4A- Monday, January 22, 2007 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 413 E. Huron St. 8 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 tothedaily@umich.edu EMILY BEAM DONN M. FRESARD CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK JEFFREY BLOOMER EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. You're getting warmer It's about time Congress faced the elephant in the room J seems the wacky weather here in Ann Arbor and other parts of the country has at last compelled politicians to finally face global warming - a reality they've so far been content to let Al Gore trumpet alone. Last week Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced plans to form a committee on global warm- ing in the House to investigate ways to curb greenhouse emissions and research alternative energy sources. This announcement by the new Democratic leadership is a welcome addition to its already ambitious agenda and has the potential to make a real difference in the near future - as long as the menaces of inter- and intra-party 0 0 After six years of George Bush, it is time to renew the promise of America." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in an announcement on her website detailing her decision to seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2008. ALEXANDER HONKALA WA I-OCr. CnAow -At. 3 s ,. Refitting the culture warrior rivalries are held at bay. Pelosi has said that the new committee, chaired by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), will hear legislative proposals on how to achieve energy independence and reverse global warming. It's no coincidence that this issue has come to the forefront under the Dem- ocrats' watch. The Bush Administration and its congressional allies have kept their head in the sand about this issue for years, even as more and more damning evidence of its drastic impacts is presented. As such, America is light years behind the rest of the world in certain environmental standards, remaining one of only two industrialized nations to hold out on the Kyoto Protocol. When American companies can't sell some cars in China because they fail to meet emissions standards, it ought to be painful- ly clear that fresh minds are absolutely vital for bringing this country up to speed. However, the nascent committee will have to push hard in Congress to hammer together a bill by the July 4 target. Even within the Democratic party, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) expressed doubt as to whether the committee will accomplish anything. Dingell feels that the issue is best handled by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which he chairs. While his argument may have merit, denial is no longer an effective way of dealing with the oncoming climate crisis, and implementing tougher standards is a giant feather in the Democrats' cap - and it couldn't have been timed better. The new committee will do its work before the thick of the approaching 2008 campaign season completely occupies Washington, and it could force the issue into the heart of the campaign, where it belongs. Stonewalling from congressional Republicans is expected, and, of course, the Bush Administration, can only be overcome by unity on the Democratic side. An issue that matters as much as global warming must be dealt with in the imme- diate present, and the announcement of this committee reinforces that point. Ann Arbor and other cities and states have already shown a commitment to environ- mental stability, and it is time for the fed- eral government to do the same. President Bush could be forced to compromise with Democrats and adopt a more prudent envi- ronmental policy, something the nation has sorely missed in these days of energy policies written by energy company lobby- ists. In a time when the Bush Administration has been hounded on by critics over the mess it continues to stir in Iraq, it's reassur- ing to see the Congress take up an impor- tant domestic issue. At the very least it will make globaliwarming even more visible and push it into the 2008 spotlight. It should also strongly challenge the Bush Admin- istration into action on an issue we can no longer afford to neglect or undermine. Jn one of the most bizarre scenes to come out of Stephen Colbert's Andy Kaufman-like role-playing - one rivaling the time Henry Kissing- er was forced to recite the line "Let's get ready to rock" - Bill O'Reilly appeared on the very show designed to parody his own. Sadly though, Colbert missed a stellar chance to further expose the embedded political divisions in this country, and - - O'Reilly used his appearance as a plug for his new book, "Culture Warrior." BeforeO'Reilly appropriated the term "culture warrior," it was a SAM phrase I used to describe myself. BUTLER As an artist, I use ---- the expressive tools of the visual and lit- erary arts to express my political views and to change minds. That was my defi- nition of a culture warrior. Imagine my surprise when I first heard Bill O'Reilly and I could both be described by the same term. Using culture to combat social norms is not a new tactic. O'Reilly is attempt- ing to point to a political battleground that was for a long time solely the realm of the Left. Using culture to sub- tly change society has been a common method for avant-garde groups starting with Dadaists of the early 20th century and reaching a pinnacle in the cultural revolution of the 1960s. Although often trumpeted in the exalted cultural space of the museum gallery, the cultural battle is most often waged in everyday life. Whether in the lyrics of a popular song, in a magazine ad or in Mary Tyler Moore forgoing floral for pants on the Dick Van Dyke Show, cultural rebellion is more effec- tive when aimed at the masses. Politi- cal activism through culture should be entertaining. For example, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have done more to solidify Democrats in this country than many other serious political leaders. But where are the rest of today's culture warriors? Whereas cultural production was seen as the tip of the revolutionary spear 40 years ago, today it has been relegated to the fringe, per- ceived to only feature black turtlenecks and weird hairdos. Of course, this is how mainstream society has always viewed the art world. What is shocking is that many artists today agree with this categorization and willingly resign themselves to the sidelines. This weekend, I went to the Uni- versity's Arts of Citizenship Confer- ence, which is specifically designed to address the ways the arts can foster community action and bring about political and social change. Present were several poets from the vibrant Detroit poetryscene. Amazingly, sever- al of the poets expressed their disdain for blatant activism in art and discour- aged the use of didactics. Leading the discussion was Sekou Sundiata, who later performed his 51st (dream) State, a piece intended to explore American identity in a post- Sept. 11 world. However, I couldn't help feeling that the promise of lofty political enlightenment had fallen short. At the conference, Sundiata echoed some of the other poets and admitted that he had tried to stay away from "the language of rhetoric and persuasion." He certainly accom- plished this task. His show was a beautiful spectacle of light and sound, but only those actively searching for it found any cohesive political message. Too many artists claim an activist intent but hide behind a veil of ambig- uous meaning. This ambiguity rarely comes from a heightened level of sophisticated thought. Sadly, it more likely stems from a lack of effort and reflection. Rhetoric can be a bad thing because it's so often tied to closed-mindedness. Politics are too often waged by rhetori- cians who, equipped with the barbs of dogma, unleash tried-and-true lines designed to reduce political discourse to its most common denominator. This is a sin committed by all parts of the political spectrum, and it can grind productive political dialogue to a halt. The hesitation to infuse radical- ism with creative expression probably comes from the fact that we have seen it so many times before. The impas- sioned furious gestures of political protest have become cliched. A recent example is the 2004 election, when average voters chose to watch "Ameri- can Idol" as opposed to listen to the depressing railings of furious activ- ists. Yelling louder is not a good way to convince someone to listen. The culture war opens a new front Who said that the act of political per- suasion has to be an angry endeavor? Activists and other cultural pro- ducers get angry about mainstream society mostly because they disdain it. Contempt for the average person who is content to listen to pop radio and watch primetime television cripples the activist's ability to influence his political opinion. If the purpose of your creativity is to be political, then it should be accessible and catered to your audience. A soapbox and an audi- ence are only useful when the people can understand what you're saying. Any wager of war will tell you that adapting your tactics is the key to vic- tory; a war fought on the cultural bat- tlefield is no different. Sam Butler can be reached at butlers@umich.edu. 0 Viewpoint Policy The Daily welcomes viewpoints from its readers.Viewpoints have one or several authors, though preference will be given topieces written can behalf of individuals rather than an organization. Editors will run viewpoints according to timeliness, order received and available space, and all submissions become property of the Daily. Viewpoints should be no longer than 700 words. The Daily reserves the right to edit for length, clarity and accuracy. To submit viewpoints orfor more information, email: ed(itpage.editors a timichedu. Wal-Mart's labor strategies model less than ideal behavior TO THE DAILY: In his column, John Stiglich remarks that "through the years, other retail giants from Tar- get to Best Buy have copied Wal-Mart's business plan and implemented many of its labor strate- gies" (The Bank of Wal-Mart, 01/17/2007). I don't ever remember Best Buy locking immigrants in the stores overnight, or forcing the government to shoulder $1.5 billion in healthcare costs for its full- time employees. Blase Kearney Alum Daily's advice to U attempt to thwart will ofMichigan voters TO THE DAILY: I found the editorial board's call for University officials to beat a dead horse on Proposal 2 to be disgusting and disturbing (From the Daily: Worth Fighting For, 01/17/2007). The editorial board is encouraging poor citizenship; the message that resonates through the piece is that should things in our democracy not go the way we want, we should complain and undermine the will of the electorate. Not only does the Daily's editorial board show a lack of respect for Michigan voters, but it also shows a lack of respect for our legal system by referring to the federal judges who have told the University to comply with the law as "clueless." In insinuating that the elimination of racial and gender preferences will spell destruction for the University's academic atmosphere and reputation, the editorial board demonstrates its lack of touch with reality. How is it that the University of Cali- fornia at Berkeley has maintained academic promi- nence over the past 10 years without race- and gender-based affirmative action, consistently rank- ing ahead of our university? This University is a creation of the state of Michi- gan and the voters of this state. Should it insist on thwarting the will of Michigan's voters when the voters have every right to revoke their funding of this institution? And why should the voters of this state feel any remorse when they pull the plug? Countless gradu- ates of this institution abandon the state every year and flock to other states, taking with them earning potential that Michiganvoters helped them acquire. The ungrateful people who attend this university and who wrote that editorial and the administra- tors who appease them deserve a reality slap. Andrew Gaber LSA junior Admissions decisions should make upfor K-12 segregation TO THE DAILY: I'm surprised to hear the ways University Presi- dent Mary Sue Coleman and the admissions office are exploring to remedy the implications of Proposal 2 (Worth Fighting For, 01/17/2007). The University seems to be overlooking some obvious and powerful solutions that could be effected within the restric- tions of Proposal 2. For example, a major reason why black and His- panic students are underrepresented on campus is segregation in Michigan's K-12 system. In 2003's Grutter v. Bollinger case, an expert testified that in Michigan some 83 percent of the black students are educated in "minority schools" and 64 percent of all black students in Michigan are educated in extreme- ly segregated schools. One solution would be to designate segregated minority schools as such and award applicants from those schools an advantage in the application pro- cess. The benefit could even be tiered according to how segregated the school is. This system would provide a counter-blast to admissions criteria that specifically disadvantage minority applicants, like the SAT, legacyfactor, the schoolfactor (whichfavors students from more challenging high schools). I'm not suggesting that these policies are a com- plete solution, but they would certainly help. I wonder, has the Diversity Blueprints taskforce con- sidered these options? Adam de Angeli Alum Willingness-to-pay system offers post-Prop 2 solutions TO THE DAILY: I would like to suggest that the University's Diversity Blueprints Taskforce carefully examine two existing University programs that have each increased diversity on campus. These programs appear successful and have not been legally con- tested. - The first model is Parking Operations, which has diversified a program that once only offered parking permits and metered spaces to staff and commuters into a multi-faceted system offer- ing various parking and transport options. These options are tiered by the permit purchaser's will- ingness to pay for select parking locations. The system separates the willingly affluent from the thrifty. The second successful diversifying program has been instituted by the Athletic Department. The priority seating program has diversified spectator seating at Michigan Stadium by allotting points for multiple factors and linking these points to a "vol- untary" Victors Club membership program that alone has eight classifications - again determined by one's willingness to pay. Using the successful models of diversifying cam- pus parking and seating for athletic events, could we not just add anew admissions criteria, "willingness to pay"? A multi-tiered tuition schedule could be estab- lished using peer institutions for guidelines, so the top level of tuition could be substantially increased, by which the rates for some lower levels would decrease. Just as the stadium and parking areas have been divided into price-controlled sec- tions, the incomingclass should be divided into sec- tions, and the tuition to be paid for acceptance into that section adjusted appropriately. All applicants would be required to complete the usual financial aid forms and eligibility for applying for certain sections would be limited to certain income ranges. When a given section reaches capacity, wait lists would be utilized. If the parking and seating programs have worked for the University community, it seems that design- ing a willingness-to-pay program for only 5,000 SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU incoming first-year students should be a no-brainer. Am I wrong? J. Downs Herold Alum Nostalgic view of Vietnam-era activism neglects reallty TO THE DAILY: Whitney Dibo's column (Outfrom under the '60s shad- ow, 01/18/2007) is the latest in what seems like a series of pieces urging a return to the level of campus activism of the Vietnam era. Butwhen liberals romanticize the Viet- nam era as one of pure intellectualism and social justice on campus, they make the same mistake as conservatives who romanticize the 1950s as a time of universal happi- ness andstrongmoralvalues. Psychologistsstudyingthe matter have shown that the primary motivator of anti- war activists was the government's authority to send them to war, not some humanistic compassion for the people of South Vietnam. Although some undoubtedly did care about other issues, most merelyused them as an excuse to oppose a war they didn't want to fight in. As soon as our parents were no longer of draft age, they abandoned their ideals and elected arch-conserva- tive Ronald Reagan (a fact Dibo acknowledges). The lack of moral conviction on the part of liberals demonstrated why the protests failed. Poorer Americans, whose kids were fighting abroad, observed selfish elitists consuming psychedelic drugs and callingtheir children baby killers. In an attempt to reject authority, protesters ultimately rejected morality, handing it over to conservatives who claim to hold it to this day. Liberals lost the moral high ground that they'd held since the Progressive Era. Sure,Vietnam protests were fun while they lasted, but thewinnersoftheerawereneoconservatives,theReligious Right and even George W. Bush. I'm certainly not proud of the apolitical nature of my generation: I agree with Dibo inthatwe should find a newwayto make ourvoiceheard. But while doing so, it is absolutely crucial that we hold the moral high ground. Let's root this new activism in intel- lectual dialogue and compassion for all of humanity,not in superficial chants and selfish hedonism. If we can do that, we can accomplish something our parents never did. Eric Kumbier LSA sophomore 0 0