4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 OPINION b Brbeu &iw JASON Z. PESICK Editor in Chief SUHAEL MOMIN SAM SINGER Editorial Page Editors ALISON GO Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com NOTABLE QUOTABLE Ben Bernanke is the right man to build on the record Alan Greenspan has established." - President Bush, in a speech nominating Ben Bernanke as successor to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, as reported yesterday by washingtonpost.com. COLIN DALY 00 P~c2Ad. KII v IE 1 N [IM!\IX The hidden side of YAF SUHAEL MOMIN No SI.RRENDER When I trudged out of my house yes- terday morning, I had a mission: to stake out a front-row seat for "National Sovereignty Day," a Young Ameri- cans for Freedom rally protesting the United Nations. Expecting right-wing rhetoric and Bill O'Reilly talking points - the event's flyers mentioned "UN commUNists" - I was sorely disappointed: Not only was the rally virtually nonexistent, but the eight YAF members present were in no mood to be the loud, obnoxious Sean Hannity clones I was hoping to discredit in this column. Indeed, rather than watching heart-thumping, red-blooded patriotic Americans denounce the "commUNist United Nations," I spent a half hour having a serious conversation with YAF chair Jon Boguth and fellow YAF members about problems at the United Nations over Jap- anese Pan Noodles and Pasta Fresca. Instead of the expected "Will we let them screw us over again?" rhetoric, I heard YAF activists raising questions that all global cit- izens - liberal, libertarian and conservative - have an interest in raising and answering. Instead of prefabricated talking points, YAF leaders presented serious concerns about the structure, role and effectiveness of the Unit- ed Nations. Of specific relevance to Americans: Should the U.N. flag be flown in American cities? If so, at what level in relation to state and nation- al flags? While not of the utmost importance, these questions are deeply symbolic - and profoundly relevant to the overarching question of national sovereignty. Of incredible impor- tance to the developing world: Has the United Nations been effective at distributing aid? Does food aid, which could potentially under- mine markets by flooding them with cheap goods, harm long-term prospects for economic self-determination? Of special relevance fol- lowing the Iraqi "oil for food" scandal: Does the structure of the United Nations open up the organization to scandal and corruption? Because large sums of money are allocated by individuals isolated from electoral pressures, does U.N. aid spending go to the people who need it, or to privileged individuals and con- nected causes? These questions are wide open to debate and, barring some form of divine revelation, it will be higher-level thinking and inves- tigation that uncover acceptable solutions. For example, while I believe unilateral food aid is crucial because it enables individuals to - and this is not hyperbole - survive, the YAF critique raises a legitimate issue: If farmers in developing countries deliberately choose to stop farming because foreign food aid has depressed domestic market prices to the level at which farmers cannot sell food at a profit, can such a nation ever wean itself from international charity? Both sides of this debate offer valid arguments, but unless partisans on each side continue to examine the issue at a level beyond talking points, nobody will develop what everyone wants: a better way to help the world's poor. It is reassuring to see college students thinking about issues at a theoretical and intellectual level - a casual observation of campus. obscures the existence of any such groups. All too often, campus politics are characterized by slogans, chalking and rallies; the desire to defeat opposing ideas overrides the desire to formulate better ones. Indeed, when I first arrived at the Univer- sity, I immediately signed on to Gov. Jen- nifer Granholm's gubernatorial campaign. I flyered, chalked and manned information tables - but never really had the opportunity to discuss ideas outside the context of Gra- nholm's platform. The goal of the organiza- tion was to sell an ideology, not to critically examine its merits and flaws. Fortunately, to now see students, liberal and conservative, discussing issues within groups and on the pages of opinion magazines (The Michigan Review and newly-launched The Michigan Independent) is a subtle sign that intellectu- alism may be alive and well. However, mere discourse between like- minded individuals is not adequate. As lead- ers and thinkers all over the spectrum nurture ideas, they must also make sure that their ideas are exchanged and debated, not merely bounced around in an echo chamber. Case-in- point: One YAFer suggested that if U.S. citi- zens no longer supported U.N. aid operations through federal taxes, Americans would make up the lost aid by donating more generously to international nongovernmental organiza- tions. While this idea has gained remarkable traction within conservative and libertarian communities, it has little support outside the anti-tax establishment; no American will con- sciously provide additional support for NGOs simply because he is paying a few dollars less in federal taxes. This highlights the danger of isolated intellectualism: absent a serious and aggressive competition of ideas, stronger ideas will not discredit and replace weaker ones. Given the concentration of intelligence on this campus, it is disheartening that many students sell themselves short and become cheap election-year labor. While selling ide- ologies is undoubtedly important, this is a college campus - in lieu of marketing exist- ing ideas, students should focus on drafting a new generation of better ones. 0 Momin can be reached at smomin@umich.edu. VIEWPOINT Consider a vote for RAM this election year BY BRYAN KELLY the Defend Affirmative Action Party - and are all racists for believing what we believe. I dare this newspaper to print his exact I do not like that. I did not like it then, I am currently enrolled in a Residential words - called him audibly a "racist-ass and, with my blood pressure raised, with College interdivisional course taught by motherfucker." my heart pounding, the actual merits of the Carl Cohen - a longtime professor in the Thereisnoargumentforracialpreferences debate had flown out the window. I could college - on the cases surrounding racial in the phrase "racist-ass motherfucker." I do not concentrate on what Cohen said in the preferences in admissions vis-a-vis Grutter not need to pour over the debate in the 1964 concluding minutes. Significantly, silently, v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, along with Senate to look for, in Title VI, assurances without waiting for class to conclude,, the the greater history of the topic. I am reg- made against the possibility of opponents of accuser had left the room. istered in this class alongside driven advo- racial preferences being called "racist-ass What I do not like most about this is that cates on both sides of the debate. motherfuckers." And I look forward to pam- I feel toyed with. I feel as if silently and From the outset, Cohen made it no secret phlets in the future from DAAP, pamphlets coyly, people of both sides of this or any that he intends to teach the course from a that give me two choices: be a supporter of debate are making their ways into rooms biased point of view - from that of the DAAP or be a racist-ass motherfucker. of similar shapes and sizes; accusing the plaintiffs in those cases - that finds the Again, on Thursday of that following opposing side of being despots, sickos, practice of racial preferences, as he puts it, week, in the middle of a discussion about the madmen, poor human beings - raising the "bad and wrong." Naturally, the atmosphere merits of the Civil Rights Act, the question blood pressures and heart rates of everyone is heated. I like that. I like a good debate. was posed whether, from a legal standpoint, present with accusations - and then leav- However, in the course of the class, the the opening section of the law, which reads ing. It is the leaving that shows it most; the tension over the merits of racial preferences that "no person in the United States shall, on debate does not interest them. The substitu- became manifest. Members of parties sup- the ground of race, color, or national origin, tion of passion for debate and anger for an porting the practice of racial preferences be excluded from participation in, be denied open mind, name-calling for slightly more (For that is what they are - I dare not use the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimi- sophisticated name-calling - these are our the not-only-euphemistic but also histori- nation under any program or activity receiv- tools, the tools we have given ourselves. cally inaccurate term "affirmative action," ing Federal financial assistance," forbids the But to hell with that, I have an election to lest I appear unfit to argue my case) were practice of racial preferences. There was win. I am writing this viewpoint to announce huffing audibly, and members of groups in a verbal argument. Someone called racial the creation of a new political party on cam- favor of dismantling of racial preferences preferences "bullshit" and then quickly and pus, a party that wants a level playing field also responded audibly. apologetically retracted his words (Obvious- in the eyes of the law, the only pair of eyes When Cohen, who intended in due time ly he meant to say "horseshit."), while the that are still open. My party needs your to address the arguments behind racial pref- DAAP member from before began to rant vote. My party is called RAM,: Racist-Ass erences, preferring instead to first cover that the professor was a racist, choosing to Motherfuckers. their history, decided to cut a question-and- disrupt what was an informational session answer session short, one of the members of with an accusation that we on the other side Kelly is an LSA sophomore. LETTER TO THE EDITOR 0 Christians can support tax cuts without angering God TO THE DAILY: In his Friday column (Would the real Christians please stand up?, 10/24/2005), Jesse Singal seemed to write that Christians cannot be in favor of tax cuts. In the column, hew ri e,"Chritif h iswrd-s are anv indi- since then I've been told by many fellow students that Christianity is bigoted toward homosexuality and that as a Christian, I am an intolerant person. They are right - most sects of Christianity are unaccepting of homosexuality and see it as a sin. The same Christians see most things humans do as sinful. That's the point of Christian- it _ that nn onei s nerfect and that God be completely atheistic." If religion plays an important part in someone's life, why shouldn't that be examined by the elector- ate? Certainly, a candidate's track record and performance should be considered too, but some would argue that a candidate's religion plays an integral part in a politi- cian's decision making, especially in cases where there is no track record. Editorial Board Members: Amy Anspach, Reggie Brown, Amanda Burns, John Davis, Whitney Dibo, Sara Eber, Jesse Forester, Mara Gay, Eric Jackson, Ashwin Jagannathan, Theresa Kennelly, Will Kerridge, Rajiv Prabhakar, Matt Rose, David Russell, Brian Slade, John Stiglich, Imran Syed, Ben Taylor.