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