4 - Friday, January 8, 2010 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL DANIEL AT DWGOLD@UMICH.EDU Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu DANIEL GOLD JACOB SMILOVITZ EDITOR IN CHIEF RACHEL VAN GILDER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MATT AARONSON MANAGING EDITOR Sick. I just Hey Roomie, slept 'til noon, how was your played Halo all winter break? day, and got drunk every night. 5..- "- .s / You had to go How else would home for that? I have gotten my laundry done? rK is 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. A greener shade of blue 'U' must invest in students' innovation, green technology Jt appears that congratulations are in order. The University was recently ranked fifth among several top universities in the use and encouragement of clean energy and technology, according to the founder of green energy investment firm Sus- tainable World Capital. This achievement is a bright energy-effi- cient light for a state that has been in the dark for a long time. But the University could do much more than it currently is to help reduce carbon emissions and excessive energy expenditures. The University should depend on its students for progress in the field of environmentally-friendly technology, and take advantage of its resources to practice what it preaches. The paradigm of party purity Sustainable World Capital Founder Shawn Lesser's released his Top Ten United States Universitiesfor cleantech on Monday. The ranking placed the University behind the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of California at Berkley, the University of Texas in Austin and Stanford University. In his rankings, Lesser refer- enced University programs that encourage green businesses, like the business school's Zell Miller Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies and the student-led MPowered. The University's encouragement of green energy is admirable - and vital. By now, it's obvious that global warming isn't a myth. Reducing carbon emissions and switching to greener fuels is necessary to keep the environment clean and healthy. And venture capitalists are looking to col- lege campuses for investments in the tech- nology that will reduce society's carbon footprint. Universities hold some of the most promising ideas to improve green technology and increase energy efficiency. The wealth of knowledge and creation pos- sible on campuses is unmatched. New con- cepts for green technology will come from students at top research institutions like the University - and this spring of innova- tion should be utilized. But while the University's support of green businesses is encouraging, it must act on a practical level to decrease its own waste and pollution. It hasn't been com- pletely remiss. The Ross School of Busi- ness, which opened in January of 2009, is LEED-certified. LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a program that sets guidelines to determine the efficiency of buildings. And University recycling numbers are impressive. But the University has only two LEED- certified buildings, and the Ross School of Business has a lower certification level than comparable buildings at MIT and Stanford. The University should be more invested in attaining LEED certification. Meeting this program's requirements shouldn't be difficult, considering the Uni- versity's astronomical budget for construc- tion. Additionally, the University has failed to switch to hybrid buses, which the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority already uses. The $1 billion University budget allotted to research for this cause puts the University in a prime position to expand its environmental initiatives. More can always be done, and the University hasn't lived up to its potential. Public universities are playing a vital role in promoting green energy initiatives. The University should incorporate student innovation to help improve its environ- mentally-friendly programs. And it should incorporate more green technology on campus. Because making campus greener, not simply achieving accolades, should top the University's priorities. Airports are underrated. Espe- cially during the holiday sea- son when the opportunities for mindless dis- traction are end- less. While I could devote this whole' column to the man on my flight that looked like Osama bin Laden wear- ing a French beret (hey, just because they're terror- ALEX ists doesn't mean SCHIFF they can't have style), there 'are even more ridicu- lous matters that deserve attention. Browsing the web before my flight back to Michigan, I came across this gem of Republican lunacy: Newt Gin- grich - former Speaker of the House and one of the many de facto lead- ers of today's fractured conservative movement - recently asserted on "Meet the Press" that "every Repub- lican in 2010 and 2012 will run on an absolute pledge to repeal" the health care bill making its way through Con- gress. And, Newt, thy will be done. This insane demand comes only a month after widely publicized propos- als from Republican circles to deny Republican National Committee fund- ing and endorsements to any candi- date that doesn't adhere, based on past statements and votes, to 8 out of 10 "core principles." If you dogmatically support the Republican Party on every other policy, but don't want the Ber- lin Wall built on the Mexican border, believe in civil rights for all people (not just those that behave and look exactly like you) and don't think every Ameri- can has the right to a submachine gun with their morning coffee, then you're out of luck. This will serve to weed out internal dissidents and purify the party of "faux conservatives." These proposals are far from being implemented, but it demonstrates a growing tendency towards purity over reform in the party. Based on this line of thinking, Republicans lost control of Congress and the White House not because they were too con- servative and scared away too many voters, but because they weren't con- servative enough. The Republican Party, by running up enormous defi- cits with huge taxcuts, entitlement expansions and wars funded by thin air, became politically indistinguish- able from the freewheeling fiscal lib- eralism of the Democrats. When I first read about these ideas, I was overjoyed. The Republicans are going to further marginalize them- selves by appealing to the extreme fringes of their support base, alien- ating the swaths of independents and moderates that decide elections. Democratswill skate to office largely uncontested from now until either President Barack Obama is found to be a double agent working for the Taliban or the Republicans finda way to inject a drug into the water supply that makes people think Sarah Palin is actually more intelligent than a rabbit (but it's a really smart rab- bit, you betcha). But then a thought hit me, what if the Democrats only backed "pure" candidates too? At first, I imagined a world where politicians were nothing but a carica- ture of how the other party sees them. Democrats would, of course, all be Karl Marx. Common lunchtime Democratic conversation would feature the exploi- tation of the proletariat, the fashion no-no's of Joseph Stalin, and the best methods of fomenting revolution. Republicans, however, would worship their almighty leaders, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. All men would dress in the style of Lord Rush and eat their weight in jelly donuts to resemble his image of perfection, and all women would be forced to wear their hair in the Palin beehive or risk waterboard- ing. Since both Marxists and free market demagogues seek to eliminate the state (the former in its entirety to bring about the final stage of commu- nism, the latterinall economic affairs), the two parties agree to abolish the government and settle all political dis- putes via the method of governance I advocated for in my last viewpoint: steel cage death match. Democracy isn't the same thing as duopoly. But once that little thought cloud above my head dissipated, I began to think deeper about the possible implications. If the Democrats and Republicans purified their parties, those who don't adhere strictly to either party platform would have no recourse but to form new political parties. Party litmus tests might just be what we need to take down the two-party duopoly that force Ameri- cans to choose between the lesser of two corrupted, ineffective, often brain-dead evils and replace it with a thriving, multi-party democracy. Instead of just Republicans and Democrats, the political process would be opened up to a host of new voices, and with more voices comes more ideas - something we've been sorely lacking for many years. While litmus tests are ridiculous exercises in ideological pandering, when they are taken to their extreme, politi- cians might not be afraid of taking a stance on an issue that differs from the , Democrats and Republicans, because there could be another party for them. In an ideal world of politi- cal diversity, anyone with a few good ideas and some initiative could start their own party, launch a movement, and take the White House. That's real democracy. - Alex Schiff can be reached at aschiff@umich.edu. 6 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, William Butler, Nicholas Clift, Michelle DeWitt, Brian Flaherty, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Harsha Panduranga, Alex Schiff, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Radhika Upadhyaya, Laura Veith BRIAN FLAHERTY Let my textbooks go LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedoily@umich.edu. WANT TO BE AN OPINION CARTOONIST? E-MAIL RACHEL VAN GILDER AT RACHELVG@UMICH.EDU a An energetic generation In the midst of purchasing course materials yesterday, I found myself dancing on the grave of a local business - the recently deceased Sha- man Drum. Although I felt some empathy for those harmed by its fall, it made me giddy to realize that I had escaped the jaws of the book- store's overpriced course materials and that, with a little more effort on the part of students, University officials and certain professors, text- book affordability may be a reality for students. But some students may not remember the infa- mous Shaman Drum, so I shall tell its story. Once upon a time, there was an overpriced bookstore called Shaman Drum that sold course materials for many professors. Despite its community contributions, charming decor and whimsical moniker, Shaman Drum was much despised by students as the impending symbol of a struggle that raged across campus - the epic battle between a number of instruc- tors who wish to support local bookstores and frugal students who wanted to get their text- books cheap. While most professors have traditionally treated their serfs with respect and dignity, some once held that serfs do not make good textbook purchasing decisions without help. Professors of this sort used controversial tac- tics to support Shaman Drum. In many cases, Shaman Drum was designated as the only local merchant for course materials. A number of professors also routinely failed to provide text- book lists and ISBNs that would've allowed cash-strapped students to buy books else- where. Having perhaps studied basic econom- ics, Shaman Drum flaunted its monopoly with a maniacal laugh and sold at prices often double those of online sellers. Why some professors in the ruling class opted to subsidize Shaman Drum with stu- dents' money is still shrouded in mystery. It was alleged (and in at least one case substanti- ated) that certain instructors owned stakes in the store. In rare cases where professors were asked to explain their behavior, they would point to the value of supporting local business or make bizarre claims that their behavior was environmentally beneficial. They perhaps thought that Shaman Drum's books were being delivered via bicycle or assembled from recy- cled materials on site by solar-powered robots - and that the reused books delivered by UPS are made of dead panda bears and baby seals. Brave revolutionaries resisted textbook imperialists by e-mailing their professors to explicitly request textbook information, before retreating for supplies to their bastions: Ama- zon, Half.com, student book exchanges and old or international editions. For many years, University royalty left students to fend for themselves against the textbook affordability monster. But it was decreed that there would be a website that would provide transparent textbook information on Wolverine Access and that professors should put course materials on CTools for free when possible. Shaman Drum went under. "Better late than never" was the zeitgeist of the time, as the Wol- verine Access textbook list went online. Many professors used it and received fewer inces- sant demands in students' emails for textbook information. Students saved tons of moolah by ordering their books early online. Well-to-do students still bought their books at Ulrich's, which began offering the option to rent, rather than sell, books to students for cheaper rates. Students who were struggling to pay their bills had more affordable options available. And pro- fessors even attempted to save a few trees and help their students by putting materials online. Although there has been progress, the con- flict remains far from won. Even today, some professors aren't transparent in providing course material details or do so late with the inevitable result that some students will face a financial burden or obstacles in completing coursework (such as books that arrive late). The University should take action to ensure that vir- tually all professors use the textbook site. But in the meantime, students don't have to take that sitting down. They can write professors or department chairs to request textbook infor- mation in advance and explain why it's impor- tant for this information to be available. They can ask that materials be put on reserve at the library so that they're available to students. And they can thank and recognize the professors who are already doing the right thing. Brian Flaherty is a senior editorial page editor, h my god, I was up all night studying for this test but am still not prepared," said the manic stranger sitting to my left. I nodded uncom- fortably as I awaited an exam on "Dinosaurs and Other Fail- ures," trying to think of a response more inspiring than "Wow, that LINCOLN sucks." Sitting BOEHM on the stranger's desk, resembling ancient docu- ments from the third century B.C., were three bottles of 5-Hour Energy. Oh my god, I thought. Is this test really going to be 15 hours? I began to panic, realizing that I would likely have to break my dinner plans. When I asked the girl to my right if the syl- labus had indicated the test would be 15 hours, she looked at me like I was crazy before picking up her two cans of Red Bull and fleeing to the opposite end of the classroom. When I glanced around the room, I realized that I had stumbled into the United Nations of energy drinks. There were black cans, white cans, big cans and small cans. Cans with colorful pictures on them. Some with long names, others with short names. Fat, skinny - everything you could possibly imagine. Never before had I seen diversity in such full effect. Why did everyone have these chemically enhanced energy drinks? What kind of test was this going to be? It seemed that each of the 250 stu- dents in my class had a preferred ener- gy drink that had been designed for them like a fitted suit. Explanations ranged from: "this one doesn't make me crash afterwards" to "this one doesn't give me heart palpitations." Everyone I spoke with loved theirbev- erage for a different reason. But it was never a positive reason like, "the great taste." It was always because of the things their drink didn't do that oth- ers did: "this poison doesn't blur my vision as much as the other poisons." Why does this generation need so much energy all of a sudden? Are we doing more than previous generations? Let's catalogue my Sunday. I woke up at noon, met my friend for brunch, took a nap, watched a basketball game, went out to dinner, watched a "Jersey Shore" rerun, spent an hour on Woo- Tube (Wikipedia/YouTube), listened to a friend lament about girls, went to buy cookies and then slept for 12 hours straight. I have enough self-awareness to admit that I didn't accomplish a whole lot that Sunday, but Ilived to talk about it, energy-drink free. What do people have against sleep? I love sleeping. It may very well be my favorite thing to do. But our society has conceived the notion that it's glamorous to deny your body what it wants. This is why God cre- ated appetite suppressants, energy drinks and chastity belts. You need to eat and sleep to live, but research- ers have found that resisting natural instincts is a lucrative market. It might make sense for a doctor working a 24-hour E.R. shift to have a swig of an energy drink from time to time. But is it really necessary for. my roommate to drink two Red Bulls before work at the University dining hall where he refills the ketchup con- tainers when they reach dangerously low levels? Never before had I seen my room- mate as excited as he was when we saw a commercial for the new product 6-Hour Energy on TV. The introduc- tion of 6-Hour Energy dethroned the previous king ofenergy drinks: 5-Hour Energy. And it's inevitable that in time we'll see the dynasties of seven and eight hour energy arise. At some point, we'll logically come to 23-Hour Energy 4 - at which point sleep will make the endangered hobbies list, along with knitting and yo-yoing. Two Red Bulls to take an exam a seems excessive. Shockingly, professional athletes are drinking this poison, and even promoting it on TV. So in the spirit of research, I tried a 5-Hour Energy drink and went to play soccer. After thirty minutes, I threw up on the goalie and got a red card. Being someone who can't remem- ber anything before the Clinton administration, I may not know much. But one thing I do know is that when my colleagues are snorting prescrip- tion drugs and drinking three bottles of energy drinks to survive a two-hour exam, something is wrong. What hap- pened to the good old days when col- lege students would stay up all night I having sex and listening to music? Now they sit in the libraries cram- ming information into their heads the way frat bros smash cans against theirs, refusing to admit that their bodies can't take any more. Something needs to be done. If I had more energy I'd try to figure out what it is. I wonder if the corner store is still open. - Lincoln Boehm can be reached at Isboehm@umich.edu.