*I
4A -Wednesday, February 7, 2007
The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
413 E. Huron St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
tothedaily@umich.edu
KARL STAMPFL
EDITOR IN CHIEF
IMRAN SYED
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
JEFFREY BLOOMER
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.
Prop 2 dej avu
Same-sex benefit ban will hurt University and state
n an eerie instance of d6ja vu, another controversial Proposal 2
has come back to haunt the University. The Proposal 2 passed
in 2004 -now state law - defined marriage as between a man
and woman and was later interpreted to also ban health care benefits
for same-sex couples by Republican Attorney General Mike Cox.
BN TA LE B 1.A E
Urgency, urgency, urgency!"
- Gov. JENNIFER GRANHOLM on the pressing need to ameliorate the state's budget
crisis in her State of the State address last night.
KIM LEUNG
/mtp, ern mJ z/ 6?I J oj/ys/ %v7 WA//
H 4V,4; A fs~A1/V PfAIV6/Z OF ~~uL ~~I
'44 -
9
On Thursday, the Michigan Court of
Appeals upheld Cox's interpretation, which
prohibited public institutions like the Uni-
versity from offering health care to same-
sex partners of employees. This ruling not
only places unwarranted restrictions on the
rights of same-sex couples but also exposes
the danger of vaguely worded proposals and
could spell disaster for the state.
while the amendment was already a vio-
lation of same-sex couples' rights, these fur-
ther constraints serve only to compound the
discrimination against same-sex couples -
something Michigan residents never voted
for. A 2005 EPIC/MRA poll showed that 47
percent of voters supported same-sex ben-
efits, while only 39 percent opposed them.
Far from a mandate of voters, the ban on
same-sex partners receiving health benefits
was instead an arbitrary extrapolation by
Cox. He construed the proposal's vague lan-
guage into a disgraceful manipulation of the
public's will to further a personal ideologi-
cal agenda and deny people equal protection
under the law - not to mention, potentially
lifesaving, non-emergency medical care.
Cox's interpretation is even more far-
fetched considering that the private sector
concluded long ago that debating same-sex
benefits is no longer relevant. Companies
across the country, including the Big Three,
Disney and Microsoft, already grant same-
sex health benefits. The same is true of pri-
vate colleges that vie for the same top-notch
professors as the University.
SEN
Obama's strategy offers
third option on war in Iraq
With health benefits in jeopardy, many
professors may be tempted to leave the Uni-
versity, and others may be deterred from
accepting appointments in the first place.
Engineering Prof. Michael Falk, for example,
came to the University in part because it pro-
vided same-sex health benefits. With such
benefits taken away, not only will the Uni-
versity lose some valuable professors, but the
general flight of intellectuals out of the state
will also be exacerbated.
So far from the cutting edge of social activ-
ism, what progressive intellectual wants
to live in a state that would take away equal
protection? How can the state improve its
workforce in areas like life sciences and bio-
medical engineering when its laws are need-
lessly unwelcoming and inevitably drive away
talented progressive workers?
Cox's push to exclude same-sex partners
from receiving health benefits is not only an
injustice to their rights and a disservice to
the state - it is also a reminder of the dan-
gers of Michigan's popular, controversial
ballot initiatives. Ballot proposals continu-
ously pose a threat to the state by allowing
groups to get controversial issues on the bal-
lot - issues that are complex enough to only
be worth considering for law after thorough
legislative debate. Opportunistic individuals
in state governmentuse this vague language
to twist these proposals to suit personal
agendas, leading to a wide array of unin-
tended and harmful consequences. The old
Proposal 2 is only a sign of what's to come.
ND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU
mitted underapseudonym,anditwasyearslater
that Duchamp took credit for it. "Fountain" was
originally rejected outright as a work of art, and
it took years to be considered as such. Itshocked,
stimulated controversy and created debate.
One world, ready or not
eating up on the United Nations
is a favorite pastime of pro-Bush
conservatives. It's ineffective,
they say - why support an organiza-
tion that can't stop outright genocide in
Bosnia or Sudan? Besides, they claim,
America needn't obey any would-be
world government - we're better than
any third-world spear-chuckers or old-
Europe surrender
monkeys, so why
compromise?
This attitude
reminds me of
an old joke. Two
women on vaca-
tion are eating
at a restaurant.
"This food is
terrible!" one
exclaims. "Yes," TOBY
the other says,
"and such small
portions!" Either
the U.N. can have
the strength to solve world problems
or America can have its own way and
expect those problems to get worse. We
can't have it both ways.
The U.N.'s problems are complex, but
they aren't hard to understand. They're
the same conflicts America faced while
convincing its separate states to unify.
There are two basic problems: legiti-
macy and security.
According to developing countries,
the developed world writes the rules
and referees the game. Why play at all
when America, Russia, France, Britain
or China can veto rules at will? Inter-
national Monetary Fund, World Bank
and World Trade Organization market
reforms have worsened already dire
poverty levels and given Western busi-
nesses carte blanche, so developing
countries naturally suspect that the
U.N. serves foreign interests first.
For its part, the developed world
doesn't like that foreign aid keeps end-
ing up in the coffers of vile warlords and
dictators. Anti-American and anti-U.N.
conspiracy theories in these countries
often serve to keep popular resentment
directed away from their own corrupt
leaders. While the West doesn't always
live up to its own principles, it never-
theless possesses greater freedom and
greater responsibility toward other
nations. If developing countries want
the same rights, they need to display
the same responsibility.
The U.N. is therefore essentially one
single argument: The West says "grow
up and get a democracy," and the restsay
"screw you, we have real problems."
Conservatives view this as an inevita-
ble "clash of civilizations,"but I don't buy
it. The legitimacy problem can be solved
with a newlevelofsovereignty. Transna-
tional super-states - already prefigured
by the European Union, the ASEAN eco-
nomic alliance and the African Union -
could combine the voting power of their
separate nations and push back against
Western hegemony. It would also give
developing countries room to interpret
freedom and democracy according to
their ownhistories and values. Tryingto
rush the process hasn't worked too well
in, say, Palestine and Iraq.
This federation of states would also
foster security. Each regional organiza-
tion could deal with its own bad apples,
removing the suspicion that U.N. inter-
vention is just Western imperialism in
drag. If a state's actions exceed well-
defined bounds - such as proven pos-
session of weapons of mass destruction,
grave humanrights abuses andthe threat
of violence against neighbors - then the
U.N. Security Council would automati-
cally begin considering military action.
This wouldn't mean the end of war;
Instead, it would be its transformation
into something much less terrible. Indi-
vidual member nations would contrib-
ute some of their own military reserves
in exchange for internationally guar-
anteed security - a social contract
between nations. The obscene imbal-
ance of power between the American
military and Iraqi "army" seen in the
war in Iraqwould acquire a far different
meaning if that war were an interna-
tionally-supported police action against
a rogue state with actual WMDs.
This is an ambitious vision, but it's
not merely a possibility - it's a neces-
sity. Ever since the first atom bomb
was detonated at Los Alamos, inter-
national order has been more than a
dream: It has become the sole condition
of human survival. Without interna-
tional governance to unify the efforts
of individual nations, global problems
from terrorism to nuclear proliferation
to global warming will only continue to
worsen. Benjamin Franklin's wisecrack
Hang together on
world stage for
peace and security.
about the signing of the Declaration of
Independence now applies to the whole
world: We need to hang together, or
we'll most assuredly hangseparately.
Individual nations need not be ide-
alistic or even democratic to begin. All
they need is the desire for self-pres-
ervation. But there is a great need for
idealism - especially here in America.
A home-grown political avant-garde
of self-professed world citizens could
spearhead the drive to a united world.
By demanding that American power
serve the global common good, these
world citizens would be standing up for
the truest expression of American patri-
otism: the dream that one day, the eth-
nic and personal divisions of the peoples
of the world would wither before their
bonds of common humanity.
Toby Mitchell can be reached
at tojami@umich.edu.
*I
e
TO THE DAILY Perhaps a be
It is clear that Rajiv Prabhakar's support of ogy for the wa
President Bush's surge plan (In defense of the us think and re:
surge, 02/02/07) comes from a genuine desire and our govern
to better the situation in Iraq and improve both sides of th
America's standing throughout the world.
While I think the surge is misguided, Iam glad Jon Cameron
to see debate in this country return to reason LSA senior
and the rhetoric of hate and smear be replaced
byforward-thinkingproposals.HoweverRajiv
mistakenly implies that America has only two Hussein r
options in Iraq: surge and withdrawal.
There is a third way - Sen. Barack Obama's protect G
(D-Ill) plan for phased redeployment. On Jan.
30, Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escala- TO THE DAILY
tionActof2007. Itis quite literallythe onlyplan While LSA j
that allows America to leave Iraq both respon- about Arab ri
sibly and with dignity. If passed, the act would tion of Iraq's C
cap the number of troops serving in Iraq, begin 02/05/07), he is
a phased redeployment of U.S. forces by May 1, Saddam Hussei
setbenchmarks foreachphase of redeployment Hussein tole
and remove all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by that we give up
March 31, 2008. In addition, if conditions on culture. He wa:
the ground do not meet the benchmarks set by as a distinct p
the Iraq Study Group, then Obama's bill gives presence in the
Congress the power to temporarily postpone proportionate1
any phase of redeployment. that was the Ir
As Obama said on the Senate floor during either reject ot
the debate on the act last Tuesday: "It is time Arabs or leave.
to fundamentally change our policy. It is time uty Prime Min
to give Iraqis their country back. And it is time denied their cu
to refocus America's efforts on the challenges their own fami
we face at home and the wider struggle against get ahead.
terror yet to be won." The Chaldea.
obama's plan is smart, courageous and for thousands,
responsible. And it's exactly what our country people came u
needs. theories, which
culture. Today
Chad Rochkind religious extres
The letter writer is an LSA senior and co-chair of the are Christian..
University's chapter ofStudentsfor Obama the ChaldeanI
into an unfrieni
If America had
Reconsidering an artful ily, we would h
knowledge of m
metaphorfor Iraq would undoubt
It is importai
TO THE DAILY: of the Hussein
Peter Shapiro was a bit off in his letter to the we can develop
editor Monday (Pottery Barn analogy does not minority rights,
apply to Iraq conflict, 02/05/07). Marcel Duch- less of their reli
amp's "Fountain" was not met with critical
acclaim because of his credentials, as Shapiro Johnnie Kasha
falsely asserted. The piece was originally sub- LSA sophomore
tter use of this work as an anal-
r in Iraq is that it should make
think deeply about the situation
ment's place in the world - on
e argument.
regime didn't
haldeans in Iraq
unior Fadi Dawood is correct
eligious and ethnic persecu-
haldean population (Iraqi ties,
incorrect in his claims that the
.n regime provided protection.
rated Chaldeans on the basis
'our language and Arabize our
s unwilling to accept our status
eople and did not respect our
e region. He drafted us in dis-
numbers during the slaughter
an-Iraq War. He wanted us to
ur ancient culture and become
Chaldeans - like former Dep-
ister of Iraq Tariq Aziz - who
lture and language and sold out
lies, were the only ones able to
n people have lived in the region
of years. Under Hussein, our
nder the threat of pan-Arabic
h attacked minority rights and
our homeland is threatened by
mists who target us because we
The Hussein regime poisoned
homeland and transformed it
dly, intolerant and violent place.
not opened its doors to my fam-
iave remained in Iraq, and my
y history, language and culture
edly not be so strong.
nt that we learn from the faults
regime and his pan-Arabism so
new political ideas that accept
and tolerate all people - regard-
gion, ethnicity or beliefs.
t
AMANDA BURNS
Welfare reform in progress
Last week, former House Ways and Means Commit-
tee staffer and Brookings Institution senior fellow Ron
Haskins presented his book "Welfare Over Work" at the
Ford School of Public Policy. In the book, Haskins draws
onhis experience as one ofthe primary authors ofthe1996
Welfare Reform Law and provides a unique perspective
on the politicized world of controversial policymaking.
Haskins began writing his landmark proposal for wel-
fare reformwhen most considered the effort superfluous.
Many powerful politicians before him tried and failed to
rework the flawed system. In the end, he attributes the
success of welfare reform in part to an alignmentof polit-
ical superstars - Clinton's promise to "change welfare as
we know it" and Newt Gingrich's ascension to speaker
of the House. Haskins even joked that Clinton's constant
co-optation of Republican issues is one of the reasons the
he was so hated by the opposing party.
Conscious of his student audience, Haskins touched
on the role of policy staffers and the hours of preparation
required in anticipation of the moment when a senator
or president will allow his view to be swayed by techno-
cratic arguments. Although he shared several amusing
anecdotes from the book - including theatrical stalling
tactics on the House floor by Democrats waiting for Clin-
ton's signal - Haskins seemed more intent on provingthe
merits of welfare reform to a mainly Democratic audience
than looking critically at the 10 years since the reform.
Haskins included in his overview of welfare reform
a description of two rather surprising initiatives. Along
with creating five-year time limits for temporary assis-
tance programs and ending cash entitlements, funding
was provided for abstinence-only education and charita-
ble choice - government grants given to religious orga-
nizations. Being opposed to abstinence-only education, I
was surprisedto learnthat it.originated as part of welfare
reform. The logic seems simple enough, abstinence-only
education means fewer teens having sex, which equals
less teenage mothers, which means less people on wel-
fare. I would have to disagree.
Although Haskins believes abstinence-only education
is largely responsible for the decrease in teen pregnancy,
the program leaves students who choose to have sex woe-
fully underinformed, making them more likely not to use
protection when the time comes. In regards to charita-
ble choice, it seems that the government transferred the
responsibility of caring for the impoverished to religious
organizations that dole out advice with their services.
At the end of his presentation, Haskins mentioned
several shortcomings of welfare reform, and I found this
part, however short, to be the most interesting part of the
presentation. I say this not as a Democrat lookingto criti-
cize a Republican project, but because with an issue as
important as welfare reform, policymakers should spend
less time exalting past achievements and more time con-
sidering options for the future.
Most notably, Haskins expressed regret that more
assistance was not provided to working single mothers.
When writing the bill, he and others assumed that if a
working mother obtained a minimum-wage job at the
beginning of the five-year assistance program, she could
be making up to $16 an hour when her benefits expired.
For a variety of reasons, this has turned out to be untrue;
single working mothers tend not to progress in terms of
position or salary, and programs designed to remedy the
problem have largely failed. Haskins noted that the most
promising initiatives include government financed edu-
cation at local community colleges, which tailor classes
to fill employment needs in the community.
"Welfare Over Work" is a political junkie's dream; it
provides an amusing window into the backroomdealings
and parliamentary style-stunts that accompanied wel-
fare reform. Haskins' presentation, however, fell short of
expectations due to a lack of self-evaluation. Still, wel-
fare reform now and in the future presents a challenge
to policymakers and Haskins's book and appearance on
campus brought the issue to the forefront once again, if
only for a day.
Amanda Burns is an LSA senior and
member of the Daily's editorial board.
Editorial Board Members: Emily Beam, Kevin Bunkley, Amanda Burns, Sam Butler, Ben Caleca,
Brian Flaherty, Jared Goldberg, Emmarie Huetteman, Toby Mitchell, Rajiv Prabhakar,
David Russell, Gavin Stern, John Stiglich, Jennifer Sussex, Neil Tambe,
Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Wagner, Christopher Zbrozek