4 - Tuesday, February 2, 2010 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 4 71d tgan atl Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu Still being a kid at heart Being hospitalized when by throwing outrageous the explosive backpack sledding parties at age designed to propel you 62, as did an Indepen- blows up, as happened to dence Township man. that man on Sunday. - As reported by the Detroit Free Press yesterday. JACOB SMILOVITZ EDITOR IN CHIEF RACHEL VAN GILDER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MATT AARONSON MANAGING EDITOR BRUNO STORTINI E-MAIL BRUNO AT BRUNORS@UMICH.EDU 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. Ttyl cnt txt now State must start PR campaign to stop texting while driving t takes only three seconds of distraction to cause 80 percent of accidents, according to a 2006 study by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And most text messages take longer than three sec- onds to type. Text messaging is a dangerous distraction on the road, where conditions and threats change suddenly. The Michigan Sen- ate recently passed a pair of bills that will ban texting while driving. While the bill is an important measure, the state should combat this dangerous habit with an exhaustive statewide media campaign to make people aware of the consequences of driving while texting. SpmCot w e d u r e m C o rt v 'i ' e P o pl Michigan will soon join the 28 states that currently have a partial or total ban on texting while driving. Michigan State Senate Bill 402, passed on Jan. 29, will make texting while driving a secondary offense. Police officers will not be able to pull over an alleged texting driver. But if drivers pulled over for other reasons, like speeding or reckless driving, are found to have been texting, they will face additional charges and fines. The accompanying Sen- ate Bill that outlines enforcement, Bill 468, prescribes a $200 fine for first-time offend- ers. Subsequent offenders are subject to a $500 fine. Most people know the dangers of driv- ing drunk. But not as many are concerned about the dangers of texting enough to leave their cell phones in their pockets or purses. But a 2009 study by the VTTI con- cluded that drivers are 23 times more likely to crash while texting than while focus- ing on the road. And a 2008 study by the Transport Research Laboratory showed that texting while driving decreases reac- tion time more than the effects of alcohol. Drunk drivers are subject to huge fines, license suspensions and jail time. And though texting while driving is compara-. bly dangerous, little has been done to stop it in Michigan - until now. The current form of the bill is a relief. During the time that the bill was tabled in 2009, there was discussion of making vio- lation of the ban a primary offense, which could have given officers tremendous latitude to pull drivers over for anything resembling texting. Making the violation a secondary offense avoids this concern. But the legislation alone isn't the most effective solution to the dangers of tex- ting while driving. The state must fund a campaign highlighting the risks associ- ated with driving while distracted. And since teens - who already have a high risk of accident - commonly text more than adults, they are more likely to be texting while driving. Incorporating lessons on the dangers of texting while driving into driver's education programs could help stop the problem before it starts. Next, the state should launch a media campaign that will make drivers aware of the consequences of getting caught tex- ting while driving. The state's successful "Click It or Ticket" program should be the model for a similar campaign to stop tex- ting while driving. Efforts to avoid a fine, even more than knowledge of the danger, will prevent drivers from texting. Texting misspelled messages to friends isn't worth causing a car accident. The state has done its part to outlaw this dangerous behavior. Now it must spread the word. Dear Little Guy, Once again, we, the little guys, have been told that our power to affect change is only as large as our wallets. After we over- whelmingly elect- ed a candidate on a x platform of change and watched his efforts at reform be strangled by corpo- rate lobbyists and ALEX right-wing ideo- logues, exercising SCHIFF our right to have our voices heard has become more difficult still. After we watched Wall Street reward itself with billions of dollars in bonuses as a prize for plundering the livelihoods of average Americans and sending our economy into its deep- est downturn of our generation, the good of the people has yet again taken a backseat to the good of Big Business, Big Labor and anythingelse bigenough to outshout and outspend the little guy. After nearly three decades of ris- ing inequality and marginalization of anyone not lucky enough to be among the richest one percent, the voice of the little guy will be diluted even further thanks to the will of five individuals. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades of judicial precedent when it ruled on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commis- sion. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that corporations have an essentiallylimitless right to run adver- tisements for political campaigns. The majority found justification for its decision in the First Amendment, claiming that a corporation has the same right as any of us to freedom of speech and expression. I would love for someone out there to tell us how - after this deplorable decision - they can denounce with a straight face "liberal" judges for their "judicial activism," "legislat- ing from the bench" and all the other cute little phrases conservatives have invented for not getting their way. The Supreme Court has made a 180-degree turnaround and decided that a wealth of rulings dating back before any of us were born were errors. This radi- cal departure from past rulings on campaign finance - some as recent as 2003- is the epitome ofjudicial activ- ism and was driven by the conserva- tive wing of the Court. As Justice John Paul Stevens stated in his spirited dis- sent, "The only relevant thing that has changed ... is the composition of this court." The threat of corporate power to the integrity of a democracy has been a concern since this nation's founding. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristoc- racy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our coun- try."While the structure, activities and nature of businesses have obviously evolved since that time, the message behind Jefferson's statement remains unchanged and eternally relevant. Corporations (and large powerful groups in general), if allowed, have the ability to wield an unequal amount of influence in the political process. Politicians hear those voices far more directly than our own viathe process of lobbying. This is the process by which corporations and other large special interest groups send representatives to pressure members of Congress to enact policies that further their goals and/or boost their profits. But there is no lobbyist for "We the People." Consider the factthat, accordingto a December poll by the National Wildlife. Federation, 82 percent of voters wants more government investment in clean energysources and 67percentsupports the government limiting carbon emis- sions. That's an enormous majority of us that favors these policies, yet our will has not become law. The cap-and- trade legislation passed by the House of Representatives to address this issue - which it has already watered down to a barely tolerable level of efficacy - has sat dead in the Senate. The People should * have the loudest voice in politics. The reason is simple: money. According to the Center for Respon- sive Politics, in 2009, the oil and gas industry spent $120,729,855 in lobby- ing to make sure its voice drowned out ours. And politicians know how valu- able this sector can be in a campaign - in 2008 the oil and gas industry made campaign contributions totaling $35,589,287. No wonder Republicans are fighting so hard against a cause so many of us favor - 77 percent of that money went to their party's candidates. And this was all before the Supreme Court gave corporations an even larg- er and more entrenched role in the political process. The disappointing reality is that all voices are not equal when money plays such a large role in our politics. But even if you find my outrage too strong or my rhetoric too harsh, I have a voice, and despite this gross blow to democracy, Iwill make it heard. Will you? - Alex Schiff can be reached at aschiff@umich.edu LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be less 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. ALEXANDER HRIN | Green Crusade falls short Intolerantpolitics Part bromide, part battle cry, the phrase "Go green" inspires something akin to moral superiority combined with tech savvy. Any- one that has visited a college campus in the last five years has seen the extent to which "being green" has dominated everything from research to the mottos of the maintenance crews. Being green is supposedly the answer to everything from economic recession to climate change, but what has the Green Crusade done to deserve this pedestal? With people like Paul Ehrlich claiming that "England [would] not exist by the year 2000" back in 1969, it's almost too easy to cherry pick absurd quotes from the leaders of the Green Crusade. But what the Green Crusade has actu- ally done since it became a dominant force in American and global culture is more telling than a few poorly thought-out one liners. Consider, for instance, the billions of dollars of taxpayer money poured into research and development of hydrogen-based alternative fuel technologies, largely at the behest of the Green Crusade. Last year, Secretary of Ener- gy Stephen Chu announced that he felt that a hydrogen-based car economy wouldn't be fea- sible in the coming decades and promptly took an axe to the hydrogen car initiative, reducing fiunds by $100 million. Instead, the current administration has elected to pursue electrical and hybrid "solutions." But the real punch line is that, in the meantime, the Green Crusade has been vigorously advocating another of its main agendas, a "Cap and Trade" scheme, which means that, in the words of President Barack Obama, "Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." The Green Crusade is not offer- ing a better source of energy at all, merely less energy all around. And how about the story of BrightSource Energy's Mojave power plant? BrightSource is a developer of solar-based energy that recently proposed the construction of a 5,130-acre solar farm capable of generating over 500 megawatts of electricity in a remote region of the eastern Mojave Desert. As a leader in renewable ener- gy, BrightSource has taglines and business themes with a clearly "green" bend to them, so it should have gone forth with the blessing of the Green Crusade, right? Wrong. Between opposition from the Wildlands Conservancy and a push for legislation to turn the area into a national hsonument, BrightSource had to scrap plans for the solar plant. The policies of the various factions of the Green Crusade again came into conflict, resulting in lost time and destroyed wealth. Some might say that these issues arise due to a few irrational elements present in the move- ment. This perspective fails to recognize that such conflicts arise when energy policy is made by pitting the earth against humanity. When a criterion for evaluation of energy policy is "mini- mizing impact" on the earth, the logical result will be outcomes that eliminate energy produc- tion and use. The Green Crusade has provided a plethora of examples showing how its driving philosophy ultimately leads not to alternative, abundant, clean energy but just to a reduction in energy consumption altogether. Energy is vital to the wondrous technologies that contribute to America's standard of living. From BMWs to gene sequencers to iPhones to particle accelera- tors, all are dependent on abundant, cheap ener- gy. It's time for Americans to re-evaluate their decision to allow the Green Crusaders to become spokesmen for the future of energy, technology and even morality in our country. The Students of Objectivism will be hosting a guest speaker to further discuss this issue. Keith Lockitch, a fellow from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, will speak on Wednesday, Feb. 3 at 7:30 p.m. in Angell Hall Auditorium C. The event is open to the public. We welcome those interested in hearing a dif- ferent perspective on the Green Crusade. Alexander Hrin is a graduate student. t seems I may owe my readers an apology. Having reread the col- umn I wrote two weeks ago about the Michigan gov- erhor's race (The amazing, underrat- 3 ed race, 01/19/10), it's apparent that I sounded like a Republican cheer- ' leader. So this week, I'm set- ' ting out to redeem myself to my liberal ROBERT friends. SOAVE Enter state Rep. Paul Scott (R- Grand Blanc). Scott, a 27-year-old who earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the University, was first elected to the state House of Representatives in 2008. In the same election that brought the United States its first black president, President Barack Obama, Scott became one of only two African Americans elected to the state House since 1904. In his first year in office he's done nothing but annoy me, espe- cially with his unwavering support for the statewide ban on smoking in privately owned establishments. But I know, my liberal friends, that this may actually endear him to many of you. Patience - you will share my loathing of Scott, I promise. According to an article in the Flint Journal last month, Scott has made plans to run for Secretary of State. In a letter announcing his candidacy, he spelled out his top four priorities if elected to the position. Let me draw your attention to number three on his list: "I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver's license in any circum- stance." Yes, you read that correctly. I know what you're thinking: finally, a candidate with the courage to scale back rights for the transgen- dered. And these people thought they could have difficult; expensive, life- altering surgeries to help them feel comfortable with themselves - and that the rest of us would just put up with it! Thank goodness we've got Scott looking out for us. "That's who you are. You can have cosmetic sur- gery or reassignment surgery but you are still that gender," he told the Michigan Messenger last month. There's no fooling this guy. But not only is Scott passionate about shunning an already marginal- ized community - doing so is in fact his third most important governmen- tal priority. If you were unable to sleep at night out of fear that the next Sec- retary of State might waste time sim- plifying Michigan's voter registration or driver's licensing systems instead of chasing transgender people back into the shadows from whence they came, Scott should put you at ease. Forming a better relationship with the Attorney General's office? Nope. Consolidat- ing branch offices? Further down the list. Reducing expenditures in order to lessen the tax burden? Please. Tax- payers are obviously more interested in fighting for the obscure causes of a fringe social conservative agenda than saving money. Speaking of the fringe social con- servative agenda, the Grand Rapids Press reported last month that the Michigan chapter of the Ameri- can Family Association is the group demanding that someone take up this fight. In the article, Michigan AFA President Gary Glenn cited trans- gender people using restrooms other than those intended for their original biological sex as one of the reasons for revising the current policy, which allows the transgendered to change the sex on their licenses. But even if your top concern really is this whole restroom thing (and if it is, you are an absurd person), driver's licenses don't really affect the situa- tion. I don't remember ever having to show my license to use the restroom. Will Secretary of State officials now stand guard at every toilet in the state? Will they conduct full-body searches to discover your true gender? Does the AFA support such action? Gender identity shouldn't be state-regulated. All jokes asideit's reallya shame to see such a chronically misunderstood and disrespected minority treated so terribly. Choosing to undergo gender reassignment surgery or seek ther- apy for gender-related issues takes a great deal of courage. The least the state can do is support such courage by granting transgender people some dignity and letting them change the sex on their licenses. Which brings me back to candidate Scott. I expect such lunacy from the AFA (this organization recently boy- cotted Gap and Old Navy for not being "pro-Christmas" enough), not from Republican legislators. And what's more, I expect much better from grad- uates of the University. How someone could spend years in Ann Arbor and not gain a single ounce of compassion for socially marginalized people is beyond me. But even social conservatives should recognize that a guy who lists this issue in his top four priorities is the wrong candidate for Secretary of State. Republican primary voters, show us that you won't fall for such pointless demagoguery and pick some- body else. - Robert Soave was the Daily's editorial page editor in 2009. He can be reached at rsoave@urich.edu. 0 0 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, William Butler, Nicholas Clift, Michelle DeWitt, Brian Flaherty, Jeremy Levy, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga, Alex Schiff, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Radhika Upadhyaya, Laura Veith