4- The Michigan Daily - Friday, March 11, 1994
ufLiign &zilg
420 Maynard
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Edited and managed
by students at the
University of Michigan
JESSIE HALLADAY
Editor in Chief
SAM GOODSTEN
FLINT WAINEss
Editorial Page Editors
Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of a majority of the Daily's editorial board
All other articles, letters, and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
I
11 JA~ 1~E IJ '
I
mimI
I
1 have never desired to put another human being in an oven.'
-Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan
on why his is not a 'Black Hitler'
CAREER DAY'
A T
HIVEME,0 EAOEAT
SER, A FORD. M OMPANY
A-MR CA a -c y
- I - 3:;-
TKO at the shanty
Outsider Party's charges smack of grandstanding
t seemed to be the perfect picture:
A campaign for Michigan Student As-
sembly (MSA) president focused on the
issues, without the rhetoric. The candidates
focused on important issues before the as-
sembly such as funding for the Michigan
Collegiate Coalition, the Ann Arbor Ten-
ants Union and the existence of the State-
ment of Student Rights and Responsibili-
ties.
But that picture was quickly knocked out
of focus Wednesday in a nighttime confron-
tation between candidates and officers, the
details of which are disputed.
Outsider Party presidential candidate
Trevor Moeller says he will bring charges of
assault against MSA President Craig
Greenberg and Vice President Brian Kight
under the code.
But before Moeller filed charges with the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) or under
the code, he ran to the Daily with his side of
the story. Moeller said he wanted to run a
positive campaign without rhetoric. At the
start, it looked like the Outsider Party would
achieve this goal: they presented a detailed
platform and drew up amendments to the
code.
However, this past week, the campaign
that was so promising took a turn for the
worse.
The squabbling began Tuesday when the
Outsider Party erected a shanty on the Diag.
Instead of declaring the party's goals, the
shanty blasted the work of the Michigan
Party, led by Greenberg and Kight.
The shanty contains statements ranging
from slanted to the completely inaccurate.
Moeller criticizes the work of the Michigan
Party to amend the code, even though Kight
has fought as hard as anyone to change it.
Despite having drawn up a platform that
includes 19 code amendments, the Outsider
Party has not done the actual work required
toward beginning the process of amending
the code - the gathering of 500 student
signatures. In addition to this unfair criticism,
the Outsider Party's shanty claimed the bud-
get of MSA to be $500,000 when it is in fact
$203,000.
Yesterday, the Outsider Party's campaign
took another turn for the worse. Moeller
claims that on Tuesday night, in an incident at
the shanty, Greenberg and Kight put their
fists in his face, but never actually hit him.
Everyone else who was present at the shanty,
including MSA Election Director Christine
Young, disputes Moeller's claim. But even
if Moeller's charge is accurate, it is a weak
reason for him to file a police report and
charge the two under the code. If such an
action occurred, it could be considered as-
sault. But it is extremely ironic that Moeller
- who professes to hate the code in its
current form - will now use the code to
attempt to discredit his political opponents.
Unfortunately for Moeller, he is the only one
who will lose credibility from the shanty
debacle.
Despite these incidents, the Outsider Party
can and should get back on the right track by
refocusing their campaign on the issues. But
if they don't, there are seven other candidates
who can and will.
Play fair, MSA candidates
Assault allegations
untrue
To the Daily:
The assault allegations
against Brian Kight and
myself are completely false.
Brian and I have never raised
our fists at Trevor Moeller or
threatened him in any way.
On the Diag Tuesday night
(3/8/94), Brian and I
confronted Trevor about his
deceptive lies, misinformation
and twisted accounts of our
work regarding the code and
MSA. Voices were raised, but
no physical contact or threat
was ever made by either of us.
Brian and I feel strongly that
campaigning for MSA is a
time to present students with
factual information about
MSA and differing
viewpoints; it is not a time to
deliberately deceive students
to win votes.
Using the threat of filing
false charges under the code
and with DPS as a political
stunt is reprehensible. This
further proves thatTrevor
Moeller has no integrity and
his real intention in running
for MSA president is not
serving students, but self-
promotion.
If anyone would like to
talk further about this incident'
or clarify the deceptive
information being spread
regarding MSA, please feel
free to contact me.
CRAIG GREENBERG
MSA president
IRC is not for personal
campaigning
To the Daily:
In rushing to join the new
#wacky IRC channel, I was
shocked to find this strange
political advertisement as the
Message of the Day instead of
the Pegasus: "... It's that time
of year again ... the sun is
starting to shine, the snow is
starting to melt, and MSA
elections are just around the
corner! Now, you may ask,
"Why vote?" Two simple
reasons: 1) You can make a
difference, 2) Your IRC
administration is running!
VOTE MICHIGAN PARTY
FOR MSA! VOTE JEFF
BROWN FOR MSA! VOTE
MARCH 22-23!"
Apparently Jeff Brown,
the administrator of the
University's IRC server also
happens to be a Michigan
Party candidate for MSA. I
feel there are several issues to
be raised with this.
First, I feel that Mr. Brown
has abused his position as IRC
administrator in posting this
campaign message. The
Message of the Day is
intended to provide
information about the Umich
IRC system only, not as a
political soapbox or private
billboard. This misuse of his
position gives him and his
party an unfair advantage over
the other candidates.
Second, I feel that it may
violate two parts of MSA's
election code. Section 14.60
of the MSA Compiled Code
states that campaigning shall
begin "15 days before the
election." This would make
the start of campaigning the
7th of March (currently it is
only the 3rd). Section 14.652
reads that "campaign
materials having reference to
an election candidate or ballot
question must be produced
and paid for by either a
candidate, party, slate or
recognized student
organization." I do not take
offense to the fact that the
advertisement was in the form
of an electronic message; I
just feel that the message
should've been issued from
Mr. Brown's private e-mail
account rather than under the
aegis of the Umich IRC
administration.
I felt it was important to
bring this to the attention of
our student body in the hopes
of a fair election. See you on
#wacky!
AU ASAD LOTIA
RC first-year student
This is not Watergate
Corning
o age
Okay. Let's quit the bullshit.'
Let's talk about a subject that's really
important. Let's talk about
something that everyone does, but
few admit to actually doing. No, I'm
not referring to watching "Beverly
Hills 90210." I'm talking about
masturbation.
Now your reaction to this word
could invoke any number of bodily
processes: for men, profuse
sweating, fidgeting of the hands and
idiotic snickering may take place
(see, e.g., "Beavis and Butt-Head").
Women are slightly more demure,
and the majority will simply turn the
page to the classifieds.
Why is this? Are we just
uncomfortable with our own
sexuality? I mean, c'mon- we all do
it. I've set records. I have no problem
admitting it is something that I enjoy.
If given the choice between
masturbating and going out to see a
movie, my first reaction would be to
ask "what movie?"
Don't get me wrong. I am not a
masturbating "fiend," someone who
stays in their room, leaving only to
attend class and to purchase more
Kleenex. It's just something that
helps me relax. I like to think of it as
a very inexpensive vacation, only
it's a lot shorter and there's no
complimentary beverage.
Believe it or not, very few people
actually admit to masturbating.
Freud said something like 99 percent
of men, and 70 percent of women
masturbate. The other 31 percent
are either lying, or they have no
hands.
I have a dream. I would like to
see the day when everyone, Jew and
Gentile, Protestant and Catholic, rich
man and poor man, black and white,
can come together and
masturbate. Think about it. It's really
not that radical of an idea. Before
burning an effigy of me in disgust,
just give me another, oh, half a page
to elaborate:
Masturbating releases
tension- Before a big test, when
most people are cramming in their
heads, there's a good chance that
I'm releasing in the bathroom. If we
applied this idea to the nations'
leaders, we could achieve world
peace within minutes. Look at this
hypothetical arms reduction meeting
between Clinton and Yeltsin (keep
in mind that both have just
masturbated):
Clinton: "How 'bout we lose the
missiles?"
Yeltsin: "Whatever, man. Just
gimme a cigarette."
In some extreme cases, people
may be forced to masturbate. This
would only take place if the person
is excessively uptight (i.e. Jesse
Helms or business school students.)
Masturbating is an icebreaker
- Hate the awkwardness of asking
someone out for coffee? Well, no
more! Just ask if they would like to
masturbate, and watch your dating
troubles melt away:
Confidence-less guy: "Would
you like to, um, masturbate
sometime?"
Extremely hot girl: "Ohmygod
YES!"
Needless to say, this is how I met
my current girlfriend.
Masturbating could create jobs
- Naturally, everyone will want to
jump on the new masturbating
bandwagon. It would launch a slew
of new products:
TV ad: "You, too, can master,
master, masturbate those pounds
away with Whack-Off®, for only
$19.95!"
The fruit and vegetable industry
would skyrocket. Specifically,
cucumbers and zucchini will become
hot sellers.
Masturbating would draw
families together- Try to picture
the hypothetical sitcom, "Leave it in
Beaver:"
Beav: "Golly, Pop, can we
masturbate together tonight?"
Ward: "Now Beaver, we just
masturbated last night. Why don't
you do your homework?"
June: "Oh Ward, let the boy
masturbate. Either that, or you
promised to take him fishing."
Ward: "In THAT case ..."
Audience: Hahahahahahaha.
Masturbating can improve
Whitewater compromise the
T he saga known as Whitewater is begin-
ning its logical leap into obscurity. Lurid
tales of suicide, the shredding of documents at
the Rose Law Firm, secret meetings and coer-
cion are bouncing about as freely and
uncritically as Holocaust revisionism. Many
people are fed up with those on Capitol Hill
who seek to impede the work of the federal
government and instead posture for political
gain. And of course, no one gains from politi-
cal circuses masquerading as the pursuit of
justice. However, the recent actions of mem-
bers of the Clinton administration have served
to raise the suspicions of even those who
wholly want to believe that no Whitewater-
related improprieties have occurred. In the
short term, justice can only be served by
allowing special prosecutor Robert Fiske to
go forth unimpeded with his investigation.
But the call by several Republican senators
for congressional hearings in mid-May may
also be necessary.
Unfortunately, the substantive questions
that lurk behind the Whitewater affair - as
well as Vince Foster's suicide - are being
clouded in a plenitude of inaccurate analo-
gies by a media intent on linking the legal,
constitutional and executive excesses and trav-
esties of the Watergate affair -'-arguably the
low point in the history of the presidency -
to the intricacies of the 1978 Whitewater land
deal. There is a number of convincing reasons
why Whitewater is no Watergate: most im-
portantly, none of the alleged improprieties
transpired while Bill Clintonwas in the White
House. Richard Nixon was in the Oval Office
when he debased the law.
Presently, no hard evidence has been pro-
duced that suggests President Clinton has
done anything improper as the chief execu-
tive --and all of this hoopla comes nowhere
close to the obstruction ofjustice and the bald-
faced lies Nixon told the American people
while he was president. And yet, questions
abound about members of the administra-
tion meeting with the head of the Resolution
Trust Corporation, the alleged shredding of
documents at the Rose Law Firm in direct
response to inquiries about Clinton's land
dealings, and the great initial reluctance of
the administration to accept the appoint-
ment of a special prosecutor.
Still, though crimes may have occurred,
right thing to do
he has been diligently investigating this case
from the onset. The scope of his probe is wide
enough that it includes every conceivable
aspect of this case.
Many members of the GOP, with Alfonse
D'Amato (R-N.Y.) leading the way, want
more than just a special prosecutor. Early
week, they were calling for immediate con-
gressional investigations. But in the wake of
Lawrence Walsh's Iran-Contra investigations
- investigations which gave Oliver North
and others the immunity that forced the courts
to ignore criminal behavior - there was
understandable reluctance to proceed with
any congressional investigation.
But in the past 48 hours, an acceptable
compromise has been reached. Senate Ma-
jority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and D'Amato
have agreed to hold off congressional inves-
tigations until mid-May. Moreover, they have
promised that immunity will be granted to no
one, thereby ensuring that Fiske will be al-
lowed to bring to justice any wrongdoers.
It is abundantly clear that government
cannot investigate itself - this is why we
called for the special prosecutor in the first
place. The GOP opposed this law, but now
they want congressional hearings to inflate
this issue and interfere with Clinton's propos-
als and legislative agenda. In short, partisan
politics are playing a huge role in the GOP's
decision to call for investigations. But this in
no way means that the Republicans are mis-
guided. Democrats had it right when they
called for Iran-Contra investigations (regard-
less of motive) and those calling for full
disclosure have it right today.
Justice is in the public interest- irrespon-
sible and reckless politicking is not. There is
no evidence to suggest that Clinton has done
anything illegal or improper. The private
meetings between White House staff and
Treasury officials occurred behind his back
and without his knowledge; when he found
out about them, he did not seek to defend
them.j
Fiske, in less than two months on the job,
has so far been active in determining the facts
of the case. Therefore, if the Clinton's are
innocent, there is no reason to oppose mid-
May investigations by Congress.
The innocent need not worry; it's time to
let the investigations proceed, and for the
Relinqins
By YAEL CITRO
I would like to address
the recent decision to
include men in the
upcoming Take Back the
Night March and the wave
of "men too" feminism
which seems to have
motivated the decision.
There are men who care
deeply and genuinely about
abolishing rape. There are
men who volunteer at
SAPAC and other
organizations - men who
put time and energy into
promoting the idea that
men can help stop rape.
And some of these men
have expressed a desire to
be included in the Take
Back the Night March.
They want to support the
people they love and all
women in the fight against
rape. Women need their
support. However, the
question is whether the
Take Back the Night
March is the place for it.
The Take Back the
Night March is NOT a
march to express a general
race against sexual assault.
theNight
keenly aware of the people
behind them and the people
approaching them. One
night, women take back the
night and say, "this is my
night to walk unafraid."
Men are clearly not there to
take back the night,
because the night already
belongs to them. So in this
sense, their presence
already undermines the
purpose of the march. But
they want to show their
support.
Why is it that the only
choices are either to
include or exclude men
from the current march?
Why is the only choice
whether or not to allow
men into women's space?
Why can't men create new
space where the issues
discussed specifically
address men's roles in
sexual assault? It is true
that rape is not just a
woman's issue. It is
everyone's issue.
However, this does not
mean that men and women
are necessarily going to
fight rape in the same.
the rapist. This is not to say
that all men are rapists.
However, this is to say that
rape is something men do
and they do it to women.
This is also not to say that
men are not raped.
However, even though we
recently had an incident
where a man was raped on
campus - I do not think
that all men suddenly fear
going out alone at night.
While there are places
where it is crucial for men
and women to work
together, the Take Back the
Night March is not such a
place. However, I think it
would be wonderful if men
showed their support in a
men's march. Call it
"Relinquish the Night".
For men, abolishing rape
would mean shedding the
violence they have
inherited. It would mean
saying, "I refuse to be a
man in that I refuse to use
violence as a means of
forcing the world to be
what I want it to be. I refuse
to educate my sons to
accent violence. I refuse to
01