4 - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL BRUNO AT BRUNORS@UMICH.EDU t it i tgan' fallt Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu BRUNO STORTINI d" , - J JACOB SMILOVITZ EDITOR IN CHIEF RACHEL VAN GILDER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MATT AARONSON MANAGING EDITOR . r . G c . .., °,. . r r -;, j a._ I ; 4 _ v o' es Unsigned editorials reflect the official position oftthe Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Imminent invasion U.S. Supreme Court needs to intervene to stop Asian carp t sounds preposterous that one of the biggest threats to the Great Lakes is a fish. But Asian carp, an invasive species, are no laughing matter, and could seriously damage the Great Lakes' ecosystem. Last week, Michigan Attorney Gener- al Mike Cox filed a second request with the U.S. Supreme Court for an injunction to force Illinois to close commercial waterways through which the fish are migrating. Since the Great Lakes are an interstate resource, their safety lies squarely in the hands of the federal government, which has so far refused to act. The Supreme Court should issue an injunction to stop the progress of Asian carp toward the Great Lakes. ; as-. >1 ____ fn r j 7_ ' s ,K 0 I .. ..war ..w4 Q t Fj( y t T t tll .. _ v . - 4 A just defense offree speech Asian carp, imported to the Mississippi River area to control algae populations, have now migrated north and are threat- ening the Great Lakes. The fish are cur- rently contained behind electric fencing at the Illinois border. But detection of traces of Asian carp DNA north of the barriers suggests that the fences are failing. On Dec. 21, Cox filed a request for an injunc- tion with the U.S. Supreme Court to force Illinois to close locks between the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and Lake Michi- gan and stall the progress of the fish. The Supreme Court chose not to hear the case. Cox renewed his request on Feb. 4. Should they enter the Great Lakes, Asian carp will upset the balance of the ecosys- tem by taking up more than their fair share of resources. And as if the environmental damage wasn't alarming enough, the result of damage to the lakes would be economi- cally disastrous. The invasive fish would endanger the billion-dollar commercial fishing and tourism industries throughout the region. Michigan, particularly, can't afford the loss of another major industry. All of the Great Lakes states will suffer should the carp reach the lakes. But Illi- nois, which depends upon the trade in the Illinois River, has refused to close its com- mercial waterways. Illinois is discount- ing the long-term effects of damage to the Great Lakes. Illinois's shortsighted refusal to close the waterways will only lead to interstate catastrophe. Currently, the rest of the Great Lakes states are trying to urge Illinois into action - yesterday, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm joined Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn at the White House to discuss the issue. But if Illinois refuses to act, federal inter- vention will be necessary. The Supreme Court has refused to inter- vene in the matter - it shut down Cox's first request for an injunction without even hear- ing the case. But because this is an interstate dispute and it will affect all the Great Lakes states, the federal government has a respon- sibility to get involved. The Supreme Court should hear Cox's case, and issue an injunc- tion to force Illinois to close its waterways and halt the progress of the Asian carp. The effects of damage to the ecosys- tem caused by Asian carp would reach far beyond one state, and the federal govern- ment must get involved to prevent disaster. The Supreme Court needs to take decisive action to stop the Asian carp invasion., P resident Barack Obama's State of the Union address last month stirred some con- troversy when he criticized the United States Supreme Court T for their ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 decision, the " court defended a corporation's CHRIS right to spend money on politi- KOSLOWSKI cal campaigns and advertisements. Departing from State of Union tradi- tion, Obama voiced his disapproval of the court's ruling, saying it "reversed a century of law." Justice Samuel Alito, similarly ignoring court mem- bers' customary silence during the speech, shook his head and mouthed "not true" during Obama's remarks. The exchange was just the latest breach of etiquette during a State of the Union Address that marks the increasing intensity of partisan poli- tics in Washington. This partisan fervor is exactly what kept Justice Clarence Thomas away from the floor of House of Represen- tatives last month. The 19-year Court veteran's refusal to be a silent State of the Union whipping boy, along with his staunch defense of the First Amendment during Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, has earned him the top spot as my favor- ite Supreme Court justice. He rose from-humble beginnings and fought through oppression to become a stal- wart proponent of American freedom as defined by the Constitution. He's the epitome of the unshakable Ameri- can underdog, and he should be your favorite too. Thomas's absence from this year's State of the Union sent an important message to Washington. The Supreme Court is intended to be an institution free of the political squabbling that defines the executive and legislative branches of our government. That's not to say there aren't healthy ideolog- ical differences on the Court. But as an institution, the Court is-supposed to be as politically impartial as possi- ble. This is why justices serve life-long terms and why justices traditionally do not react during State of the Union addresses. This year, however, Obama's pot- shot indicting the Court for simply protecting the First Amendment broke down the respect that has tra- ditionally existed between the judi- cial and executive branches. Rather than twiddling his thumbs or reacting like Alito when Obama criticized the Court, Thomas's lack of attendance clearly communicated a sentiment I wish all the justices shared - the Supreme Court has no place at the State of the Union Address. In a recent speech to the University of South Florida's law school, Thomas defended the Court from Obama's condemnation. Thomas argued that First Amendment protections for the individual also apply to organizations assembled to influence political cam- paigns. "If ten of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you'd say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association," Thomas said. "If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you'd say we still have that First Amendment right." Campaign finance reform passed through the legislature like the McCain-Feingold Actis inobviousvio- lation of these basic First Amendment rights. Some would argue that cam- paign contributions from "Big Busi- ness" unfairly drown out the influence of the "little guy" in elections. Thomas knows a fear of the influence of special interest advertisements doesn't justify the hedging of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It's an individ- ual's duty to vote in a way that reflects his or her personal beliefs. Thomas understands that it's neither the gov- ernment's responsibility, nor its right, to protect citizens from political advertisements. Justice Thomas represents the best of America. * Thomas's defense of the First Amendment and refusal to be vic- timized by a president with a seem- ingly deficient understanding of the Supreme Court's responsibilities and traditions is just the latest demonstra- tion of the intelligence, resolve and bravery which has made him the ideal justice. Throughout his career, Thom- as has led the charge to return the Court to its roots in judicial restraint and defense of the Constitution. Fighting through allegations of sexual harassment, claims that he lacked-the prerequisite knowledge to serve on the nation's highest court and rac- ist accusations aimed at pegging him as an "Uncle Tom;" Thomas has been the most influential voice in stemming the Court's fifty years of unwarranted activism. He's been a resolutg ssp- porter of individual rights and equal- ity, most notably in his opposition of affirmative action. You should cele- brate his role in preserving the values that have made this country great. - Chris Koslowski can be reached at cskoslowgumich.edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Jordan Birnholtz, William Butler, Nicholas Nlift, Michelle DeWitt, Brian Flaherty, Jeremy Levy,Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga, Alex Schiff, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Robert Soave, Radhika Upadhyaya, Laura Veith JORDAN BIRNHOLTZ NASA's new adventures LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be fewer 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. AMERICAN MOVEMENT FOR ISRAEL In Middle East, it's time to negotiate 0 Forty years ago, it was widely believed that the United States would travel to Mars by 2000. It's now 2010, and it's unlikely we'll launch a manned spacecraft to Mars before 2040. Pre- dicting the future of spaceflight is literally rocket science, and it's hard to know if private spaceflight will be a sustainable business. There are a number ofunanswered questions regarding the commercial viability of space- flight. A small number of companies, includ- ing Virgin Galactic and Bigelow Aerospace, are currently investigating the possibilities. The latter, founded by Las Vegas hotelier Robert Bigelow, aims to put inflatable space hotels into orbit. It's a lofty goal, and it's unclear if there's a real market for such a stay. Private space ventures, it follows, are sub- ject to the business cycle. Exciting a prospect as it is, it's uncertain if a long-term market truly exists for anything other than launching cargo and satellites. A year and a half ago, one imagined that plenty of people would fork over the six figures that would be necessary to participate in space tourism. Since the recent market contraction, it's a lot less clear who will pay for this luxury. In the 1990s, the joint public-private sector space plane, the Venturestar, consumed $1.2 billion before a scaled-down prototype failed. The entire project was abandoned. It was an enormous waste of time and valuable resourc- es. For this reason, the best route forward is to continue to fund public endeavors, like NASA, while still subsidizing the private market. NASA technology has played a huge role in developing modern technology. The array of devices derived from NASA .research and development is enormous. Without satel- lites, there could be no GPS and no cell phone. Similarly derived from NASA research are the cochlear implant, grooved roads and the com- puter mouse. NASA fulfills a role much greater than simply putting humans into orbit. It's a technological incubator. And NASA allows for pure scientific research. There isn't room in the market for that at this point. It may not seem as economi- cally vital, but it's a worthwhile exercise to learn about the universe. This doesn't mean that it's sensible to keep NASA around forever. The private sector may one day fulfill all of our stellar needs. That day certainly isn't here, however, and it's unclear how far off it is. One ought to expect similarly positive externalities of private space compa- nies. For this reason, the federal government should help foster these through subsidies. This is the route President Barack Obama is taking, and it's the right one. He has promised a $6-billion increase in the NASA budget over five years. Obama also called for $6.1 billion to fund private space companies, hoping to find a privately-built craft that can supply the Inter- national Space Station. He's added $51.5 mil- lion to NASA's biomedical research on humans budget, too. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has criticized Obama for his latestbudget. "The president has sent Congress a budget proposal that contains more spending, more borrowing and more taxes," read a recent statement from his office. But Cornyn has simultaneously criticized Obama for not spending enough on the Project Constellation. As emotional and glorious as another trip to the moon may seem, it's not the best use of NASA money. Biomedical research and other projects are more likely to yield the positive externalities, which justify the agency in an economic sense. Cornyn claims that neglecting the moon project will lead to a decrease in the country's "global status." This is nonsense. His criticisms are at best ignorant and at worst an abusive politicization of science. There's plenty to criticize in our president's agenda, but this isn't one of them. Jordan Birnholtz is an LSA freshman. Ending the occupation of Palestinians and ensuring Israeli security is the overall goal for moderates on both sides of the Middle East conflict. According to many historians, the 1973 war was a major driving force for the peace agreement signed between Israel and Egypt only six years later. However, there is another avenue to achieve peace that does not require such tragic violence: negotiations. Since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formed a new government in March 2009, there have. been no direct negotiations between the Israeli and Pales- tinian leaderships. Palestinian National Authority Presi- dent Mahmoud Abbas insists that there be a full Israeli settlement freeze in both the West Bank and East Jerusa- lem before bilateral talks can resume. At the beginning of Netanyahu's term, this might have made sense. Netanyahu was considered a hard rightist. He refused to back a two-state solution, and during his election campaign he fervently supported the settlement movement in the West Bank. However, like many politicians, Netanyahu has changed his platform. In June 2009, he delivered an important policy address supporting a Palestinian state, and a few months later agreed to freeze settlement activ- ity in the West Bank for 10 months. George Mitchell, the United States special envoy to the Middle East, comment- ed on Netanyahu's move saying that, "it is more than any Israeli government has done before, and can help move toward agreement between the parties." In addition to Netanyahu freezing settlements, the prime minister has initiated several concrete gestures to assist the average Palestinian individual. Israel's policy of removing checkpoints throughout the West Bank along with additional security cooperation between the two sides has boosted the Palestinian economy in the West Bank by seven percent, according to the International Monetary Fund. For over a decade, Palestinians have not experienced such a dramatic financial growth. It is true that currently Netanyahu refuses to freeze building within East Jerusalem as Abbas demands. How- ever, is not settling differences between the two parties the reason why negotiations exist? If everyone agreed, then a peace treaty would have been signed years ago. Israel also has significant disagreements with the Pal- estinian National Authority regarding terror incitement in Palestinian schools and security threats, but Israel has not derailed peace talks. A year ago, Netanyahu's policies were hawkish, but he has taken significant steps towards 0 peace while in office. Despite Israel taking these moder- ate steps, Abbas is punishing Netanyahu by refusing to hold negotiations. It is interesting to note that before Netanyahu, the first Israeli prime minister to freeze settlement building in the West Bank, Abbas never had a policy of refusal to enter into negotiations. Intense final status talks were held with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who according to Abbas "had a great desire for peace." aven during the Second Intifada, a period of extreme violence, both sides continued to meet. But now Abbas refuses to speak directly with Netanyahu. Maybe Abbas believes that Netanyahu is a right wing leader who will never really change. But politicians in the Middle East can and do change. Before Egyptian Presi- dent Anwar Sadat flew to Jerusalem to extend a hand for peace, he initiated one of the bloodiest wars in the Middle East. Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was a champion of the settler movement. This same man was later the first Israeli leader to evacuate settlers in a peace treaty with Egypt. If Abbas is looking for Netan- yahu to make a bold decision at the negotiating table, he has to give him a chance. In the Middle East, history has proven that an absence of negotiations can take a violent turn. When talks stalled between former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat in 2000, violence filled the void and lead to the bloody Second Intifada. Sometimes leaders are faced with a dramatic decision. It is either yes or no, forwards or backwards - there are no alternatives. Sometimes the reality really is that simple. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban said, "Pales- tinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Whether this statement is accurate or not, the past cannot be undone. And this suspicionstill lurks on both sides. After almost a year of stagnation on the peace front without nego- tiations, something needs to change. Abbas, please prove Eban wrong. Too much is at stake for both Israeli and Pal- estinian children. Seize the moment, or the extremists will. This viewpoint was written by Aaron Magid on behalf ofthe American Movement for Israel. The Daily is looking for a diverse group of passionate, strong student writers to join the Editorial Board. Editorial Board members are responsible for discussing and writing the editorials that appear on the left side of the opinion page. E-MAIL RACHEL VAN GILDER AT RACHELVG@UMICH.EDU FOR MORE INFORMATION.