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 Voters should overlook outdated moral prejudices and embrace these proposals.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.