4A - Tuesday, November 11, 2008

The Michigan Daily - michiganclaily.com

I c, Iicl ig n ail


Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu

ANDREW GROSSMAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF

GARY GRACA
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

GABE NELSON
MANAGING EDITOR

I know obesity is a big problem, and it's good the
school cares, (but) at the same time, you shouldn't
stop a kid from buying a cookie."
- Piedmont High School senior Sam Cardoza, on California's attempts to encourage healthier eating in
public schools by banning the sale of junk food, as reported yesterday by The New York Times.
Will hope be enough?

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.
The FCC won't letFox be
Supreme Court should overturn inconsistent rules
T he Federal Communications Commission's standards for
what can and can't be said on television are bullshit. While
some media outlets often use expletives as emotional empha-
sis free of repercussions, others receive fines. These subjective and
vague regulations are becoming problematic for major media net-
works that can't seem to follow the rules. Now, with the U.S. Supreme
Court weighing in, there's a simple solution: Rather than enforce out-
dated policies, the FCC needs to adapt its restrictions to the chang-
ing times, and do so with the First Amendment in mind.

hen Barack Obama won the
presidential election last
week, much of the campus
- and the coun-
try, for that mat-
ter - erupted into
celebration. Hope
had won. Change
had finally come.
He has become the
savior for all those
who stifled under
eight years worth BRANDON
of the Bush admin-
istration, and now CONRADIS
it's time for him to
lift this country up
from the mud it has been wallowing in
and set it on the clean path to success.
If only. His first term is going to be
anything but clean. The road ahead
is rife with all kinds of pitfalls, but no
issue is more treacherous for him than
that of the economy. It will make or
break him. And from the looks of it, his
plans aren'tnecessarilygoingto lead us
in the direction we want to head.
Sure, ataxcutfor 95 percentofwork-
ers sounds mighty fine. Supposedly,
he will see to it that only the rich get
taxed, that the big corporations are the
ones who have to pay the most money.
His aim is to help the average Joe, after
all. That's why, in response to the Big
Three's growing desperation for more
handouts from the government, Obama
has pledged his support for a bailout
plan that will grant them more money
our government doesn't have.
wait... what?

Yep. Obama has come out and said
recently that he adamantly supports
the idea of giving more money to the
flailing auto industry. So while Obama
talks about refusing to give tax cuts
to the wealthy corporations, he sup-
ports the idea of bailing out other,
desperate companies like General
Motors, Ford and Chrysler. So whose
side is he on? Obama claims to be for
the middle-class worker, and he calls
the auto industry "the backbone of
American manufacturing." But if he's
promising to give money to large com-
panies, while subsequently declaring
his intention to abolish tax breaks for
large companies, it makes you wonder
what his priorities are.
Forget the fact that past government
intervention to help the auto industry
saved jobs and money in the short run,
but has proven relatively ineffective in
the long run. Forget the fact that this
has resulted in other American com-
panies asking for bailout money from
the Democrats. What's really impor-
tant to note is the fact that there's no
clear idea of how exactly the govern-
ment is going to pay for all this.
With a $700 billion bailout package
and a $300 billion stimulus package
having already been passed in Con-
gress, it seems Obama's plan is merely
a continuation of a recent trend to feed
money to the large corporations at risk
of going under. If this continues - as
it seems it will during Obama's presi-
dency - then where will the federal
government get the money? Certainly
not from other corporations - after

all, as seen in the case of the Big Three,
they're coming to the Democrats ask-
ing for money. From that wealthy 5
percent, then? Not likely - I doubt
they can pay for all of that.
The answer's up in the air, and
that's what's eye-opening. At this
stage in his career, Obama's not so
much a "tax-and-spend" Democrat ap
he is merely a "spend" Democrat
it's just a matter of where exactly he's
going to get all that money. Right no*
Obama may seem,
ideal, but he has a
tough time ahead.
taxes aren't a priority for me, but soon
they will be. At the rate our govern-
ment is spending money, it's obvious
I'll be feeling the effects on my wallet
post-graduation.
It's easy to wax poetic about Obama
right now, but it will take a lot for him
to truly prove himself as an agent of
change and not just another spend-
happy politician. From the looks of
it, he's already fitting into that mold.
Because of this, unfortunately, he's
change that's hard for me to believe
in..
Brandon Conradis can be reached
at brconrad@umich.edu.

The FCC's power to monitor and enforce
media broadcasts comes from precedent
established by the 1974 Supreme Court case
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. The FCC had
reprimanded a Pacifica Foundation radio
station for broadcasting comedian George
Carlin's "Seven dirty words" routine, in
which he repeats seven words deemed too
inappropriate for broadcast. The Court's
ruling gave FCC the broad power to limit
any "obscene" speech referencing "sexual or
excretory material" and since then, the FCC
has regulated broadcasts on the radio waves
and on television.
The Supreme Court is now revisiting that
34-year rule in FCC v. Fox Television. The
FCC fined Fox after the station aired an
awards show in 2003, during which vari-
ous celebrities used expletives. Because the
highly publicized show exposed underage
viewers to inappropriate content, the FCC
cracked down hard, finingthe network hun-
dreds of thousands of dollars. But consider
this: If the awards show had been a news-
cast, there would have been no penalty.
This inconsistency cuts to the heart of
why the Supreme Court should reverse its
previous decision. The FCC's current level
of discretion anoints it the sole arbiter of
broadcastpropriety. Because of the arbitrary

restrictions placed upon them, networks
constantly worry about airing appropriate
content. As a result, they pre-screen all live
content and thus effectively end real-time
broadcasting. The time delay required to
preview live television for "inappropriate"
content wastes time, energy and money.
HavingtheFCCplayculturalpoliceshould
also raise a few First Amendment eyebrows.
It's not the FCC's job to do that, especially
once it has demonstrated it applies its rules
in inconsistent and contradictory ways.
Whether the FCC likes it or not, expletives
are an enduring part of American culture.
They often serve a purpose, and when they
don't, they aren't something to fear, even
for kids. Attempting to control "appropri-
ate" language is innately complicated and
unnecessary.
The FCC's arbitrary rules reflect its
inability to grasp the basic idea that not all
expletives are unnecessary. Media outlets
should have the freedom to emphasis their
points how they see fit. They shouldn't be
fined, and American audiences shouldn't be
prevented from hearing swear words when
they are conveyingnecessary emotions.
The Supreme Court should tell the FCC to
go [expletive] itself, because expletives are
fucking useful.

THE UNITED ASIAN AMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS IVIEWPOINT
Providing space protects diversity

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Elise Baun, Harun Buljina, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh,
Brian Flaherty, Matthew Green, Emmarie Huetteman, Emma Jeszke, Shannon Kellman,
Edward McPhee, Emily Michels, Kate Peabody, Matthew Shutler, Robert Soave, Eileen Stahl'
Jennifer Sussex, Imran Syed, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Margaret Young
BEN CALECA l'V
Uniting the nation

One day after Michigan voters
approved a ban on race- and gender-
based affirmative action in 2006, Uni-
yersity President Mary Sue Coleman
addressed the University community,
proclaiming, "diversity matters at
Michigan."
She went on, "If November 7th was
the day that Proposal 2 passed, then
November 8th is the day we pledge to
remain unified in our fight for diversi-
ty. Together, we must continue to make
this world-class university one that
reflects the richness of the world."
But in spite of such proclamations,
the University sometimes proves to be
an unwelcoming place for students of
color. Space, specifically a central loca-
tion in which members of minority
populations can gather, is necessary
for not only the empowerment of indi-
viduals,but also empowerment of such
communities as a whole. The preserva-
tion of a safe space in which students
of color are encouraged to meet and
foster their individual identities and
values is crucial to creating a campus
climate where diversity is a lived real-
ity and not simply an abstract concept
or cliche dictum.
University Housing has recently
decided to enforce its policy of limit-
ing the number of times per academic
term and year for which an individual
or organization can use a residence
hall lounge. While this policy applies

to all residence hall lounges, it has the
greatest impact on minority-cultural
and multicultural lounges and the stu-
dent organizations that have historic
ties to those rooms.
For nearly a decade, the United
Asian American Organizations has
had unrestricted use ofthe YuriKochi-
yama Lounge in South Quad. Named
after Japanese-American civil rights
activist Yuri Kochiyama, the space is
one of the few on campus dedicated to
the Asian Pacific Islander American
community and its activism. While
Markley Hall is home to the Arati Sha-
rangpani Lounge, named in honor of a
former South Asian University student
killed ina plane crash, the Yuri Kochi-
yama Lounge is the only space central-
ly located on campus.
While it is within University policy
to regulate use of residence hall space,
it is also stated University policy to
"create and sustain diverse learning-
centered residence communities." It
is crucial that UAAO and other orga-
nizations like it have unrestricted
access to these lounges in their efforts
to unite and empower their communi-
ties. Furthermore, we want to embody
and carry on the historical current left
by Kochiyama's legacy of engaging in
activism and promoting diversity.
After Michigan's affirmative action
ban passed, the relationships between
minority students, faculty and staff

and the overall campus community
have been tenuous. To deny Asian
Pacific Islander American students
unrestricted space use perpetuates
the University's refusal to acknowl-
edge the needs of students of color and
directly contradicts Coleman's claim
that "diversity matters." While other
facilities are dedicated to Asian Pacific
Islander Americans, none are as cen-
trally located as the Yuri Kochiyams
Lounge. The importance of a centrally
located space cannot be understated,
as it shows a true commitment to put-
ting diversity first.
Limiting access to the Yuri Kochi-
yama Lounge is not only detrimental
to the success of UAAO as a student
organization, it is also detrimental to
the diversity at the University. Just as
the Yuri Kochiyama Lounge is not the
only place where this policy is being
enforced, ours is not the only com-
munity being affected. We stand in
solidarity with other groups whose
space use is also being restricted. Just
as Yuri Kochiyama organized across
community lines, we will not consider
this issue closed until all groups with
long-standing connections to campus
spaces have their unrestricted access
restored.
This viewpoint was written on behalf
of the executive board of the United
Asian American Organizations.

With the election of Barack Obama last Tues-
day, many celebrated in streets in Ann Arbor
and across the country. This was for them the
crowning achievement of a movement years in
the making. However, there are tens of millions
of Americans disappointed in the current politi-
cal change. These were impassioned people, and
America needs to work now to mend the divides
that became more and more apparent toward the
end of the election.
Personally, I like John McCain the senator; for
a longtime, he was a feisty, but in general, capable
legislator with no clearly partisan agenda. As he
started aligning himself with George W. Bush in
his defense of the war in Iraq, I was extremely
disappointed. But that didn't take away from the
fact that the man is worth respecting. In victory,
Obama's supporters should recognize this and
realize there is more to respect about McCain
than there is to loathe. It's time to put the elec-
tion's dirtbehind us.
When Democrats talk of"runningup the score"
there is an underlying sense ofvindication, of righ-
teousness that is a bit disheartening. Especially
in the U.S. Senate races, it's not the radical right
that's being kicked out, but the more moderate
conservatives from more moderate states. Intense
polarization will occur if the Democrats attempt
unilateral actions without bothering to appeal
to the conservative legislators in Congress. This
isn't the change we need, and President Obama
will need to address keeping bipartisanship with
the finesse he had convincing the Hillary Clinton
Democrats to support his nomination.
On the other side of the spectrum, many feel
bitterness about Obama's election. There is talk
of continual filibustering from angry bloggers
and calls for the Republicans who remain, those
deeply entrenched in red districts and states, to
act as radicals and obstructionists to every Demo-
cratic policy. This serves no one's interests and
ELAINE MORTON

only makes solving our country's problems all
the more difficult. Any fix generallyis better than
none, and if Republicans try to clog the system
and then run out the clock until the nextelection,
they are doing a disservice to everyone.
Facebook groups and chain e-mails have laugh-
ingly already popped up claiming there should
be impeachment hearings for Obama once he is
sworn into office, because he can't seriously think
he's capable of being a leader. This kind of dis-
dain isn't what we need if change is going to take
place.
Even families have been split by how they
voted, and in some corners of the country the sub-
conscious prejudices and fears of communities
have bubbled over. This election showed the fear
of even entertaining the thought of a non-Chris-
tian president. It is shameful that neither party
addressed this issue with any conviction.
Talk of conservatives saying they wanted to
go to Europe or Canada to escape the inevitable
doom that is an Obama presidency is amusing,
but really, there were many liberals saying this in
2004. This is not something new. The divisions
from the Bush era are still very present. Liberals
and moderates may have won this victory, but the
right hasn't gone away - measures like Proposi-
tion 8 in California, a ballot initiative that banned
same-sex marriage, confirms that.
In the coming months, the United States will
change hands to a new leader elected in a grass-
roots movement for change in this country. The
deep-seated hatreds, however, that exist between
both sides need tobe cast aside, though it will take
time. This starts with the two parties learning to
work together after this change of power, but it
also begins with citizens on both sides agreeing
to fix this country. Everyone needs to realize that
race and religion are not the measures of a leader.
Ben Caleca is an Engineering junior.
E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU

EMILY MICHELS I

Marriage material

0

Gay marriage is controversial, to say
the least. Like most highly publicized
and scrutinized issues, it is the per-
petual subject of moral and political
debates from high school classrooms
to corporation boardrooms. The tide
began to turn in favor of same-sex
marriage advocates when Connecticut
and Massachusetts legalized gay mar-
riage. California, too, seemed to follow
suit. Then its voters passed Proposition
8, constitutionally banning same-sex
marriage in the state. Primarily funded
and supported by the Republican Party
and multiple religious groups, the con-
stitutional amendment reopens old,
half-healed wounds.
This new amendment asks the larg-
er question: How much should religion
influence our government's policies,
especially when it comes to the protec-
tion and expansion of gay rights?
Proposition 8 is, quite literally, a step
backwards.In1999,California'sAssem-
bly Bill 26 passed, granting same-sex
couples some of the same substantive
legalrights asheterosexual couples and
declaring court infringement on these
rights unconstitutional. The California
Domestic Partner Rights and Respon-
sibilities Act, passed in 2003, broad-
ened the scope of Assembly Bill 26,
affording same-sex couples nearly all
of the legal rights as married couples.
Finally, in 2007, California's state leg-
islature declared that a gender-specific
definition of marriage specifically dis-

criminated against same-sex couples,
making same-sex marriage that much
closer to becoming a reality.
But those hopes were shattered last
Tuesday.
Many American voters believe that
same-sex couples should be denied
marriage because marriage is defined
as being between a man and a woman.
This definition primarily stems from
the biblical description of marriage,
particularly in Genesis 2:24, where a
marriage is described as a man being
"united with his wife." While every
religion is entitled to its own beliefs,
transforming a biblical definition of
marriage into a legal definition violates
the often subjective, yet nonetheless
punishable, standard for the separa-
tion of church and state. To use the
"definition" of marriage as evidence
against recognizing same-sex unions
is infiltrating religious text into legis-
lative processes.
However, if we were to base the
definition of marriage on a biblical
description, it would only be consis-
tent to use all biblical references as an
outline for what legally constitutes a
"marriage." For example, 2 Chronicles
11:21 condones polygamy, while Deu-
teronomy 22:21 calls for the execution
of women who are not virgins when
they marry.
When using religious text as legal
resources, you can't pick and choose
the ones that are morally and legally

defensible. Referring to some bibli-
cal verses to defend a discriminatory
definition of marriage, while blatantly
ignoringthe othersis hypocritical and
nonsensical. Bringing biblical defini-
tions into our legislative processes will
only result in biased and inconsistept
legislative precedent.
Because "marriage" is an inher-
ently religious term, "civil union" is
now more commonly described as the
legal union between same-sex couples.
Under this union, couples are afforded
thesamelegalrightstoinheritance,tax
breaks and shared health benefits. Yet,
as the passage of Proposition 8 shows,
some are still adamantly opposed to
providing equal rights to same-sex
couples. Unfortunately, while many
are trying to find a compromise in legal
terminology to allocate equal legal
rights to same-sex couples, there are 0
others who are blatantly homophobic
and intolerant of lifestyles other than
their own.
Same-sex couples are not second-
class citizens. They should be afford-
ed the same civil rights as all other
citizens, particularly when it comes to
the rights of married couples. To deny
them, or any one group, these rights
undermines the inherent values of
American society -justice for all.
Emily Michels is an LSA
sophomore and a Daily associate
editorial page editor.

y rye dor'S Cp'rt~ry our ikivd~ ,AA
-t U C DAvis 55ooj c+, S Is Q
t i. .'s oM" crstP vs ~ii.e
C e l