4A - Thursday, February 3, 2011 T M g D - c a o The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com BRUNO STORTINI E-MAIL BRUNO AT BRUNORS@UMICH.EDU STEPHANIE STEINBERG EDITOR IN CHIEF MICHELLE DEWITT and EMILY ORLEY EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS Ha .J1 IS r.e Bring Stewart to the Big House KYLE SWANSON 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. Insuring the choice House Republicans cannot limit women's rights Women in the United States have a right to choose what they want to do with their bodies. But U.S. House of Representatives Republicans are trying to restrict legal abortion procedures by introducing H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act." The bill quali- fies exemptions to the existing prohibition of taxpayer-fund- ed abortions while making the ban permanent. Though H.R. 3 is unlikely to overcome a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate and a presidential veto to become law, it's a concerning attempt to restrict women's legal rights. The offensive legisla- tion is a waste of time and should be rejected by Congress as soon as it comes to a vote. On Jan. 20, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) introduced H.R. 3, which has the support of Republican leadership and 173 co-sponsors. The bill modifies the provisions of the Hyde Amendment, a provision that prohibits fed- eral funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the life of a woman is threatened. Under the proposed legislation, the exception for rape has been changed to an exception for "forcible rape." The ban on federally funded abortions would also become permanent - the Hyde Amendment would no longer need to be passed yearly as part of the budget. Lawmakers need to understand that abor- tion has been alegal medical procedure in the U.S. since Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade in 1973. Restricting the procedure would take away from a woman's right to choose that's protected by the Constitution. Threaten- ing this right through proposals like H.R. 3 puts citizens on a dangerous path to deny- ing women's rights. Though steps could be taken to reduce the number of abortions, the approach that House Republicans have taken is wrong and lacks foresight of the potential consequences the bill might have. Most disturbingly, H.R. 3 threatens the abil- ity of rape victims to undergo an abortion by qualifying the existing exemptions to prohibit federal funding for abortions. The wording for the exception of "rape" has been changed to "forcible rape." The legislators' intensions are unclear and, to a degree, alarming - the word rape is defined as sexual intercourse without consent. Arguing semantics with such a seri- ous and sensitive issue insults rape victims and all women. This is the most egregious facet of the bill and is enough reason alone to drop the legislation. To make matters worse, H.R. 3 is a waste of time, since the legislation has little chance of becoming law. Ironically, this isn't new to House Republicans, who campaigned dur- ing the midterm elections under promises of change and effective governance. Instead, they've chosen frill over form, reading the Constitution on the floor of the House and making futile attempts to repeal President Barack Obama's health care bill. Republicans should stop playing rehearsed political games and engage Democrats in substantive policy debates that produce positive outcomes for the American people. The health and well-being of Americans isn't something that should be compromised for partisan gain. Congress must resist this offensive campaign against women's rights. P resident Barack Obama's commencement speech in Michigan Stadium last spring was characteris- tically eloquent and powerful, with narratives of "real Ameri- cans," moments of levity, tales of the found- ing fathers and all the grandeur MATT befitting a presi- AARONSON dent's biggest public appear- ance since his inauguration. Sure, his address was dishearten- ingly political and it lacked anything resemblingthe bigannouncements of presidential speakers past (Lyndon Johnson laid out plans for his Great Society programs in the Big House in 1964). But even Obama detractors - they were in there somewhere - had to admit it was cool to be inducted into real life by the leader of the free world. Many of us came to a realization within minutes of finding out Obama would be here in 2010: The class of 2011 may be in store for a serious let- down. Go ahead, call us the entitled gen- eration. I call it unavoidable recency bias. Any speaker would be a disap- pointment following a president. Rick Snyder, Michigan's new governor, is the obvious choice for this year's commencement. A great choice, actually. He has three degrees from the University. He broke the tradition of living in the governor's mansion to instead remain an Ann Arbor residenst. As a longtime ven- ture capitalist who once called the shots for Gateway, he's earned a' reputation as a champion of innova- tion. The previous four governors all sent off Wolverine graduates whilemin office, including Snyder's predeces- sor, Jennifer Granholm, who spoke, in the year of her inauguration. I can hear the basic outline of his speech already. He'll share a nostal- gic story and corresponding life les- son from his days as a student here. He'll assure everybodythathe'sjust a "nerd" and abusinessman, notapoli- tician. He'll talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. He'll say something like "putting Michigan back to work starts with you." He'll make those of us leaving Michigan to work elsewhere into the unspoken villains of the "brain drain." If the University selects Snyder,. it won't be the end of the world. I like Snyder. In fact, he was the first Republican I've ever voted for. But I'll eat my cap and gown if a Snyder speech doesn't satisfy the aforemen- tioned predictions. And that's the problem - he would be entirely too predictable. He'd be another politi- cian, except, well, he's not the presi- dent. In my conversations with fellow class of 2011 Wolverines, I've sug- gested - to near-unanimous agree- ment - that if there's one person capable of matching or topping the excitement for Obama, it's Jon Stew- art. To say "The Daily Show" host is popular among Michigan students . would be an understatement. He's almost universally admired on this campus, and many keep an 11 p.m. weeknight appointment to watch Stewart challenge conventional knowledge (and make fart jokes) on Comedy Central. While he often downplays his influence by insisting he's just a comedian, Stewart is dependably sincere in a way no politician could ever be. He combines insight and debate with entertainment - not to dumb it down for his demographic (that's us), but because that's how he can best shed light on issues. For this, people like us trust him and identify with him in a way we rarelyidentifywithpeople morethan twice our age.By keepingus laughing and thinking critically in a format that stays on top of the cable news cycle, Stewart has become a singular figure in our cultural landscape. "The Daily Show" host is popular among students., Can Michigan land him? Who knows? The University can't deliver a crowd to match that of Stewart's last large public speaking engage- ment - October's "Rally to Restore Fear and/or Sanity," during which Stewart and his Tv faux-foe Stephen Colbert performed for an estimated 215,000 on the National Mall. But the Big House represents at least an opportunity to one-up Colbert - the total capacity at Northwestern University's stadium, where Colbert has committed to speak this spring, is 47,130 people, while an estimated 80,000 turned out for Obama last year in Ann Arbor. Stewart should at least be sought out. He's notoriouslyunafraidof say- ing "this is absurd," and as we enter aworld as uncertain as it'sever been, who better to mark the transition? Matt Aaronson was the Daily's managing editor in 2010. He can be reached at maarons@umich.edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Aida Ali, Will Butler, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga, Teddy Papes, Roger Sauerhaft, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner LARA SLOTNICK | Science Savvy: Nick Clift discusses the push for an Internet kill switch bill in the United States. oJimUIi Go to michigandaily.com/blogs/The Podium 0 EITAN NEUMARK AND MANDY KAIN I Participate in Purple Week Elevate conversation about Israel It's truly unfortunate that there are very few individuals, like myself, lucky enough to not have been deeply affected by cancer. Though one of my grandfathers died of colon cancer, it was long before I was born, and hav- ing never met him, cancer remained for me a theoretical. All I knew was that it was some- thing really bad that could happen, but with- out experiencing the sickness firsthand, I had no way of comprehending the trauma that came along with the disease. Strangely, whatreally prompted my involve- ment in Relay For Life wan't cancer, but rather the absence of cancer in my life. When I was 16, my mom sat down on my bed one Satur- day morning to say something "important." I remember being pretty ticked off that she was in my room without knocking and at the ungodly hour of 10 a.m. on a weekend. She had never said anything like that before, and I couldn't imagine what would be so vital that she just had to wake me up to share it. My scowl in her direction quickly melted from my face, however, when she told me that she would be having a hysterectomy because a recent doctor's visit had shown a great like- lihood of ovarian cancer. I felt as though my heart had grown to a size just slightlytoo large for containment in my chest, and the flow of tears came instantly. I was the most scared I had ever been, and nothing had even hap- pened. Nothing was even definite. The following week came and my mom's surgery was scheduled on Rosh Hashanah. It was a Jewish holiday meant to be spent with family, and I couldn't have been further removed from mine. Though my parents were only one hour away at the hospital, the uncer- tainty created a torturous divide. I spent the day with a friend, feeling helpless and hang- ing on to every purposefully vague conversa- tion with my father. The surgery took hours, and even long after its completion, the doctors still had no final answer. It wasn't until the next morning that I awoke early to a tearful but relieved call from my dad saying every- thing was fine and the tests had come up nega- tive for cancer. He'd said everything was fine, but everything was most definitely not fine. A week of my life had been ruined by just the very idea of cancer, and the thought that I could have received the opposite phone call was paralyzing. And the fear and anxiety I felt has stuck with me ever since. One week of terror leading to an ultimately benign result is absolutely nothing compared to what many people have to deal with, and understanding only a fraction of that pain was enough to teach me that something had to be done. The instantaneous panic that comes from hearinga single word is simplyunaccept- able and that was when I decided to become a part of Relay For Life. Now for the shameless promotion: Support Relay For Life and The American Cancer Soci- ety. But really, how could you not agree with the sentiment? This week - Jan. 30 through Feb. 4 - is Relay For Life's "Purple Week," a time for promoting the fight against cancer through some awesome fundraisers, including restaurant nights, a bar night and Relay's Got Talent finishing it off. See the Relay For Life Facebook page for event details and mrelay. org for more information. If you're not convinced, I would say imag- ine someone you know having cancer, but please don't do that. The fact is, if you haven't been there, you (and I) simply can't fathom how tremendously awful that would be. Instead, just think of the possibility of a loved one developing cancer, and consider the terror that a stupid six-letter word carries. That's all it should take. Lara Slotnick is an Art and Design junior. Too often, whenever the Israeli-Palestinian con- flict is discussed, crucial issues remain hidden behind rehearsed rhetoric. This leaves little room for an effec- tive, open dialogue. It's tempting to make such black and white arguments. But these aren't the strategiesthat will achieve a lasting peace, and they don't reflect the com- plications and nuances of the conflict. Nor do they allow us to recognize the reality in which people in the region live - or the often-unproductive context in which the conversation unfolds here in the United States. Daniel Luks's article (In defense of Israel,1/24/2011) exemplifiesthis tendency to substitute analysis for rheto- ric. While he may feel that Palestinians are implicated in Egypt's discrimination against Sudanese refugees, solely for sharing a race and ethnicity, J Street UMich doesn't agree with such broad, sweeping statements. Similarly, while he may feel that Israel's support for its gay commu- nity justifies its continued discrimination against Pales- tinians inside and outside of the West Bank and Gaza, we don't subscribe to such simplistic arguments. Campus conversations using these simplistic argu- ments have long been dominated by those who are pro- Israel or those who are pro-Palestine. Each discussion turned into an argument. Each fact met with a counter fact. Voices were raised and emotions ran high. People left these exchanges angrier rather than more under- standing. We at J Street UMich recognize that this campus atmosphere must change and nuance must be realized. J Street UMich is, first and foremost, a pro-Israel group. We believe that Israel has a rightful and important place in the family of nations. The concept of a homeland in Israel for us will always be treasured and supported. Our love for Israel is like love for family, constant and enduring. However, just like any close-knit family, we are not uninvolved and uncritical in each other's affairs - we observe, we advise and, when necessary, we nag because we want the best for our family, and we want our family to be its best. This definition of pro-Israel doesn't match up with that of many who claim the term. We do not seek to sup- port each and every Israeli policy, nor do we think such a defense serves Israel nor our own community. To sub- scribe to such a version of support would be to deny the very democratic values we hold true both as Americans and as supporters of Israel's democracy. In addition, it perpetuates a status quo in the Middle East, which is unsustainable for Israelis and Palestinians. For J Street, to be pro-Israelisto wrestle in deep affec- tion and agreement and deep disagreement with many of Israel's policies, chief among them an occupation that now stretches into its fifth decade. To be pro-Israel for us is to recognize that such an occupation betrays our values and threatens to undermine the very possibility of Israel's democratic future. To be pro-Israel is to there- fore support a future state of Palestine and to do all we can to bring it about. This is the only way that we believe one can be pro-Israel and pro-Peace. A two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side in peace and security, is the only answer to this conflict that will allow an expedient end to the occupation and the possibility of democratic self- determination for both peoples. This requires intelli- gent, critical and reasoned dialogue, not empty rhetoric. It requires a drastic change in how these types of con- versations are had. And it requires a range ofviewpoints that reflects the nuanced opinions of the Jewish com- munity. There will always be those who wishcto reducethe dis- cussion to a series of black and white talking points. But it's in the best interest of our community and Israel for us to come together and create one community commit- ted to Israel. J Street U National and J Street represent thousands of American Jews who live firmly in the world of nuance - who love Israel, actively work for peace and believe that relationship requires tough conversations and a real commitmentto Jewish and democratic values. On campus we must elevate the level of conversation by avoiding broad sweeping generalizations and recogniz- ing hard truths and difficult complexities to find com- mon ground that will set the stage for inclusion and progress. This piece was written on behalf of JStreet UMich by LSA freshman Eitan Neumark and Rackham graduate student Mandy Kain. 0