name their own price on certain products. Unfortunately for Priceline.com stockholders, the price of Priceline.com stock is not one of those products. Janet Reno recently promised a smooth transition for possible successor John Ashcroft, replacing the previous plan in which FBI agents with automatic weapons would storm his house, grab him from the closet, and throw him into a van which would then take him to the Department of Justice offices. Poor Al Gore, losing the election by just 4 electoral votes. Boy Al, losing your own home state REALLY hurts now, doesn’t it? And speaking of winning your home state, Al, even Mondale won his home state in his 1984 trouncing by Ronald

January 10, 2001

T MICHIGAN ICHIGAN R REVIEW EVIEW THE HE M Reagan. Just something to think about for the next four years... And for the Daily Editorial Board, three words: GET OVER IT! It’s over. Bush is going to be the President, Gore isn’t. Deal with it. It’s been reported that the Iraqi government has bought 4,000 Sony Playstation 2’s in the last two to three months. The U.S. government is investigating whether Iraq is trying to use

The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan “Well yeah, but she’s not a practicing heathen!”

James Y. Yeh Editor-in-Chief

those Playstations for military purposes. Word of advice to the Iraqis: playing Tekken Tag Tournament, Street Fighter EX3 and Metal Gear Solid 2 all day will NOT, help you guys beat us next time.

Eh, Smart-ass College Grads...

It’s the beginning of the semester, which means that we must bid fairwell to some staff members who recently graduated. Those of us at the Review congradulate and thank those that have served us well. And please remember us when you donate to charitable organizations.

Michael D. Austin After graduation, Mike will either find a job or pursue graduate studies in mechanical engineering. If he does attend graduate school, it might be in biomedical engineering, so he will actually be helping the world instead of being the polluting rich white industrialist that is usually required by his political affiliations. If none of those work, he plans on being a professional game show contestant and using his winnings to create his very own Kitchen Stadium in the United States

Rabeh Soofi Rabeh is moving back home to work in the Chicagoland area where she prays for high wages to finance her upcoming legal education. She plans to attend law school next fall in pursuit of corporate intellectual property law. Although Rabeh will miss the stories, the BAMN hate-mail, and the fist-fights, most of all, she will miss the friends that she has had the privilege of working with on the Review. She believes that she is blessed to be able to work for ideals she cares about with people she dearly loves.

Are you better off now than you were a semester ago?

If not, come to our... Mass Meeting Sunday, January 13th @ 8:00pm Michigan League, 3rd Floor

Refreshments Provided!

Matthew Franczak Publisher

James Justin Wilson Assoc. Publisher, Managing Editor

D.C. Lee Managing Editor

R. Colin Painter Senior Editor CAMPUS AFFAIRS ED: NAT’L AFFAIRS ED: ASSISTANT EDITOR: FEATURES EDITOR: SATIRE EDITOR: COPY EDITOR: ONLINE EDITOR: MUSIC EDITOR: LAYOUT:

Ruben Duran Brad Sprecher Gina Fraternali Kurt Rademacher David Guipe Michael Veeser Branden Muhl John Pratt Carl Grant

STAFF WRITERS: Margaret Allen, Adam Dancy, Tyce De Boer, Ryan Serra

EDITORS EMERITI:

Lee Bockhorn Benjamin Kepple

The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the U–M. Contributions to the Michigan Review are tax-deductible under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Review is not affiliated with any political party or university political group. Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the editorial board. Ergo, they are unequivocally correct and just. Signed articles, letters, and cartoons represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the Review. The Serpent’s Tooth shall represent the opinion of individual anonymous contributors to the Review, and should not necessarily be taken as representative of the Review’s editorial stance. The opinions presented in this publication are not necessarily those of the advertisers or of the University of Michigan. We welcome letters, articles, and comments about the journal. How about that election? Oooh, poor Democrats, you guys aren’t pissed about the election, are you? Didn’t you guys realize that rednecks, gun owners, Christians and otherwise decent God-fearing people vote too? So here’s a piece of advice for 2004: it doesn’t really matter how many millions of dollars you guys spend on get-out-the-vote campaigns if the people you urge to go out and vote DON’T KNOW HOW. So we at the Michigan Review hope you Democrats out there, especially those at the Daily, enjoy the next four years of loosened gun laws, tightened abortion laws, a respectable military and tax cuts, because we know that we will. And when you’re crying in your pillow at night because the President just put another hardened conservative on the Supreme Court, don’t curse us for it, curse Ralph Nader. Please address all advertising, subscription inquiries, and donations to Publisher c/o the Michigan Review. Editorial and Business Offices: The Michigan Review 911 N. University Avenue, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1265 letters@michiganreview.com http://www.michiganreview.com Tel. (734) 647-8438 • Fax (734) 936–2505

Love us or hate us, write us.

Copyright © 2000 The Michigan Review, Inc. All rights reserved. The Michigan Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW A campus tradition for nearly twenty years. Thats right, we’re almost old enough to drink. Woo Hoo!

E-mail letters@michiganreview.com with subject, “Letter to the Editor” Or send mail to: The Michigan Review 911 N. University Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48109


January 10, 2001

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW — LETTERS

BAMN FILES Continued from Page 1 BAMN’s historical relations with Trotskyite hate mongers. Although the BAMN Files flyers expose, entitled the “BAMN Files”, adamantly opposes the militancy and anger of UM’s notorious pro-affirmative action group, the groups members are, in fact, affirmative action advocates, themselves. The “BAMN Files” website, at http://www.freehost.nu/members/ bamnfacts/, illuminates the many flaws in BAMN’s hate-riddled approach, noting that the heroes of the successful civil rights struggles have been non-violent, nonaggressors, like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., while proponents of brutality, such as Malcolm X (the father of the phrase, “by any means necessary”), although celebrated by leftist extremists, did little more than to inspire distrust and detestable crime. As proponents of affirmative action policies, the members are concerned that hate-machines like BAMN will discredit the pro-affirmative action argument, and that indeed, any supporter of race preference may appear extreme by mere association. Initially, the Michigan Review was accused of creating the website and subsequent flyers. And although much of the research for the website was mirrored in “The Vast Left-wing Conspiracy,” a story that detailed the communist links to BAMN, the Review played no role in the effort. In a subsequent email, they stated that “we are not, nor ever plan to be, members of the Michigan Review, VOICE, or republican party, nor do we have any connections to these groups.

LETTERS

TO THE

Most of us support affirmative action, and all believe that there must be a student run group to defend affirmative action here at the U of M.” The website remarks upon the apparent evasion of reason from BAMN’s arguments. Indeed, the site suggests that BAMN-speak may not include much of an “argument” at all, but is rather, a stock of Jesse Jacksonesque catch phrases, like “educate, don’t re-segregate”, that rhyme nicely and appeal to the emotions, but do not engage the critical mind. As a solution, the BAMN files hope that students take a number of measures to end the communist insergence on

illogic is to be revealed within in the coming week, concurrent with the University’s Martin Luther King Day Symposium. From January 13th to 16th, BAMN will be sponsoring a “Summit of the New Civil Rights Movement to Defend Affirmative Action & Integration”. The summit will begin with an open mic poetry slam in the Michigan League, entitled “Whirlwinds of Revolt”. On Sunday, a day before the University’s celebration of King’s achievements in passive resistance and endorsement of equality by merits, BAMN will be presenting a series of lectures entitled “Debunking the Myth of Meritocracy”.

Indeed, the site suggests that BAMN-speak may not include much of an “argument” at all, but is rather, a stock of Jesse Jacksonesque catch phrases, like “educate, don’t resegregate”, that rhyme nicely and appeal to the emotions, but do not engage the critical mind. campus. “1) Quit BAMN - asked to be removed from their email lists, and do not participate in their events. 2) Form or join a student group that actually supports affirmative action. 3) Tell your friends about the website, and forward this email to whoever you think might be interested. 4) Ask the leaders of BAMN about the allegations - if they dismiss them, cite the many resources on the website.” The most recent example of BAMN’s

Only the likes of BAMN could conceive a lecture series in King’s name that spits in the face of his most precious meritocratic principles. It seems that by invoking King, campus militants hope to add some legitimacy to their hateful message. As a further indication of BAMN’s lack of foresight, even if it is conceivable that our nation will be fully integrated by violent means, there is no indication that BAMN’s summit will address whether their spiteful tactics will reinforce, or create new racial barriers

Page 3

within American society. Although many students may find it reassuring that several voices, liberal and conservative, are now speaking out against BAMN’s misguided methods, many may wonder why affirmative action proponents, such as the BAMN Files, have not taken a stronger stance against BAMN in the past, and offer the campus community respectful, well-reasoned arguments in support of race-based preferences. It seems that the liberal voice has been somewhat paralyzed by the UM Trotskyites, and fear, as common supporters of affirmative action, being mentioned in the same breath. But perhaps common loathing for BAMN’s dark proposals will draw rational voices from all areas of the political spectrum into a real debate on the merits of affirmative action. It is time levelheaded leaders from all areas of the political spectrum emerge from UM’s colleges, and prove to the people of the state of Michigan, and to the nation, that Ann Arbor students are not a unified block of militants in favor of race preferences. Let the truth be known. At the University, let students speak their hearts, defend justice, truth, the law, and deride calls for insurgency. It is time students cast off the image BAMN would project concerning student opinion in the admissions lawsuits, and on affirmative action in general. The world should know that the student “intervenors” in the University lawsuits are largely comprised by extremists who do not share the values our community holds dear. Let those of us who value true justice and integration return a reputation for respect, decency, and well-reasoned thought to our yet vaunted college in Michigan. MR

EDITOR

Review should be more “consistent with the facts” This letter is in response to the December 6th article, “RU-486 Makes Abortion Easier to Swallow”. As a disclaimer, I don’t spend much time dealing with morality issues when it comes to abortion and I have not decided for myself whether I am for or against abortion. That said, reducing the consequences of using the RU-486 pill for an abortion to being as “mundane as swallowing a vitamin” is a blatant error. I found it interesting that the Daily chose to take this approach in writing their dissent for the drug. RU-486 causes an unborn fetus to be aborted, you do not take the pill and go about your business

as if nothing ever happened. I hardly believe that it is less traumatic than surgical abortion. Anyone who is pro-abortion would shoot through this week pro-life defense with ease. While the liberal viewpoint does nothing to sway me towards the left, I think the Review owes it to me and other young Republican readers to present a viewpoint that is consistent with the facts. —Eric Wilfong Engineering Sophomore

Education Above Race: Why Kozol’s Wrong Heard this fellow, Jonathan Kozol, on Nightline tonight, supposedly an educational expert.

My opinion: This man is an incredible idiot, lacking common sense. Extreme adversary of private education. Critical of black people for starting their own school, in their own community which just happens to be predominantly black. Said that allowing / promoting this type of school will encourage people to start various schools that meet their varied preferences. And that this could be dangerous to America. Excuse me? Hello? I thought this was America, Mr. Fascist, Liberal. Please!! (He) ended (the) presentation by saying that one of the disadvantages of this school was that many wealthy whites would be happy to see these blacks leave the public schools. Also mentioned that these schools violated M. L. Kings dream of black and white children going to school together. Are these good reasons

for allowing the young to be undereducated? What a moron !! Apparently, an Ivory-tower ideologue. Seemed to almost be crying on TV. Somebody needs to tells this idiot: 1) Most public schools aren't educating the young adequately, especially minorities 2) Children need pride and education ... more than interracial socializing; 3) He shouldn't put his political agenda before the needs of children. Patrick J O'Hare San Francisco, CA

You know the Drill: We write obnoxiously conservative “tripe.” Then you send us hate mail. There you go.


Page 4

FROM SUITE ONE

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW — EDITORIALS

Concealed Carry: Good For Michigan

F

OR TOO LONG, anti-freedom forces have demonized legal gun owners and pro-gun forces with their lies and half truths. Accordingly, those same nefarious forces have sworn to do away with Michigan’s recently passed concealed-weapons law, which for makes them think for some reason that the streets of Michigan will descend into anarchy, a land where the people live and die by the way of the gun. This horrible fictitious future is untrue, of course, for history has shown that those states that have enacted concealed weapons laws have had crime reduced. Anti-freedom foes would have the public think that the new law would allow the common Joe-Schmo to walk into any gun shop and buy a gun and legally carry it. Unfortunately, the public fails to realize the laws numerous restrictions placed on those with a concealed carry permit. While it does do away with the requirement that the applicant specify a good reason for having a concealed carry permit, it, like most states, does not allow those that are mentally unfit and those convicted of felons and a long list of misdemeanors to get a permit, and all applicants have to be at least 21. The law also prohibits permit holders from bringing their weapons to such places as schools, bars, sports arenas, hospitals, casinos, day care centers and churches. So it’s not like this new laws would allow kids to go to class packing heat or allow drunken bar arguments turn into drunken firefights. The opponents of the new concealed carry laws also neglect the crime statistics regarding concealed carry laws. According to a study by Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School, between 1977 and 1992, in the ten states that allowed concealed carry, there was a 5% decline in rapes, a 7% decline in aggravated assaults, an 8% decline in murders, and only a .5% increase in accidental firearm deaths. Since Florida enacted it’s right to carry law in 1987, the handgun homicide rate has gone down 41% while the nation’s handgun homicide rate had gone UP 24%. Although Florida issued 221,443 concealed carry permits between 1987 and 1994, only 18 crimes were committed by those with a permit. Lott’s study also found that due to concealed carry laws, there was an 84% decrease in the number of deaths due to “shooting sprees.” The argument for concealed carry is an old one: criminals are going to get firearms regardless of any law, and it’s only fair that law-abiding citizens be allowed to defend themselves from such criminal elements in society. No gun control law will keep guns out of the hands of criminals because criminals don’t obey the law. The new concealed carry law will not force the state of Michigan to descend into lawlessness as some have predicted, but, as history has proven, it shall emerge as a more peaceful, and probably more polite society than before. MR

January 10, 2001

MSAConstituents Time For ...Constituents?

E

VERY TUESDAY EVENING, in the chambers of the Michigan Student Assembly (MSA), student body representatives convene with the purpose of representing their constituency, the students of this university. Each school is allotted a given number of seats on the assembly in proportion to the number of students in that school, and within the chambers these representatives discuss and vote on policy that will influence both the state of the university and the state of its students. Therefore, it is imperative that students be granted not only the right to decide who their representatives are, but also the right to voice their opinions to to these representatives once in office. Before each MSA meeting begins with official business an opportunity is given to the student body to voice the very opinions they deem important; for example, if the assembly is going to vote on a motion on whether to support a mass, militant march on Martin Luther King Day, students of this university are given the opportunity to speak what is called “constituent’s time” before the meeting. Here, each student who signs up to speak during constiuent’s time is given five minutes to speak his mind and then answer questions. Regardless of that student’s stance on the issue he is given time to speak during constituent’s time. However, what has been taken for granted up until this point, is that the “students” of this university will be speaking during “constituent’s time.” After all, the “students” of this university are the “constituents” of the assembly members. When non-students speak during “constituent’s time,” it perverts the intended purpose of the time. Why would anyone want non-students influencing the programs implemented at our university? For example, on a larger scale, would you want communist Chinese politcalheads influencing domestic US policy? No. And similarly, we should not tolerate the same at the university level. The members of the MSA should, therefore, take the bull by the horns and pass a resolution that would benefit everyone at the university. By allowing only students to speak during constituent’s time, the assembly would effectively increase time that could and should be used for the students of this university to voice their opinions and decrease the influence of non-students, whose ideas and opinions ought to have no bearing on internal university policy and programs. From Suite One to the MSA: do something right for a change. MR


January 10, 2001

FROM

THE

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW — COLUMNS

DEEP WOODS

TO

CIVILIZATION

Page 5

Dirty Politics in the University Classroom: Dealing with the Academic Left

A

T THE DAWN of each new semester, students typically are greeted with a host of familiar sights, sounds and people. From the hustle and bustle in the back of Ulrich’s to the chatter of fellow students on the Diag, each new semester brings with it certain customary routines. Wake up, January 4th, get dressed, go to class, sit down in D. C. class next to an Lee attractive co-ed, get out notebook, receive course syllabus, smile at attractive co-ed and remark on the book list, listen to brief introduction from professor, and figure out what the professor’s political inclination is. What? That’s not what you’re doing? Oh, I see. You already have a good idea of what the professor’s political slant is. That’s understandable. It’s probably safe to say that at least 9 out every 10 professors place the lectern on the left side of the classroom. Heck, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, liberal professors outnumber conservative professors by an astounding 31:1. The numbers probably aren’t that skewed here at the University of Michigan, but that’s only because we have large and well-reputed business and engineering schools. Take these two out of the equation and you probably have numbers very similar to those seen in Colorado. In fact, a lot of this doesn’t apply to most positive-based majors; that is, majors geared toward math related analysis such as accounting, physics and EECS. However, this is very applicable to most normative-based majors such as english, political science and the numerous ethnic studies majors. The latter set is more concerned with what “ought to be” as opposed to what “is.” After all, when the last time the social constructions of “race, class and gender” popped up on your EECS final? Probably never. But don’t put it past the administration to try to pull a stunt like that. Just open the pages of the most recent course guide and you will be inundated in classes that are being funded to promote left-wing causes: how to be gay and how to view affirmative action as

a right and not a benefit come to mind immediately. Other classes are subtler, but the point remains the same. At this school, professors are being paid, many with sixfigures, to teach us, the student body, the politics of race, class and gender. And we, the student body, must acquiesce. Consider the result if we don’t. Either we write a paper about Christian hypocrisy in The Merchant of Venice and receive an “A,” or we write a paper demonizing the Jewish character Shylock and get a “B-.” And no, that’s not a fabricated possibility. I was faced with that very decision this past semester in my English 367 class. Naturally, I chose the former; I sacrificed what I believed I should write about in favor of a grade. And I know I’m not the only one out there doing it. My roommate wrote an economics paper (yes, economics, which should be one of the most conservative departments in the school) for his Gender Economics class (yes, Gender Economics is really a class) in which he argued that there is essentially no evidence that women make as much as men in the work force. In short, he argued in favor of what has commonly been referred to as the “wage gap,” although he believes, correctly, that no such “wage gap” exists. He did not once cite books such as Christina Hoff Sommer’s The War Against Boys, and he did not once mention that most of the evidence in support of the so-called “wage gap” does not factor into its estimates variables such as education level, age and marital status. Last year I took English 325 and was given the option of choosing a book on my own volition and subsequently giving a brief overview of the book to the class. The professor, who I love dearly and who is, without a doubt, the best english professor I have in my two plus years here, then went around the small classroom and asked each student what book he or she was going to choose. The only stipulation, or so I thought, was that the book had to be non-fiction. However, I soon discovered a special, secret stipulation that the author cannot be overly conservative. When the professor came to me, I stated proudly that I was choosing Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education. She then motioned that she would like to move on, but gave me a look that said “see me after class.” “I don’t think he uses evidence well,” she told me. That was her explanation. Forget that somebody else in

the class chose Rigoberta Menchu, whose much-maligned book I, Rigoberta Menchu has proven to be a crock-pot of lies and fabrications. Sadly, I acquiesced. But what’s even sadder is that this example does not even compare to the politically correct English 382 class I took last semester. You know how everyone in the school of Literature Science and Arts is forced to take a class that fulfills a “Race and Ethnicity” requirement; well, on top of that, english majors must also take a course with the moniker “New Traditions” attached to it. These “New Traditions” classes are essentially the same as the “Race and Ethnicity” classes. I settled for English 382: Native American Literature. You should have heard the crap I spouted off every lecture, the questions I asked, the provocative racial distinctions I drew. The professor loved it. As long as I used the words “white” and “oppression” in the same breath, I was certain to get a reaffirming nod and perhaps a compliment. In fact, it was too easy; I knew how to play the game; how to beat the system. For example, here is an excerpt from my final exam (take home essay): “One of the most interesting aspects of Ceremony is the relationship between Tayo and his cousin, Rocky. Although Rocky is a full-blooded Native, he desires to become more white; Tayo, however, a mixedblood, desires to become more Indian. This paradox exists, moreover, after the death of Rocky at war. ‘It was him, Tayo, who had died, but somehow there had been a mistake with the corpses, and somehow his was still unburied’ (28). Here, Tayo’s struggle becomes more

evident in that he feels as if he is dead— no longer a part of white society, and more significantly, no longer a part of Native society. The inability of Tayo return to his ‘home’ is thus exacerbated by his feelings as an ‘outsider.’ ” As you might imagine, the rest of the essay follows accordingly, and I filled weekly my journals with similar tripe. As I stated earlier, I figured out how to “beat the system.” But was I really beating the system, or was the system beating me? The latter seems more likely. Am I ok with that? No. Will I tolerate it for a year a half more? Yes. Luckily, this semester, I don’t have any classes in which I will have to succumb to the left leaning politics of my professors. However, that does not mean that other students, both here and at universities across the country, won’t have classes in which they will have to make similar decisions. The decisions I made, and will continue to make, rest in my belief that a good grade point average will help me more in good ol’ capitalist America than explaining to interviewers that, “Sure I have a 2.7, but that’s because of these ‘Race and Ethnicity’ classes I had to take. . .” That might cut it for me if I were going to be a Republican staffer on the Hill, but that’s not going to help me at Goldman Sachs. As long as I don’t say what I think for four years, I’m more likely to be better served financially in the long run. Is this the right thing to do? Perhaps. Is it fair? No. And until things change, this is the way it’s going to be. How are you going to handle it? MR


Page 6

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW — COLUMNS

January 10, 2001

“To rush, or not to rush...”

BY R. COLIN PAINTER

I

REMEMBER WHEN I rushed my fraternity, I was nervous yet excited. I met many of the brothers in the house, got a week of free meals, and heard stories that would make Madonna blush. But I still wasn’t sure if fraternity life was for me. I heard rumors about hazing, ritualistic beatings, etc. But at the same time, I met a lot of cool guys at rush, so I bucked up, and when I was given a “bid,” I accepted. I found out all the nonsense about hazing was just that, nonsense. Actually, fraternity brothers spend more time organizing activities that help pledges get to know one another, the brothers in the house, and the secret ritual of the fraternity. You also can come to all the parties, which can be a great way to meet other people, including girls. In the long run, I really do feel the other brothers in my house are my family. Rushing was the best thing I ever did—it gave me “roots” in college, someplace I can come back and visit in thirty years and see my picture on the wall and feel welcome. Can you say the same for a dorm? Fraternity life isn’t for everyone, but you’ll never know until you try.

Secret Greek Decoder Ring Α Β Γ ∆ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ

Top Ten Reasons to Rush 10. It’s an opportunity to meet lot’s of sorority girls, sometimes a new one every night! 9. You have a party every weekend, …although you also have to pick up after a party every weekend!

Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Epsilon Zeta Eta Theta Iota Kappa Lambda Mu

Ν Nu Ξ Xi Ο Omicron Π Pi Ρ Rho Σ Sigma Τ Tau Υ Upsilon Φ Phi Χ Chi Ψ Psi Ω Omega

Top Ten Reasons Not to Go Greek 10. Guys who say, “It’s called a fraternity, not a frat ... do you call your country a cunt?” 9. Get shot in the nuts with a BB gun ... ouch. 8. You pay for other people to drink beers.

8. “National Lampoon’s Animal House” takes on a whole new meaning. 7. Because the ubiquitous fraternity road trip is an experience no college man should be deprived of. 6. Your pledge term is only a semester long, and excluding all the errands and cleaning you’ll have to do, it is a lot of fun. 5. You’ll make 50+ good friends who like all the same things you do; sports, girls, and sleeping in every day (what are classes?). 4. Fraternity houses don’t have “quiet hours,” RA’s, or “substance free” halls.

7. “The average frat GPA is higher than the rest of campus.” ... hey dumbass, jocks don’t have time to rush. 6. Tappa Kegga Day and Hairy Cherry Pi don’t really exist. 5. Football Saturday: Sit on house porch, grill burgers, try to not look gay playing volleyball in front lawn. 4. Must change wardrobe entirely to DKNY and Abercrombie & Bitch. 3. Hell Week: 20 shots of 5 O’Clock, make “GHB run” for party Friday night, come back and get ass beat for effort. 2. Did not realize secret “handshake” involved taking pants off.

3. The food is better and the rent cheaper than the dorms, and there are pledges to do all the cleaning (although at first, that’s YOU!) 2. Many U.S. Presidents have been in fraternities, as well as famous actors, wealthy businessmen, labor leaders, …why not make the “good ol’ boy network” work for you? 1. Because it’ll be the best time of your life.

1. Hear drunken frat guys say, “Can’t get laid? ... Tri-Sigs!”


January 10, 2001

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW —

The Review’s Frat Map Sick of wandering around on Hill Street on Saturday night? Here’s a handy map weknow you’ll keep. We suggest you memorize these locations rather than walking around like a tourist.

Go Greek

1. Alpha Delta Phi 2. Alpha Sigma Phi 3. Alpha Tau Omega 4. Beta Theta Pi 5. Chi Phi 6. Chi Psi 7. Delta Chi 8. Delta Kappa Epsilon 9. Delta Sigma Phi . 10. Delta Tau Delta 11. Kappa Sigma 12. Lambda Chi Alpha 13. Lambda Theta Phi 14. Phi Kappa Psi 15. Pi Kappa Alpha

556 S. State St 920 Baldwin Ave. 1415 Cambridge Rd. 604 S. State St. 1530 Washtenaw Ave. 620 S. State St. 1705 Hill St. 1004 Olivia Ave. 1437 Washtenaw Ave. 1928 Geddes Ave. 806 Hill St. 707 Oxford Rd. 700 S. State St. 1501 Washtenaw Ave.

16. Pi Kappa Phi 17. Psi Upsilon 18. Sigma Alpha Epsilon 19. Sigma Alpha Mu 20. Sigma Chi 21. Sigma Lambda Beta 22. Sigma Nu 23. Sigma Phi 24. Sigma Phi Epsilon 25. Tau Epsilon Phi 26. Tau Kappa Epsilon 27. Theta Chi 28. Theta Delta Chi 29. Theta Xi

903 Lincoln Ave. 1000 Hill St. 1408 Washtenaw Ave. 548 S. State St. 700 Oxford Rd. 907 Lincoln Ave. 1601 Washtenaw Ave. 1331 Hill St. 800 Oxford Rd. 1351 Washtenaw Ave. 1345 Washtenaw Ave.

NOTE: Map only includes IFC Fraternities listed with addresses on U of M website.


THE MICHIGAN REVIEW — COLUMNS

Page 8

January 10, 2001

DON’T DO ANYTHING I WOULDN’T DO

Liberating American Policy from the Left

I

How the roots of policy making have been lost

T IS FINALLY over. Just a couple of days ago, in perhaps the most painfully ironic event of this entire mess of an election, Al Gore presided over the counting of the electoral votes that sealed George W. Bush’s victory. The fat lady finally had her moment in the limelight, and you can stick a fork in this election, because honey, it’s done. There aren’t going to be any more temper tantrums or James pouting fits. The country has Justin bigger fish to fry, Wilson like the cabinet selection process and policy direction. Bush only has a few more weeks until he is in the driver seat of this behemoth of a big rig, and hopefully he knows how to drive a stick. The last thing we need is to stall the middle of an economic intersection. But before he starts trucking down the 8-lane highway of government, he’s got a lot of work to do in reshaping contemporary American policy issues. For that last eight years, liberals have been at the forefront of the popular opinion on American policy. While the Republicans were busy hammering out balanced budgets and running the country, liberals, both mainstream democrats and leftists, have been yammering on TV, in newspapers, and in protests about the ill nature of contemporary American domestic policy. Despite the fact that they have had control of the presidency, they’d have you believed that almost every sector of policy is rife with problems that oppress the oppressed and cater to rich corporate fat cats. It’s not good enough that the United States is ranked near the top of most quality of life indicators and that we’re amidst the largest period of economic expansion ever. And although some problems still persist, they believe they are the only ones with the answers and brand all others as wrong. Overall, liberals have clouded the American policy arena with so many externalities and “causes,” that Americans have begun to lose touch with the real roots of most policy goals. Budget and Monetary Issues As an ideological foundation, the US federal budget serves as the guiding light for the future fiscal year. It is the direct result of an innumerable number of promises, compromises, debates,

squabbles, and most importantly, decisions. At this point, the colloquialism “put your money where your mouth is” represents the role the budget plays in American politics. What liberals want you to believe is that people should be taxed until everyone “left behind” has caught up. Behind their cloud of entitlements and programs, there is nothing more than income redistribution. As much as I like Disney’s “Robinhood,” that is not the proper role of the government. Government should stay limited to the founders’ original intention, providing protection and some organization. The real basis the for the liberal agenda on monetary issues is the legacy of the New Deal. For the last 60 years, the US has been beleaguered with many socialist programs that, while functional, have proven to be ineffective and inefficient. For instance, take Social Security. It is dying slowly primarily due to the fundamental flaw in its organization, yet liberals want to “sure it up” with more of the same socialist solutions. They feel that relying on the tax base to solve everyone’s problems is the right thing to do, and they have been working hard to convince everyone to agree with them. But, what this really boils down to is that liberals don’t trust people to spend their own money, nor do they think they are smart enough to help themselves out of any problems. Conservatives face an uphill battle in combating the legacy of the New Deal. People feel that all governmental services come at no cost, but they ignore the zero-sum nature of tax and spend policies. Bush can turn the tide here. He believes that Americans should get every dollar back that the government doesn’t need. His tax cut would not only put more money in the hand of the individual, but also restore some trust in the electorate. Education Policy We all agree that a good education is key to childhood development, and that the government should strive to provide the best education for the largest number. Unfortunately, that goal is not being achieved. Across the country, in urban and rural schools alike, the system is failing students. With this problem in mind, liberals keep throwing more federal money at the schools in the hope that it will do something to solve their problems; yet they continue to see the same problems. It’s not just a money issue, but also a matter of structure. Teachers unions have worked hard to lobby against any change. They don’t want to be held accountable; instead,

they continue to blame the government and their wages. While conservatives still want to see public schools succeed, they have also supported charter schools and vouchers in an effort to try something new. Much to the dismay of the Left, these little experiments have succeeded enormously, and yet the Left still opposes them. Again, it boils down the issue of who do you trust, yourself or the government? Charter schools and vouchers put the control over education in the hands of parents; they can hold teachers and schools accountable for their operation, and choose exactly what they think is best for their child, not rely on some government entity. Crime and Drug Policy People like to do drugs, but that is just something we don’t tolerate in our society. As much as the abusers would like to say that it is a personal issue, the government realizes that drug use has many external factors that harm everyone. Nevertheless, drug use continues to pervade society from the inner cities to the suburbs to the farms of America. There are two possible solutions: stopping the demand or stopping the supply. Liberals continue to bemoan the current interdiction effort saying that so little effort is put into treatment. They also complain that America’s prisons are clogged full with petty drug offenders. This is thankfully one arena where their whining has had little weight. Conservatives have followed two principles. First, it’s easier to cut the supply because it’s a lot smaller and less pervasive than the demand. Additionally, the government has a larger responsibility in cutting supply than making decisions for individuals about treatment.And second, if you want to break our laws, then you’re going to go to jail. If you get 10 years for snorting a little white powder, then so be it. You knew the consequences, and you took the chance, so you have to be ready to serve the time. The same holds true for all crime. If you do the crime, you’re going to have to serve the time. ‘Nuf said. Civil Rights We’ve come a long way since the 1960’s and even further since the 1860’s, but there is still a long way to go. Nevertheless, I think that it is safe to say that Americans, on the whole, are not racist. There might be a few persistent anomalies, but they are given little recognition and generally disliked by the majority. In addition, I believe that it’s safe to say that there are no governmental regulations that are meant to be racist.

Yet, if you listened to the NAACP and Jessie Jackson, you’d think we were in the midst of the pre-civil war south. They continue to make wholly unfounded allegations in order to keep their fight alive. While the majority of Americans wants to move forward in creating harmony, some on the Left keep up the fight and prevent true progress. As long as they keep dividing people, there can’t be peaceful co-existence. Policies like affirmative action only continue to divide races, not unite them. They are the final roadblocks to finally reaching real equality. National Defense Ok, liberals just don’t like fighting, so it only goes to say that they don’t like the military. Of course, that begs the question: Do they remember that little skirmish called the Revolutionary War? They’d probably all be running to Canada and I’d all be sounding like some bloody Brit. That being said, the US is facing a crisis in military readiness and yet, so many liberals want to keep cutting the funding. Defending the country is one of the explicit purposes of the federal government. Just answer me this: What good is social welfare if we’ve been invaded by France or maybe Guatemala. Health Care I like my doctor, Dr. Hurt (that’s his real name). Liberals, they don’t like my doctor, well they don’t like that I like him. They’d rather see me in some gigantic government run HMO style system. I was in an HMO once. I had to drive 30 miles away and wait for hours, just to have some random guy stick his hands down my pants and ask me to cough. Why couldn’t Dr. Hurt do this? Because we wasn’t “part of my plan.” This is what the liberals want, but worse. Imagine this: You need a heart bypass, but instead of going to your local hospital, you have to wait in some kind of communist-style bread line to get it. No thank you. Instead, offering private business incentives to expand their coverage would still let me see Dr. Hurt and still help those without health care. So, I’ve run out of space here, but that doesn’t mean I’ve run out of issues. In just about every nook and cranny of American policy lies a bunch of liberal lies. The most important thing to remember is that you can’t turn your back to the truth and fall pray to their rhetoric. Now, we just have to hope that Bush has the guts to do the same. MR


January 10, 2001

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW — CAMPUS, NATIONAL

AFFAIRS

Page 9

UM Wins One Admissions Lawsuit, Appeals Expected BY MICHAEL VEESER

W

HILE U-M STUDENTS were away for the Christmas break, Judge Friedman ruled that the U-M Law School affirmative action case (Grutter v. Bollinger, et al.) will go to trial. Just before the break, Judge Duggan decided the LSA case (Gratz and Hamacher v. Bollinger, et al.) by summary judgment, i.e., without trial. Why was the LSA case decided without trial, while the Law School case is going to trial? And what, very concisely, did Judge Duggan find in the LSA case. A judge can decide a case without trial “if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact”, as Judge Duggan wrote in his opinion. In legal parlance “material” means significant. The phrase above is taken straight from Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules govern trial procedure in civil suits. Rule 56 establishes the legal standard under which Motions for Summary Judgment are considered. What all of this means is that because both sides

agreed on the material of the case, Duggan was just resolving legal issues, nothing requiring a jury. In contrast, issues of law involve only interpretation of law. This can happen in one of two ways. First, both sides may agree about the facts in question, leaving only legal issues. Or second, the sides may disagree about the facts, but one side may fail to present enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find for them. In the LSA case, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants “stipulated” (agreed) to the facts-i.e., there was no controversy concerning the two methods the LSA admissions office used to boost minority enrollment. The two sides agreed both about the factual particulars of the methods and when they were in use (method one from 1995-98 and method two from 1999-2000). There being only issues of fact, Judge Duggan decided the LSA case as I will describe below. In the Law School case, lawyers for both the Plaintiff and the U-M also agreed about the underlining facts. However, the student-interveners, who had successfully

petitioned the court to be added as Defendants, were unwilling to agree to all the facts. Since Judge Friedman-presiding over the Law School case-agreed that there were contestable factual issues, the Law School case will go to trial. Judge Duggan’s decision held that one method, in use in the LSA from 19951998, unconstitutional, since it set aside a specific number of seats for certain minority groups. This, the judge said, was the sort of quota ruled unconstitutional in the famous Bakke decision of 1978. However, Judge Duggan ruled that a second method, in use from 1999-2000, was constitutional. This method awards a very substantial number of admission points to students from underrepresented minorities. Judge Duggan rejected the Plaintiff ’s argument that this was a disguised quota, and agreed with the UM when it argued that the second method is constitutionally permissible because race is merely one among many factors used in individual admission decisions. Judge Duggan further ruled that an

admissions decision that considers race is permissible because of the educational value of racial and ethnic diversity in a university setting. The judge rejected other rationales justifying affirmative action-including remedying past discrimination. The true significance of the decision is that it has a very good chance of being argued before the Supreme Court. Why? Well, if affirmed by the very liberal 6th Court of Appeals - as in substance it likely will be - this decision will be directly contrary to decisions in two other cases: the Hopwood v. State of Texas case and the Johnson v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia case. Both these decisions held that “diversity” and “academic freedom” were not compelling government interests justifying the use of race in admissions decisions. When different circuits of the Federal Appeals Courts disagree fundamentally over an issue of national significance, as will likely be the case here, then one has one of the quintessential conditions that prompts Supreme Court intervention.MR

Tanks For the Memories: Remembering the Gulf War BY TYCE DE BOER

T

HIS MONTH MARKS the 10 year anniversary of the beginning of the Gulf War. Operation Desert Storm, as it was officially called, began the night of January 16/17, 1991, when US-lead Coalition airplanes launched strikes against targets in Iraq. The war lasted only six weeks, and ended after a 100 hour ground offensive that rolled over the Iraqi army. Because of its spectacular nature, most of the nation tuned in on their television sets to watch it. This war invaded America’s living rooms like no other war before. Updates, special reports, and video footage abounded. The entire nation saw the war, but what do we remember about it? The answer is probably not much. To be fair, most of the people reading this were between the ages of 8 and 12 at the time. They do not have a lot of memories about anything that occurred when they were that young, and it was ten long years ago. The most common memories are clips of video footage: the start of the war, with the bombing of Baghdad at night and the glowing green anti-aircraft fire and missiles; a smartbomb destroying a bridge; the U.S.S. Wisconsin launching a Tomahawk; Patriot Missiles shooting down a SCUD; the oil wells burning bright and belching thick, black smoke. However, age does not seem to be a factor in how well people remember this war. Many older people remember the

Vietnam war better. For most people, the Gulf War was not a war at all. Only those who were personally involved or knew someone who was involved with the war considered the full implications. An Ohio man who was in the Army in 1991 remembers a great deal about the war. His Army unit was called up to fight, and only a mechanical malfunction with his transport plane kept him at home. His kit, which was on a different plane, made the trip to the Gulf. For him, the war was not just something on television; it might have been his future. For the rest of the nation, the Persian Gulf War was like a made-for-TV movie. Critic George Gerbner referred to it as “an unprecedented motion picture spectacular.” The media’s presentation of the war had many similarities to a major motion picture. Saddam Hussein was the arch villain, and “Stormin’ Norman” and President Bush were the heroes. In the weeks leading up to the war, the networks made references to the crisis as if it were a personal struggle between President Bush and Saddam Hussein. Belligerents, however, are not enough for an excellent war film; impressive special effects are also needed. The Gulf War supplied this with many images of the new and futuristic B-2 stealth bombers and F-117 stealth fighters. An image often seen in movies and television is that of an airplane taking-off or landing. Tony Scott used these shots well in Top Gun. During the Gulf War, more than a third of the film reports from Saudi Arabia included

the image of an airplane taking-off or landing. The key to the Gulf War’s television success lies in that it presented the images of military might in a beautiful way. Other movie qualities given the war reporting included the Gulf War theme music and logo that each network had. Some news reports even commenced and concluded with Lee Greenwood singing his ultra-patriotic “God Bless the USA.” While Vietnam is often called the first television war, the Gulf War has been called the first Video War. The networks showed live coverage of bombings and attacks. From the comfort of their own living rooms, Americans could experience many of the same thrills that the troops themselves experienced. But unlike the troops involved, the viewers at home do not need to think about the aftermath, and they forget what happened when they find a new source of stimulation. Critic Marcia Whicker stated that, “Video warfare provides rapid and almost total absorption for a brief period, injects a quick shot of adrenaline and a collective high, and this is almost as quickly forgotten.” The mass merchandising that resulted from the war only served to make the war seem more surreal to the people on the home front. Americans could buy Gulf War T-shirts, bumper stickers, toys, crayons, and even condoms. Kids even collected TOPPS: Desert Storm trading cards. This was a war with massive destruction and people dying, and we

could collect trading cards about it. For most Americans, the Gulf War was only spectacular entertainment. It involved people we did not know in far away places. It had no effect on how we lived our lives. It was only something very captivating to watch on television. We saw the actors and the action and the special effects, and when it was over, we changed the channel. Critic Adnan Khassoghi said the war was like going to a movie: “we paid our money, we went to the theater, we laughed, we cried, the movie ended and an hour later we had forgotten about it.” For most Americans, the same holds true. Does it matter that we do not remember the war? It was a long time ago. Yet a lot of key players are in place. Saddam Hussein is still in power in Iraq. He is still causing problems with UN inspectors, and ten years of sanctions has not caused him to change his ways. We still do not know what kinds of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons he has. He could still threaten stability in the Middle East. George W. Bush has been elected to sit in the White House now, and Dick Cheney and Colin Powell will be in key positions. The ’91 war made President George Bush very popular, and a new war might have the same effect for the man who wants to unify the country behind him. Oil availability and price are still an important issues to Americans. The original Gulf War movie was a wild success. Are we on track for a sequel? MR


Page 10

CABINET Continued from Page 1

Paige, who vastly improved Houston’s schools as their superintendent. Mitch Daniels has private sector experience as the Vice President of Corporate Strategy and Policy at the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly as well as serving as an advisor to President Reagan. The rest of Bush’s appointees were generally drawn from previous administrations advisors. Bush draws most heavily from his father’s administration with appointments

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW — NATIONAL AFFAIRS Chavez, worked with the Reagan administration, Donald Rumsfeld, a strong proponent of the missile defense system, served Ford and Nixon in various capacities, and Norman Mineta is Clinton’s Secretary of Commerce. Ideologically, the Bush appointments cover a wide spectrum. Many of them, such as Powell and Whitman, are moderate Republicans that are on the more liberal side of the Republican Party on social issues. Yet the Bush administration also includes some more conservative members ranging out to the staunchly conservative Ashcroft. At the

Ideologically, the Bush appointments cover a wide spectrum. Many of them, such as Powell and Whitman, are moderate Republicans that are on the more liberal side of the Republican Party on social issues. including Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, who served both the elder George Bush and Ronald Reagan as a Soviet affairs expert as well as advising the presidentelect throughout his campaign on foreign affairs, and Andrew Card, who served as his father’s Transportation Secretary. Some other appointees, including Linda

other end of the spectrum, Mineta, a Democrat who describes himself as proud of and committed to his party’s principles, was also given a nomination. Despite both these attempts to reach out, Bush has drawn a great deal of heat from both liberals and conservatives. Social conservatives were agitated by the

appointment of many socially moderate Republicans, particularly the pro-choice Governor Whitman and probably played a role in assuring that Governor Tom Ridge, another pro-choice Republican, did not get an appointment. The pressure exerted by social conservatives probably was also assured by the appointment of the strongly pro-life Ashcroft. At the same time, Ashcroft’s appointment caused a cascade of criticism from liberals, who charge that Ashcroft will fail to enforce civil rights based on his role in making sure that an African-American judge’s federal appointment was denied in the Senate, accepting an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, and speaking of Confederate leaders in overly complimentary terms. Also, Ashcroft’s strongly pro-life stance further alienates the left. On a smaller scale, there has been opposition to Whitman who is viewed as having a spotty record by some environmentalists and Thompson, the prolife appointee to Health and Human Services (HHS). With a closely divided Congress, the Bush administration must have a bipartisan consensus if it hopes to make any legislative progress. However, with the battle lines already being drawn over cabinet appointments, the coalition Bush is trying to establish may be torn apart by the extremes. MR

January 10, 2001

The Bush Appointees at a Glance State – Colin Powell White House Counsel – Alberto R. Gonzales Chief of Staff – Andrew Card National Security Adviser – Condoleezza Rice EPA – Christine Whitman Attorney General – John Ashcroft RNC – Jim Gilmore Defense – Donald Rumsfeld Commerce – Don Evans Office of Management and Budget – Mitch Daniels HUD – Mel Martinez Treasury – Paul O’Neill Agriculture – Ann Veneman Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson Interior – Gale Norton Education – Rod Paige Veterans Affairs - Anthony Principi Energy – Spence Abraham Labor – Linda Chavez Transportation – Norman Mineta

The Policy Needs of Small Business

BY BRANDEN MUHL

S

OMEDAY, I HOPE to become the sixth generation owner of my family’s soft drink bottling business. Unfortunately, we don’t know how much longer the business will be around. The Clinton-Gore years did not cut taxes, but raised them. These years also resulted in the IRS trying to sue our business three times (to no avail), costing us an extraordinary amount of time and money. Because of tougher government regulation my family’s small business found ourselves in court for minor infractions that were previously overlooked. My father and I didn’t think a GoreLieberman administration would have anything better in store for us. We believed that the government should not be our enemy, but our friend and advocate. It was in the interest of our small business, and others as well, to rally behind certain aspects of the Bush tax plan: specifically, Bush plans to cap the top tax rate at 33%, raise the limit on charitable deductions, and eliminate the Death (Estate) Tax. The biggest change the Bush plan will try to make will be changing the current five-rate tax structure of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent brackets to a four-rate

structure of 10,15, 25, and 33 percent brackets. The change helps my family in terms of our income, but more importantly, it also saves our company a considerable amount in tax dollars. The great part about this plan is that it provides all Americans with large tax cuts, giving people extra money to fuel the consumer economy. It is a double win for business because companies get to save

normally go to taxes are much better spent this way in terms of improving the standard of living in America. Charitable donations give Americans more freedom to determine exactly how they pay their dues to society, and many people like to control where their money goes, no matter how much they have. Most important to my situation, Bush will propose to eliminate the Death Tax,

It is in the interests of our small business, and others as well, to rally behind certain aspects of the Bush tax plan. money and sell more goods. Bush also plans to raise the cap on charitable tax deductions. I know that my father will give the maximum that he can to charity because he does not agree with the fact that the average American pays four months worth of his income to the government every year- a government that many economists characterize as fiscally irresponsible and wasteful. When companies make donations, it goes towards addressing all kinds of social and environmental issues in our country. It is arguable that the dollars that would

which is levied against everything you own when you die. If the total value of all the assets you want to pass on exceeds $625,000, it is taxed at a rate to be specified by the IRS between 37 and 55 percent. If it is less than $625,000, it is taxed at a rate between 15 and 36 percent. The Death Tax embodies a violation of property rights. It took a Constitutional Amendment to allow the government to tax income when you are alive. So why should the government be allowed to levy more taxes on your money when you die? Everyone knows that you can’t take it with

you, but the government should not capitalize on the deaths of its citizens. When my Grandfather died, the government actually taxed the money on which he had already paid income tax (at a 50% rate, much higher than the 39.6% tax he paid initially) simply because he died and wanted to pass it on. This tax includes assets, so the government also taxed my grandfather on the value of his shares in the company. By the time the assets transferred to my father and his brothers, they retained a mere 50% of their original value. Is it fair that you are taxed once on your net income and assets, and then that same money is taxed again when you die at a higher rate? It is time to put the money in the hands of the people. Why continue to place so much hard earned income in the hands of congressmen, who counterproductively tie up bills in committee so that they can use your tax dollars for the pork barrel spending that will get them re-elected? The Bush plan will result in a more fair tax policy as well as less meddling in the administration of businesses by the government, allowing more leeway and productivity. The result increases wealth for every American. MR


January 10, 2001

Page 11

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW — FEATURES

STOP ME IF YOU’VE HEARD THIS ONE

Guipe Almost Gets Killed and Dies Near Tragedy At Taco Bell

A

S FRIENDS, COLLEAGUES, and groupies of the good Senor will tell you, I like to live dangerously. I’m willing to take such risks as running with s c i s s o r s , crossing the street in front of oncoming vehicles, and eating various articles of food I find in the crevices of my couch. But sometimes a El Señor daring lifestyle Guípe such as mine can lead to unspeakable, horrific, really sucky results. Right now you’re probably thinking, “Ah ha! I see where this is going. That sly and subtle introduction can only culminate in Guipe bitching about something that happened to him over break.” Shut up! I have every right to bitch, considering what I’ve been through in the past few days (read: past 22 years). And as long as the Review has this Filler section on the back page of their issue, then bitch I shall! Our tragic story begins on a chilly Saturday evening in mid December of this past year. I, El Senor Guipe, had just returned home from a grueling day of writing email and eating bagels at my job as a research assistant. Hey, somebody has to bring home the bacon in this household, and we all know El Rojo Lazy has never worked a day in his life. Anyway, after such a boring and tedious day, I turned to every man’s obvious method of relief: sex. Upon realizing there was no chance of that happening in this or any other similar universe, I decided to give a call to everyone’s favorite onehit wonder here at the Review, La Senorita Margarita. After some prodding, she agreed to join me for a night on the town. And what a night it would turn out to be! For the next few hours, Margarita and I journeyed throughout the land of Ypsi, searching for anything that would relieve our boredom and give us the opportunity to tell all the naysayers out there (“We are the sayers who say ‘Nay!’”) that we did something fun on our Saturday night. This trip consisted of such things as a stop at Déjà Vu in order to find some new sleek leather boots for my fair companion, as well as a failed attempt to grab a pancake or two at the local Denny’s (motto:

Cashier has no change). Everything was going just great. The evening was coming to a close, and we both agreed a good time was had by all. As we headed back towards Ann Arbor, Margarita suddenly got an all too familiar late night craving. She suggested that the two of us make a run for the proverbial border in order to acquire some tasty bean burritos at a Taco Bell near us. Naturally, the suave Senor can never say no to a damsel, so we were off to Taco Bell. I pulled up to the curb at the exit of Taco Bell’s drive thru. The senorita was absolutely elated at the thought of closing her mouth around that taco supreme which awaited her. “Do you want a taco?” she asked innocently. “No, that would be the most dangerous thing, eating while I’m driving. What, you want me to get killed?” I responded jovially while pulling out of the lot. Then I saw the headlights. The car stopped spinning. Being the

large and in charge kinda guy that I am, I immediately began to assess damages, beginning with the thing I cared about the most. “Save the taco bell!” I screamed, while trying to gather up all packets of hot and mild sauce. I got out of the car, noticing that the front end had been pretty much destroyed. “Huh,” I commented. Within minutes, a trusty police officer had arrived on the scene. He instructed me to get in the back of his car while his companions pulled a dying Margarita out of the wreck (I knew I had forgotten something). We were rushed to the nearest hospital, where we proceeded to sit for the next seventeen hours awaiting treatment. Margarita amused herself by rolling around the room in a wheelchair pretending to be crippled, while I continued to stare at the cute receptionists at the front desk. Within days, we received medical attention and went home. Luckily for me, there was no serious

damage. Margarita suffered a bruised rib, broken spleen, and various other injuries, while I received a really nasty bump on my knee. The sad part was, of course, the loss of my trusted friend, my 1988 Plymouth Reliant. Tens of dollars went down the drain that night as I totaled my “classic” automobile. And all for some tacos that I didn’t even get to eat, mind you. In our haste, Margarita and I left the food in the car! That was the worst part! Yo quiero Taco Bell! And now for today’s lesson. What have we learned from all of this? Is there complex, philosophical lesson to be taken from Guipe’s misfortune? Or is it something short and simple, such as “Shit happens.” Whatever the case, I am now on the market with a friend (preferably female) who has a car (preferably a Dodge Viper). And to all you sadistic bastards out there who find this whole thing humorous, well, all I have to say to you is “Nay!”MR

Three Thumbs Up and Four Stars to Life BY KURT RADEMACHER

T

HE VAST MAJORITY of articles, to some degree or another, are written in response to the various idiosyncrasies and travesties of society. The major problem with columns of course is that they must be read and if one doesn’t feel like reading a column, how are we supposed to know what is good, bad, or idiosyncratic? The only problem with society today is that there are not enough walking, talking, unsolicited critics of society. I found, despite not looking, that there were all kinds of things, good and bad, that I was completely indifferent about. Sitting alone with Catch-22 in a coffee house, I soon found myself first joined in a chair across from myself by a woman, somewhat older than the usual crowd, and then by two women my own age who seemed quite content conversing with just each other. This more experienced woman, though, pointed out to all of us what got her thumbs up and what deserved the thumbs down. The employee of the coffee house who ventured out among us to

gather empty glasses garnered a thumbs up for his pony tail but a thumbs down for the way he would surely report the time if asked, although he hadn’t ever been asked what time it was. Apparently, he’s the kind of guy who would hesitate to report the time - and that is bad. The hypothetical way this young pony tailed man would report the time is correlated with the manner in which he would hesitate to the request that he look over hypothetical children - hesitation that also garners a thumbs down. Four stars, though, goes to the random guy sitting someplace behind me. I couldn’t see him, but apparently the way in which he read his book made him the ideal husband. The way in which I read mine, a manner that involved not being involved with the critical conversation around me, made me somewhat boring. Having an ex-husband gets two thumbs down, although not being married to him gets two thumbs up. I predicted that rating and I’m reasonably sure it will never apply to me, much like what the critics said about Save the Last Dance, but it was good to know I guess. I guess this because she seemed to give her own ability

to criticize things two thumbs up. Getting dumped by one’s fiancée for another woman, although not a review I asked for, turns out to be a bad thing. The coffee of the day, four stars. Dating university professors, two stars. Getting dumped by those professors, no stars. Me and my refusal to join the conversation, once again, no stars. Men from East Lansing, four stars. Good bodies, four stars. Intelligence, two stars. One more time, being boring: no stars. Imagine how easy our life would be with a legion of these critics everywhere in our lives. How’s that toilet paper in the public bathroom? I have no clue. But I could know that its only two star toilet paper or, if quilted, thumbs up toilet paper. I have no idea how to judge writing a column at the last minute, although writing it in the coffee house certainly downgrades me as a person by making me unwilling to join the conversation between people I don’t know and who don’t know each other. I’m boring. MR


Use him. Abuse him. Click the crap out of him. (And for a limited time, you can do it for free.)

If you’re a college student, we’d like you to meet your new best friend. XanEdu.com. A place where you can find virtually any article on any subject. Our XanEdu™ ReSearch Engine is a massive online collection of information compiled from thousands of periodicals, magazines, journals, newspapers and the Web’s best sites. It’s current, accurate, and specific to your course, plus it’s right at your fingertips. And for a limited time, you can get one of nine disciplines absolutely FREE. G E T Y O U R F R E E P I E C E T O D AY A T. WWW.XANEDU.COM/MICHIGANREVIEW.

TM

XanEdu

ReSearch Engine ®

AVA I L A B L E AT:

POWERED BY

ProQuest


vol_19_no_9