The opinion expressed by Mark Ling on the issue of David Horowitz’s ad does not represent the view of the entire Editorial Board. We do not support apologizing for controversial content and we do not support the censorship of opinions, so long as it does not constitute as hate speech, which, legally, must advocate for violence.

What Horowitz wrote is hateful, but it is not hate speech. We are not sympathetic to his ideas, but hiding his point of view does not make it go away.

As a newspaper, we are obligated to provide an open forum and an unapologetic devotion to freedom of expression. It is inevitable for some to take offense to certain content.

Janelle Bitker

Aggie Campus Editor

Nick Markwith

Aggie Features Editor

Becky Peterson

Aggie City Editor

Max Rosenblum

Aggie Managing Editor

In my column this year, I took a few positions that seemed less than popular with a college audience. Two in particular stand out: keeping tax cuts for the rich at the federal level and opposing the proposed tax extensions in the state of California (which almost certainly means higher tuition rates for you and me).

At first, these two issues seem related only in that I am defending low taxes. But in reality, they are connected in a much greater sense, in something intangible without which numbers and details become meaningless.

Way too often in politics facts are cited entirely bereft of context. This complication muddies the waters of political debate, as we attempt to navigate through what isn’t outright false, but is instead a flawed interpretation or argument that must be carefully picked apart.

For example, in opposition to tax cuts for the wealthy, some have cited statistics on the lack of increase in household income since about 1980. But household income is entirely separate from the better indicator of individual income.

“The household thing is really a tipoff, I think,” said economist and Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Thomas Sowell in a recent interview. “Whenever I see someone quoting household income, he’s trying to make things look bad.

“For example, over a period of about 30 years, household income rose by only 6 percent. Over those same years, per capita income rose by 51 percent, because the number of people per household was declining all the while.”

In other words, since the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were enacted, it is inaccurate to say that the rich have been getting richer while everyone else has been left behind. On average the rich have been getting richer, but others have been getting richer too. The notion that tax cuts for the rich hurt you and me is a myth based on statistics viewed without context.

Though I increasingly enjoy arguing economic policy to determine what will make us all more prosperous, I must switch gears with the little space I have left to look at another example of a debate without context.

Tens of millions of Californians are on the verge of getting tax relief in a bad economy. Life in the Golden State has been on the decline in recent years, as a tough job market, a bad housing market, increasing gas prices and one of the highest overall tax burdens in the nation have all been driving folks out of the state at a rapid rate.

It’s all well and good for us to gather and demand high taxes so that our tuition rates don’t go up any further, but the problem is that the money we seek doesn’t actually come from the state government. It comes from our fellow Californians.

So as the governor, the legislature and the state consider keeping sales, vehicle and income taxes at their present levels, we must consider what that means not just for us college students, but also for John Q. Public.

Sales taxes hit rich and poor alike. They increase tax consumption, not income, and even the poor must be consumers of something. Are we really prepared to deny lower taxes to the poor to even partially fund our time at one of the premier college systems in the country? How many of the California poor do you think have a four-year degree?

Vehicle taxes are indexed for the value of the vehicle, but it is little consolation to me with my 1998 Mazda van that the rich guy in El Macero has to pay more for his Mercedes too. Higher taxes are higher taxes.

And higher income taxes, even merely on the rich, are not economically sound, as we’ve already looked at in multiple columns.

I am increasingly concerned that we in America are becoming a tribal society, in which different groups of people compete for their own demographic to get additional money from the government.

It is nothing new – at least for political scientists, of which I am thankfully not one – to note that the tax burden is spread across many, while government monies are often spent on smaller, select groups. The cost is spread out, and the benefits are concentrated.

This makes those receiving the benefits (for example, college students at a public university) much more vocal than the millions of California consumers and vehicle owners who face the prospect of tax extensions for years to come.

There is no changing the fact that we are faced with difficult times. But if we make smart decisions, if we look at facts within context and without forgetting the bigger picture, we have it in our power to make a more prosperous society for years to come.

Take your last opportunity of the year to e-mail ROB OLSON at rwolson@ucdavis.edu.

On Thursday, a paid advertisement titled “The Palestinians’ Case Against Israel is Based on a Genocidal Lie” was printed on page seven of The California Aggie. As editor in chief of The Aggie, a part of my job is to act as the final filter of all advertisements. Put simply, if I deem an ad to be unprintable, it will not be published.

About a week ago, David Horowitz’s ad was sent to me for approval, and I allowed it to go to print. As a direct result of my decision, people on this campus – our campus – felt racially discriminated against, and for that I sincerely apologize.

In response to the ad, a group organized a protest on Friday afternoon. They gathered on the quad and marched down to The Aggie newsroom. I spoke with about 10 people for over two hours. During the discussion, I was convinced that the ad is indeed racist.

As a result, The Aggie will update its advertising guidelines. An existing policy barring racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory written content from running will be extended to the advertising department.

During my tenure as editor, I’ve dealt with a bevy of controversial issues. Each of these issues had a person or a group of people demanding retribution. It is generally the policy of The Aggie to not succumb to protestors because we carefully make decisions that are intended to inform and promote discourse.

This is the first time that I feel compelled to publicly acknowledge a mistake, not because people protested and not to appease readers or advertisers, but because the situation truly merits it.

We at The Aggie take our job very seriously. As a result, we sometimes act as journalists to a fault, regardless of the consequences. However, before journalists, we are people who must try to comprehend the collateral damage of our decisions.

I deeply apologize on behalf of The Aggie for allowing a racist advertisement to run and I guarantee that, before my tenure ends, I will personally do all that is within my power to prevent this from happening again in the future.

If you’d like to publicly express an opinion regarding this issue, you are encouraged to write a guest opinion or letter to the editor or attend a special meeting of the Campus Media Board this Friday. The exact time and location are to be determined and will be announced in The Aggie later this week.

MARK LING can be reached at editor@theaggie.org.

Associated Students Providing Alternative Publications Equal Resources is an ASUCD special project whose funding was recently cut.

Established in 1993, AS Papers has provided the necessary resources for campus and community members to create and run alternative publications on campus.

The purpose of AS Papers was to help students in the process of creating and running their individual publications. Unfortunately, it has not been successful in recent years, due to a combination of decreasing student participation and funding.

We believe in the power of alternative publications as a means to express the various voices of the community. Though they would compete with The Aggie, UC Davis is a diverse campus with many diverse opinions, and we feel it is important that these viewpoints are addressed.

We are pleased that AS Papers Director Sean Dolan will seek to establish a workshop class in technocultural studies, dedicated to more relevant 21st century media. If Dolan follows through with his plan, students will have a chance to design and establish individual publications, an opportunity that is otherwise unavailable without AS Papers. Hopefully this class will be a solid platform for alternative publications, which could develop into separate important campus institutions.

Without this program, our campus is at a loss. We hope that Dolan follows through with his plan to save the program.

I must inform you that the advertisement in The Aggie on Thursday titled “The Palestinians’ Case Against Israel is Based on a Genocidal Lie” has two major flaws which make it very suspicious. First, it is written in a style of extreme propaganda. Second, its content is a denial of a human rights violation.

Propaganda oversimplifies an issue by only giving one perspective, and polarizes people into two groups – with the speaker, or “the enemy.” For example, when a line from the advertisement says, “There is one reason and one reason alone that there is no peace” such a statement leaves no room for discussion and suggests that all other opinions are invalid. In addition, the name-calling in the piece, such as “the Arab aggressors” gives the advertisement a racist spin that makes the rest of the advertisement suspect. By offering only a binary, us vs. them mentality the advertisement encourages readers to look at the issue from only a one-sided perspective. Personally, I am disturbed that such an obstruction to intellectual debate needs to be used.

As a student of human rights, I have learned that a group of people (whether you call them Palestinians or by some other name) was forcibly removed from their homes during the creation of the State of Israel. The term for forcibly removing an ethnic group from a geographic location is “ethnic cleansing.” I believe that this is a core issue that is trying to be debated, though the advertisement does not mention this except to say that Palestine does not exist.

In genocide class this week we studied denial, and on the very same day this advertisement ran, we learned about a type of denial called “reversal” which is, essentially, the defense of accusing a victim of being a perpetrator. This advertisement had many lines that made me think of reversal, including those claiming that the Palestinians’ case is “genocidal” and that they “honored the murderers” of “a calculated war on women and children.”

In denying any responsibility for the hardships faced by Palestinians or Arabs (groups not distinguished in the article), the advertisement accuses the Palestinians for injustices done to Israel. However, such accusations do not absolve Israel from responsibility. In addition, it blames Arabs for their own suffering: “It is true that the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza are suffering. But they are suffering because of 60 years of Arab aggression … ” Again refusing to take any responsibility for anything, this advertisement seems, to me, a prime suspect for denial of a human rights violation.

In the future, when publishing an advertisement in a college newspaper, I would encourage the David Horowitz Freedom Center to present its arguments in a way that doesn’t make use of propaganda, racism, accusations and a denial of any possible responsibility. And I encourage all newspaper readers to watch out for propaganda.

Thank you,

Rachel Pevsner

Like Joseph Gordon-Levitt in 500 Days of Summer, I contemplate the messages on greeting cards quite often. While wandering around Trader Joe’s one day in search of a counterculture “Thank You” card, I happened upon a selection that fell under the umbrella category of “sympathy.” My initial reaction to these droopy carnation-bearing cards was one of fear. If I read them, I would most definitely induce a state of complete misery. And not the Maroon 5 kind.

As a self-proclaimed “good listener,” I thoroughly enjoy shutting my one mouth, and focusing my two ears on someone else. What began as common courtesy has developed into a genuine care of mine. I like knowing “what’s up” and “what’s wrong.” No, I don’t have an obscenely large ego. And no, I don’t think I’m some kind of philanthropist. I just like my ears.

After I remembered what it means to actually listen to someone, in both a physical and mental capacity, I repeatedly found myself at odds with what the world says is the go-to feeling for listeners: sympathy.

“My deepest condolences.” “With great sympathy.” “I know what that’s like.” “It’s going to be alright. Trust me.” “Oh, that sucks.” “I’m sorry.”

Often clumped together as expressions of “sympathy,” these phrases are exceedingly problematic. We hide behind these words with the hope that what we say is sufficient enough to put someone at ease for the time being, without acknowledging what we can gain from our own ignorance to their emotional state. A simple: “I honestly can’t imagine what that’s like” can make a world of difference.

We live under the impression that we believe in sympathy. We think it’s helpful when we give it. And we don’t question receiving it.

But as I reflect on the instances in which I’ve offered my sympathies to someone else, I’ve realized that I can’t help but experience a run-in with sympathy’s triplet siblings: empathy and apathy.

It’s hard to be sympathetic without being empathetic. And it’s easy to be apathetic when being sympathetic would take up too much time.

I find it challenging to offer my condolences to someone without adding an “I know what that’s like” or an “I understand.” Let’s be real. No one has a 100 percent situation-alignment rate with anyone else. If we all had “been there,” we wouldn’t need to reach outside of ourselves for an explanation. Sympathy isn’t always enough.

In “La Vie Boheme,” an iconic musical number in the rock opera “RENT,” the characters take a stand for the neglected triplet sibling. They affirm their need for emotional diversity, when they jump atop tables and sing their hearts out “to apathy, to entropy, to empathy, ecstasy!”

Just this week, Queen Elizabeth II traveled to Ireland and offered her condolences to the Irish people for the massacre that took place nearly a century ago. “To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy.”

The Queen’s actions illuminate how people in power use sympathy as a way of establishing a moral stance. It appears gets the job done, but is sympathy enough to cover the pain of 100 years?

Instead of approaching sympathy, empathy and apathy with a “one of these things is not like the other” mentality, we can make the choice to find a balance between them all. I, for one, can’t stand extended apathy, but I’ve been reminded on many occasions that indifference is sometimes what people need, regardless of how it makes me feel.

When sympathy doesn’t make the cut, and apathy is far too cold, we must turn to empathy for guidance. What I consider to be the most effective of the three, empathy establishes a two-way street of growth between the giver and receiver. When we choose to be empathetic, not only do we get to help someone else, we also help ourselves see how much we’ve learned and changed from our experiences.

In 2006, when he was still a young senator from Illinois, Barack Obama urged the American people to find solace in empathy. “You know, there’s a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit – the ability…to see the world through the eyes of those who are different from us. When you think like this, it becomes harder not to act; harder not to help.”

If we believe in balancing the “thy’s,” we can finally let go of our current understandings of what is “supposed” to be done and make things happen on our own. It’s about time we had an emotional revolution.

MAYA MAKKER didn’t appreciate Zooey Deschanel’s behavior in 500 Days of Summer. Sorry, I’m not sorry. Agree with her at mgmakker@ucdavis.edu.