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