4A - Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com *
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynatd St.
E ,. Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tathedaily@umich.edu
JACOB SMILOVITZ
EDITOR IN CHIEF
RACHEL VAN GILDER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
MATT AARONSON
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.
Michigan's safe bet
Voters should support casino ballot initiatives
Everyone knows Lindsay, like Cher or Madonna.
- Dina Lohan, the mother of Lindsay Lohan, commenting on her daughter's lawsuit against
E-Trade, as reported yesterday by the New York Post.
CHRIS KOSLOWSKI I E-MAIL CHRIS AT CSKtSLOW aUMICH.EDU
So, if Ispin the Cube at 11 I jusewant tu see my Sprng They have ISype fur that
sa p,
e
*- 0
0
Michigan voters should put their money on gambling.
On Feb. 26, the Board of State Canvassers approved
'petitions for two ballot initiatives to increase the
number of casinos allowed in the state. But this is just the first
step: More than 300,000 voter signatures are required for each
initiative before either one can even be put on this November's
ballot. Increased gambling has the potential help boost the state's
economy by creating jobs and revenue that could be used to fund
important endeavors like the Michigan Promise Scholarship.
Voters should overlook outdated moral prejudices and embrace
these proposals.
A platform offear
State law requires that any growth of
gambling must be passed in both a state-
wid and local vote. According to a Feb.
26 Detroit News report, the first proposal,
backed by the Michigan is Yours orga-
nization, authorizes seven new casinos
located in Benton Harbor, Detroit, Flint,
Lansing, Muskegon and Romulus and puts
slot machines at the Detroit Metropolitan
Airport. The second, which is sponsored
by Racing to Save Michigan, permits eight
new casinos statewide, five of which would
be at Michigan horse racing tracks. There
are currently 22 casinos in Michigan.
Adoption of these proposals would result
in substantial economic benefits for Michi-
gan. The state could collect wagering taxes
- set at 19 percent in the Michigan Is Yours
proposal - that could be used to supple-
ment the current state budget and pay for
vital programs. The proposal suggests
using the revenue to pay for the recently
cut Michigan Promise Scholarship, adver-
tise tourism in Michigan and help local
governments where the new casinos are
built. Considering the impact the recession
has had on the state, additional funds from
any source must be readily welcomed.
Efforts to increase gambling often face
moralistic opposition. But morality is sub-
jective. And it isn't the place of one group
of people to press their ideas about moral-
ity on society as a whole. It's certainly not
the place of the state to determine what
behavior is or isn't moral. And legislation
certainly shouldn't be tailored or limited to
a specific set of beliefs. Moral battles don't
have a place in the current debate, espe-
cially considering the potential economic
benefits these initiatives could provide.
But if these proposals are to become
law, it is important that they become well-
written laws. Ballot initiatives have often
included nebulous wording that has led to
confusion in regards to their implementa-
tion. For instance, the incomplete wording
of the November 2008 ballot initiative that
legalized the use of medical marijuana in
the state didn't fully define the the logis-
tics of legalization. To make the initiative a
viable effort to boost Michigan's economy,
its language must be clearly codified and
avoid the plague of logistical problems
with its potential passage.
In Michigan's current financial climate,
any potential sources of economic respite
must be explored. The two proposals to
expand the gaming industry in Michigan
should be supported by voters and put on
the ballot this November.
n the face of political scandals
and nasty partisan immatu-
rity, Americans are no longer so
astonished when
they hear of some-
thing devious in
the political world.
Weshake our heads
at the news that a
politician has had
an affair or taken a
bribe, but we don't
lose sleep over it.
Congressmen went MATTHEW
to the Caribbean
on a corporate tab? GREEN
Quelle surprise. So
when Politico.com
published a con-
troversial fundraising guide by the
Republican National Committee last
week that instructed fundraisers to
play on donors' fear, I wasn't all that
taken aback. Politics, we all know, can
be a dirty game. But while it's well-
known that fear is often manipulat-
ed politically, I was startled by how
blunt the RNC was (if only amongst
insiders) about its use of fear in fund-
raising.
As reported by Politico, the guide
instructed fundraisers to focus on
"fear" and call to "reactionary"
inclinations when soliciting smaller
donors. It included caricatures of
President Barack Obama as the Joker
from Batman and of House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as Cruella
DeVille. And it craftily stated that
when all else fails, fundraisers ought
to remind donors that the GOP is try-
ing to "save the country from Social-
ism!" In doing so, the RNC evidently
hoped to use fear to inculcate a sense
of urgency in potential donors.
Historically, this may be what con-
servative groups do best. In the last
century, social conservative move-
ments have encouraged fear of immi-
grants, communists, gays, terrorism
and socialism, amongst innumer-
able other groups and isms, within
the contemporary national psyche.
Luckily, for the educated mind, said
manipulation is easy to spot. Often
when they use the definite article,
for instance - "the gays," "the Mexi-
cans" - they are trying to make us
versus them distinctions and create
an artificial social menace against
whom they can campaign. In this
way, entirely too many social conser-
vatives have managed to get elected
while avoiding any truly relevant dis-
cussion of policy.
Keep in mind that the Republicans
don't seem at all afraid of the Chris-
tian fundamentalist minority that
has pervaded our politics in recent
decades. But that's another column
entirely.
I don't want to suggest that Dem-
ocrats don't occasionally use scare
tactics. Some would say the left has
manipulated global warming to
instill fear in Americans. But then
again, there hasn't yet been a sedition
act imposed against IHummer driv-
ers. And though the War on Terror
may be all about oil, our troops aren't
fighting Exxon Mobil in Afghanistan.
After September 11th, it was easy
for Republicans in power to use fear
to their advantage. The nation was,
understandably, living in fear of ter-
rorism. But rather than speaking softly
and carrying a big stickto calm Ameri-
cans, as a different sort of Republican
might've advised, the Bush admin-
istration capitalized on public fear
to garner votes. By now, that story of
President George W. Bush's manipula-
tion of terror is a tired narrative. Yet it's
crucial to recognize that he was able to
do it because he evoked the social con-
servative precept of mistrusting those
who are different.
GOP shouldn't rely
on scare tactics *
to gain votes.
A slight uneasiness around the
unfamiliar may be inherent in all of
us. But we mustbe awareof the extent
of such biases when listening to poli-
ticians who will exploit our subtlest
inclinations to gain popularity.
Manipulation has no place in real,
scholarly political dialogue. At the
University, regardless of political
ideology, all of us have the intellectu-
al imperative not to give credence to
those politicians who would have us
vote with our amygdalae and not our
frontal lobes. Conservatives should
demand more levelheaded discourse
and campaigning from their leaders.
And liberals should continue to do
the same, though they already have a
head start. Because there are so many
points of disagreement, almost every
American would agree on a Beltway
that wasn't so obsessed with manipu-
lating our anxieties.
I'm already anxious as it is. And,
I'll admit, I have a whole host of fears.
But even if I were trapped in a dark
basement filled with spiders and Karl
Rove was threatening to force-feed
me eggnog, I wouldn't be as afraid as
I am at the thought of another era of
fear-driven politics.
- Matthew Green can be
reached at greenmat@umich.edu
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Nina Amilineni, Jordan Birnholtz, William Butler, Nicholas Clift, Michelle DeWitt,
Brian Flaherty, Jeremy Levy, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga,
Alex Schiff, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Robert Soave, Radhika Upadhyaya, Laura Veith
SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU
Don't generalize race of underprivileged areas."
underprivileged studentsohua Wicks
Staff
TO THE DAILY: Cost MSA w s . is a
While I agree with most of Brittany Smith's of A website
Wednesday column, her assertion that-"there big waste o fstudent funds
is a real, ongoing and ever-growing achieve-
ment gap between students of color in
underprivileged areas and privileged white TO THE DAILY:
students" indicates a motive that I consider to The Michigan Vision Party campaigned last
be anything but altruistic (Education shouldn't year on the platform thatit would transform the
be a crapshoot, 3/10/10). A more accurate view Michigan Student Assembly. I remember seeing
of the problem is that there is a real, ongoing its big green V out on the Diag and hoping its
and ever-growing achievement gap between all members could do something with MSA, or at
students in underprivileged areas and all stu- least not screw things up. In fact, I even voted
dents in privileged areas. for a handful of its candidates.
To state the problem as Smith does, seems to Then, Tuesday, Engineering senior Abhishek
suggest, at best, that the only underprivileged Mahanti, MSA's president, revealed that the
students that matter are black. At worst, it would recently updated MSA website had cost $9,000
seem to suggest that a solution to the problem (MSA website $6,000 over budget, 03/10/2010).
has as much to do with race as it does with When I heard this I was absolutely astounded.
socioeconomic status. My concern is heightened Nine. Thousand. Dollars. That is enough money
by the fact that Bob Moses, the leader of The to send 10 Alternative Spring Break groups on
Algebra Group - which Smith touts as helping trips or purchase 50 sets of University of Michi-
to solve the problem - sees the current system gan football tickets. As Mahanti himself put it,
as a "blatant display of Jim Crow." Really? "the site that was created over the latter part of
Am I to assume that only black students live 2009 did not function as well as it should have
in underprivileged areas? Am I to assume that and it cost us $9,000 to make."
white students only live in privileged areas? This was an abuse of the money and the trust
To do so would be to conclude that poverty is every student places in his or her assembly. It
merely a function of race. If that were the case, shows a complete failure on behalf of MSA, MVP
I would not expect to see any black children in and ultimately Mahanti himself. How could the
Grosse Pointe schools or any white children president of MSA, or anybody else who had any
in poorer Detroit schools. That is not the case. part in the site, ever think the result could be
Using race to disparage the current system of acceptable?
schooling ignores the hardships of many chil- Furthermore, I remember MVP campaigning
dren to which cries of "Jim Crow" do not apply. on this very issue last spring, making the web-
I understand that the majority of children site among its foremost goals. Its initial vision
suffering inadequate education are black, but seems to have been clouded by a severe lack of
let's not use race as a factor or justification oversight and leadership and now, nearly a year
when finding a solution. That's where the dif- later, students like me are left paying the price
ference between Smith and me lies: She seems for its mistakes.
to care about "students of color in underprivi-
leged areas" because they are "students of Vikram Ivatury
color." I care about them because they're "in Engineeringjunior
The Daily is looking for diverse, passionate, strong
student writers to join the Editorial Board. Editorial Board members
are responsible for discussing and writing the editorials that
appear on the left side of the opinion page.
E-MAIL RACHEL VAN GILDER AT RACHELVG@UMICH.EDU FOR MORE INFORMATION.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words and must include the writer's full name
and University affiliation. Letters are edited for style, length, clarity and
accuracy. All submissions become property of the Daily.
We do not print anonymous letters.
Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu.
JORDAN BIRNHOLTZ|
I don't take thee, government
A little more than a decade ago, public support for
same-sex marriage was virtually non-existent. The 1996
Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a
union between a man and woman, passed in the U.S. Sen-
ate with an 85-14 vote. Since then, attitudes toward the
subject have changed dramatically. It's time to recognize
this shift, but not by legalizing same-sex marriage on the
federal or state level. Marriage is a religious institution,
not a civil one, and the federal government should abolish
legal recognition of it accordingly.
The pious right often protests that marriage is a holy
covenant between a man and a woman. It argues that gay
marriage would violate and threaten a sacred institution.
While I certainly don't believe it would, one can under-
stand the right's perspective on this matter. Rather than
force it by law to accept the equal status of other human
beings, we should simply remove the question. One can't
challenge gay marriage if there is no official recognition
of marriage at all.
Marriage is an institution that should be sanctified
by a higher power - not the federal government. Yet it's
used by the courts to resolve questions of tax dependency,
health benefits, visitation rights and custody. These very
tangible things are what some same-sex couples often
seek through gay marriage. It shouldn't be this way. Writ-
ing for the online publication Slate in 2003, Michael Kin-
sley argued that "marriage functions as...a 'bright line"'
for the legal system. In essence, grappling with tough
legal questions like the ones above without the institution
of marriage will mean a more equitable arrangement of
rights and benefits.
Many people who support civil unions for same-sex
couples don't support same-sex marriage. They consider
marriage tobe a traditional religious covenant between a
male and a female. Yet they still feel gay and lesbian cou-
ples should receive the legal benefits accorded to married
couples. But to say that marriages and civil unions both
bear the same legal rights, and yet to continue to distin-
guish between them, would be to operate under a separate
but equal pretense. And since the doctrine of separate but
equal was deemed unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of
Education, civil unions would be essentially unconstitu-
tional.
The debate over same-sex marriage is cited by many
politicians as part of an alleged "culture war" that domi-
nates contemporary electoral discourse. This debate
wastes the valuable breath of our politicians. Rather than
address serious problems, such as unemployment, prolific
budgetary waste, inflation and drug policy, they pontifi-
cate about morality and virtue. Many politicians prefer
this state of affairs. This is because they don't actually .
need to posit solutions to voters to obtain votes but only
need to promise that they will fight the supposed "gay
agenda." If we abolish marriage as a federal institution,
we'll take the steam out of these distracting politics of
fear.
This isn't meant as an attack on marriage, and it's not
a simplistically libertarian critique of government inter-
cession in private life. But there's no reason for the feder-
al government to officially recognize the practice. It's not
the best way to determine child custody, the allocation of
health care benefits or much else. The war over same-sex
marriage has been hijacked from a plea for human rights
to a political sideshow meant to sate an anxious public
in a time of social uncertainty. The federal government
shouldn't involve itself in an institution that is both reli-
gious and deeply personal. Let marriage be what it is - a
formal declaration of love and faith, not a tax break,
Jordan Birnholtz is an LSA freshman.