4A - Monday, March 26, 2007
UPINI(
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com I
c bEi i*hd14an ,Zat3~
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
413 E. Huron St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
tothedaily@umich.edu
KARL STAMPFL IMRAN SYED JEFFREY BLOOMER
EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorialboard. All other signed articles
and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
FROM T HE DAILY
Expression repression
Film festival brings the right kind of attention to Ann Arbor
For the past 45 years, the Ann Arbor Film Festival has cul-
tivated creative expression by giving experimental art-
ists a way to screen their work. Although in the past the
festival screened films that may have offended some people, it
serves a vital purpose in the cause of free artistic expression and
in building up the socially creative, lively atmosphere for which
Ann Arbor is known.
NOTABLE kQ;,TALE
Let's make this crystal clear: We do support our
troops, but not the exploitation of them and
their families "
- Academy Award-winning actor Sean Penn criticizing the Bush Administration's policy for the war in Iraq at a rally in
Oakland, Calif., as reported Saturday by the San Francisco Chronicle.
Clean fuel's i*nternal combustion
*1
Many state legislators, however, have
found some material at recent festivals inap-
propriate; they go so far as to call it "porno-
graphic" and demand that funding be denied
to the festival until all its films meet decency
standards currently on the books. In order
to avoid getting stuck in the middle of this
election ploy before the 2006 midterms, the
film festival decided to forgo all state fund-
ing each of the last two years.
Many lawmakers feel the arts should not
be funded publicly because some pieces are
inherently objectionable and by eliminat-
ing funding altogether, there is no need to
debate censorship issues. We agree that art
is subjective and may offend some people,
but art and the Ann Arbor Film Festival are
necessary public goods for the state. Elimi-
nating funding to avoid political controver-
sies over subjective standards of decency
and funding issues is destructive to the
vibrancy of Michigan.
The concept of judging decency is rela-
tive. Never should the state be able to
decide what people can or cannot see by
tying funds to content requirements. Art
continuously evolves from grassroots influ-
ences and free thinking and these state
controls of expression would stifle further
development. But perhaps even worse is the
suggestion that art should not be funded by
the government at all.
The fundamental reason governments
fund art is that art itself is an intangible
public good. Besides the revenue thatevents
like the Ann Arbor Film Festival generate
through jobs and tourism, they improve the
quality of life for local residents by build-
ing up their communities to lively places
of cultural expression. Cities worth living
and working in not only have a strong local
economy and safe streets, they have means
to stimulate the mind.
Art is a necessary factor for growth.
Events like the Ann Arbor Film Festival are
a big part of what makes Ann Arbor entic-
ing to forward-thinking companies who
might want to move here, like Google. Even
from a student's perspective, many choose
Ann Arbor after they realize that other col-
lege towns have little to offer beyond either
high rises and urban monotony or cow tip-
ping and rural seclusion.
The recent debate over the Ann Arbor
Film Festival highlights the broader issue
of the role of government in revitalizing
Michigan. Legislation that represses artis-
tic expression makes it indefinitely more
difficult for outsiders to see this state as a
place where they would want to live. Simi-
larly, tax-exemptions alone cannot attract
development if the area is unappealing
to residents and a burgeoning business's
potential employees. And activities such
as this pointless bickering among legisla-
tors further embarrass the state by scaring
away progressive and creatively inclined
residents and potential employers.
maginelegislatorsinWashington
being driven around in steam-
powered cars, indicting heavy
polluting car companies, holding
federal hearings on reducing carbon
emissions, and introducing legisla-
tion to ban the internal combustion
engine within 10 years.:Sound like an
optimistic future?
Try 35 years ago.
Under gloomy
forecasts concern-
ing peak oil and ,,
globalwarming,the
push for alternative
fuel sources has
become a hot-but-
ton political issue. SAM
Butitishardlyanew BUTLER
issue. The technol-
ogy has been avail-
able for decades; only the willpower is
lacking. Through chicanery, distrac-
tion and seedy underhanded schemes,
the auto industry has deliberately
stalled efforts to replace the internal
combustion engine for more than 40
years. However, the general public has
committed a far more heinous crime
- we've let them get away with it.
Legislation to reign in the auto
industry and the internal combustion
engine can be found as early as 1957
when U.S. Rep. Paul Schenck (R-Ohio)
introduced a bill toban allvehicles that
exceeded hydrocarbon levels estab-
lished by the surgeon general. Imbued
with that activist spirit, change really
seemed to be at hand in the late '60s. In
1969, U.S. Rep. Leonard Farbstein (D-
N.Y.) introduced an amendment to the
Clean Air Act to ban the internal com-
bustion engine by 1978. In conjunction
with Nader's Raiders, Farbstein also
invited the Big Three auto companies
to a public summit to discuss cleaner
fuels. Only Ford showed up.
Federal hearings were convened to
investigate alternatives to the inter-
nal combustion engine, and one of
the more prominent choices was a
steam-powered car.In 1968, indepen-
dent inventors Calvin and Charles
Williams drove their steam-powered
convertible to Washington and testi-
fied before Congress about steam's
potential. The Williamsbrothers then
chauffeured congressmen around the
Beltway, impressing them with the
car's agility and quiet ride. At the
same time, industry experts were
advocating steam engines as light as
150 pounds, and even Ford executives
admitted that the engine would fit in
most models.
But the Big Three were not open
to change. Ralph Nader's 1970 study,
titled "Vanishing Air," featured tes-
timony from a General Motors engi-
neer who was instructed to prove
that steam power wasn't viable.
As explained in Jack Doyle's book,
"Taken for a Ride: Detroit's Big Three
and the Politics of Air Pollution," GM,
placating to sweeping public opinion,
developed a steam-powered prototype
and unveiled it atan auto showin 1969.
Unlike the Williams brothers' version,
the prototype was noisy, clunky and
featured an engine weighing more
than 450 pounds. The message was
clear - if you wanted alternate fuel
sources, you'd be subjected to a less
than genuine commitment to quality.
Can you imagine what the world
would look like today if we had
jumped on the alternative fuel band-
wagon back then? Perhaps we would
be already driving zero-emission
vehicles. Perhaps Al Gore would
have to find a different issue to boost
his popularity. Perhaps thousands
of Americans would not have died
under the hot desert sun fighting a
war for oil.
Shame on us for letting such public
momentum slip away. Shame on us
for being surprised when GM nixed
its EV1, star of the recent film "Who
Killed the Electric Car." Shame on us
for relinquishing last summer's veraci-
tyover the problemas soon asgas pric-
es dropped back to acceptable levels.
Alternative fuel is again at the
forefront of public awareness. But
this time, we are being distracted by
a new form of placation - corn-based
ethanol.
To quote an Associated Press
report, "America is drunk on etha-
nol." Gov. Jennifer Granholm hopes
it will be the very thing to jump start
Michigan's sputtering economy and
has offered tax incentives for people
who drive ethanol vehicles, gas sta-
tions that install ethanol pumps and
ethanol plants that come to Michi-
gan. Washington is just as intoxi-
cated, offering bushels of similar
incentives and subsidies. Earlier this
month, President Bush signed a deal
to exchange ethanol technology with
Brazil. We hail all of these efforts as
improvements, but our declarations
of love for ethanol may just be the
liquor talking.
The environmental benefits of
corn-based ethanol are marginal at
best. Some scientists even argue that
once the total cost of production and
shipment is calculated, ethanol is not
only less efficient but may be more
environmentallyharmful than petro-
leum. So then, why is ethanol the fuel
de jour? Because industry fat cats
have allowed it to be.
An alternative
fuel 150 years in
the making.
Unlike electricity and steam, etha-
nol still makes consumers dependent
on filling stations and provides an
enormous boost to corporate farm-
ers. Ethanol lets auto companies
make only minor modifications while
still claiming to be green, and it lets
the enormous farming lobby line its
pockets with a little more green.
Car companies have missed the
boat and on alternative fuels will
do anything to delay making costly
adjustments. Only federal legisla-
tion will effect lasting change. Sadly,
the same thing was said 35 years ago
when one commentator wrote that
"the handwriting was on the wall"
for the internal combustion engine.
Apparently we didn't read it.
Steam power, electricity, ingenuity
and imagination birthed the indus-
trial revolution. Where is that big-idea
thinking today? The first automobiles
ranonsteam and electricity -how sad
that we're now trying to get back to the
same place we were 150 years ago.
Sam Butler can be reached
at butlers@umich.edu.
01
$
Editorial Board Members: Emily Beam, Kevin Bunkley, Amanda Burns,
Sam Butler, Ben Caleca, Mike Eber, Brian Flaherty, Mara Gay, Jared Goldberg,
Emmarie Huetteman, Toby Mitchell, Rajiv Prabhakar, David Russell,
Gavin Stern, John Stiglich, Jennifer Sussex, Neil Tambe,
Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Wagner, Christopher Zbrozek
Write for Daily Opinion this summer.
Columnist spots available.
(You don't even have to be in Ann Arbor.)
Email editpage.editors@umich.edu for more information.
CHRIS KOSLOWSKI IuI.ii)I' V'-'
a majr au s otGobalenfor con Dmtributein to he dstruc- Why'are you wearing
Warming., tioen oalthe planed!? suzttlasses?
- gt-ta a' , ti
90
LET ERS THE E I TOR SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU
Why should professors
be expected at church?
TO THE DAILY:
I was mildly appalled by Wednesday's
Statement cover story (Why you rarely
see your professors in church, 03/21/07).
First of all, why would it even begin to
matter whether or not our professors go
to church? It is their own personal choice
to either attend or not attend any form of
religious service, and it has absolutely no
bearing - or at least shouldn't have any
bearing - on what is taught in class. The
psychology professor who goes to church
every Sunday should teach the same way
as the one who never goes to church.
The article also makes a fairly bold
(I might say conservative) statement in
the first section: "On campus, the sacred
and profane maintain an uneasy peace."
Is that to suggest that everything that is
not sacred is profane? If I am an atheist
am I somehow profane?
I was once an avid reader of the State-
ment, but now I'm inclined to toss it into
the same wastebasket I toss The Michi-
gan Review.
Alex Erikson
LSA freshman
Recent responses ignore
depth ofMideast conflict
TO THE DAILY:
Every time a viewpoint in favor
of divestment from Israel appears in
The Michigan Daily, there's a wave of
responses that show how little people
actually know about the Israeli-Palestin-
ian situation. Reading these responses is
like being handed a set of logical reason-
ing questions from a practice LSAT exam
demandingyou to identifythe faulty rea-
soning present in the arguments.
The Israeli-Palestinian situation is not
based on the rhetorical argument that
Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as
a state. People claim that Palestinian and
Israeli violence stems only from Hamas's
refusal to recognize Israel as a state. But
Israel is internationally recognized as a
state. Do you honestly think that every-
thing will change once Hamas recog-
nizes a state that the global community
has already recognized? Does this auto-
matically stop violence between the two
groups and lead to Israeli demilitarization
of the Gaza and West Bank? If the conflict
was that petty then one would be stupid
for not recognizing Israel as a state.
The second thing one must take into
consideration is the status of Palestine
in the world. To this day Palestine is not
considered a state because it fails to have
defined borders, free trade and a work-
ing political system. All of these factors
are actively suppressed through Israeli
occupation.
Israel continues to annex more Pal-
estinian land, which obscures the con-
cept of defined borders. Israel monitors
Palestine's imports and exports - not
much of a free-trade system. Israel has
imprisoned Palestinian politicians on
various occasions for various interna-
tionally unfounded reasons; there goes
your concept of a working political sys-
tem. Palestine's right to self-determina-
tion and recognition as a state has been
actively denied by Israel. So why should
an actor, suppressed of this right, iden-
tify as a state the very actor suppressing
this right?
Lastly, the previous ruling party in
Palestine was the Fatah Party, which
ultimately recognized Israel as a state.
Unfortunately, this changed noth-
ing, Israel still occupied Palestine, still
imposed oppressive measures against
the Palestinian people and still denied
Palestine's self-determination. The Pal-
estinians' situation did not improve with
their compliance to this rhetorical argu-
ment. In fact it got worse.
Claiming that Hamas's failure to rec-
ognize Israel as a state is the sole cause
of continuing violence is a faulty argu-
ment. It does not provide any substan-
tial insight into the understanding ofthe
Israeli-Palestinian situation. It allows
people to be content in their superficial
knowledge of the situation and further
precipitates a misunderstanding of the
actual premises of the Israeli-Palestin-
ian conflict.
Taimour Chaudhri
LSA junior
Coke has returned but
still in violation off code
TO THE DAILY:
I am appalled that Edward Potter, Coca-
Cola's global labor relations director, was
invited to speak at the University. Around
the world, Coca-Cola continues to violate
international human rights law and con-
sequently, the University's Vendor Code of
Conduct. Potter once told me he too was a
student activist at my age. Where are his
activist ideals now?
Potter crowing about Coke's Colombi-
an Foundation for Education and Oppor-
tunity is a cruel paradox. Coca-Cola
cannot throw money into a foundation
and expect its complicity in horrendous
acts to thereafter go unnoticed. In his
letter to the editor, Potter said the foun-
dation was an example of company pro-
grams that "address the consequences
of six decades of violence in Colombia"
(Coke brings jobs,peace to wartorn Colom-
bia, 03/21/07). Simultaneously, Coca-
Cola allows independent bottlers to take
advantage of Colombia's violent situation.
Nine workers have been murdered by
right-wing paramilitaries at the request
of Coca-Cola plant managers in the past
15 years. Each victim was a union orga-
nizer. Coke's Foundation evidently over-
looks Colombians who threaten company
profits by demanding workers rights.
In 2005, Potter sabotaged the possi-
bility of an independent investigation in
Colombian bottling plants. Potter and I
were both part of a national university
commission to create a methodology to
assess Coke's business practices. I repre-
sented our university's student Coalition
to Cut Contracts with Coca-Cola.
Our goal was to create an assessment
process independent from Coca-Cola. A
prior assessment done by CAL Safety had
cleared Coca-Cola. It was rejected by the
University because Coke had paid CAL
Safety to do the study.
For months, Potter sent back each and
every. methodology draft proposed by
the commission full of absurd demands
written in red ink. The University had
recommended Coca-Cola accept an inde-
pendent investigation in order to keep its
vendor contract with the school. Because
the company failed to agree upon an
independent investigation, the University
kicked Coke products off campus for four
months beginningJan. 1 of last year.
About a year ago, Potter convinced
the International Labor Organization to
"assess" his company. University Chief
Financial Officer Timothy Slottow pre-
maturely re-contracted with Coca-Cola
followinga press release put out by Coke.
The Coke machines were refilled.
Potter is employer spokesperson on
an ILO committee that holds countries
accountable to ratified ILO conventions,
such as the right to join a union. How
ironic.
The ILO's investigation is not indepen-
dent of Coke. Furthermore, the ILO will
implement the very same improper meth-
odology that was used by illegitimate CAL
Safety: interviewing workers on-site in
front of possibly corrupt plant managers.
Above all, it should be recognized that
the ILO investigation has not even begun,
while Colombian, Turkish and Indone-
sian workers continue to be threatened for
union organizing, and Coke is still abusing
the environment in India. It is clear that
the University does not plan to hold Coca-
Cola accountable for violating its ethical
standards. On the contrary, it cheerfully
features the company mouthpiece in the
Global Impact Speaker Series.
Clara Hardie
Alum
Ross Center restrictions
hurt some athletes
TO THE DAILY:
I am a member of the Synchronized
Figure Skating Team here at Michi-
gan. Contrary to popular belief, ours is
a real sport that takes real dedication.
For example, a typical Thursday for me
during the season begins with practice
at 5:30 a.m. It includes work, training,
class, homework and ends with another
practice which wraps up at midnight.
A schedule like that is comparable to
any varsity sport. Synchronized skating
is a club-varsity sport. As such, we get
some choice in our practice schedule (not
much) and limited funding from the ath-
letic department. Supposedly, the team
has access to the Ross Academic Center
before 6 pm. But not a single person on
my team knew that we were allowed to
use the building during those hours.
The main issue with limiting club and
club varsity athletes to before 6 p.m. is
that, unlike the varsity athletes,we do not
get priority scheduling when registering
for classes. Our classes don't fit into the 11
a.m. to 3 p.m. schedule that most varsity
athletes enjoy. Allowing club varsity ath-
letes to use the Ross Center would relieve
a tremendousburden,but with!our sched-
ule, we need access after 6 p.m.
The synchronized skating team receives
little funding from the University, so I pay
up to $10,000 a year to skate at this school,
not considering the time it takes to travel
to competitions and the stress of taking
exams in our coach's hotel room at nation-
als. I chose to come here knowing the costs
and consequences but being a club varsity
athlete should mean something beyond
having our webpage linked to MGoBlue.
com. Our athletes should at least be able
to use the Ross Academic Center to assure
our academic success.
Haley Smith
Kinesiologysenior
ALEXANDER HONKALA
0
0
I