4 - Friday, April 15, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 4- Friday, April 15, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom 6 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com MICHELLE DEWITT STEPHANIE STEINBERG and EMILY ORLEY KYLE SWANSON EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS MANAGING EDITOR 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. FROM THE DAILY Blowing in the wind Learn from DTE's alternative energy efforts As the debate over the state budget continues, one question remains at the forefront: How can Michigan rebuild its economy for the 21st century? According to DTE Energy,, the answer may be blowing in the wind. On Wednesday, the utili- ties giant, which provides more than three million Michigan homes and businesses with energy, unveiled plans to build its first wind farms in the state. By providing cleaner energy and developing the promising renewable energy business sector, this $225 million proj- ect is a solid investment for both DTE and the state of Michigan. JEFF ZUSCHLAG Meanwhile, Palin's polls continue to drop... Maybe if we just give her some change, she'll leave us alone. E-MAIL JEFF AT JEFFDZ@UMICH.EDU Collective amnesia S According to an April 13 article from The Associated Press, DTE plans to build about 50 wind turbines in Huron and Sanilac counties, producing 110 megawatts of energy that can power over 100,000 homes. This is an encour- aging turnaround for the corporation, which was sued in August by the Environmental Pro- tection Agency for spending tens of millions of dollars repairing coal-fired power plants. By building these energy farms in Michigan's Thumb region, DTE is not only saving face, but doing its part to help meet Michigan's renew- able energy goal - a 45-percent reduction of fossil fuel use by 2020. The development of these turbines is a great way to make clean, sustainable energy available to Michigan citi- zens on a large scale. The development of the turbines will not only serve as a source of clean power for Michigan, but will also aid in the growth of businesses focussed on renewable energy in the state. The Big Three's financial roller- coaster ride, over the past decade, made it clear that in order to get out of this state of economic stagnation, Michigan must begin industrial development in more modern and promising sectors. From the construction teams to analysts, the production of wind turbines in Michigan will create jobs in the renewable energy industry, helping the state move forward economically. Other corporations in Michigan should take note of DTE's turbine initiative and work toward developingsimilar environmen- tally friendly practices. While the creation of the wind farms will certainly be an aid in reaching both the state and nation's renew- able energy goals, DTE can't do it alone. Other sectors, like the automobile industry, need to make an effort to create renewable energy operations. Clean, sustainable energy is key - not only for the state's and nation's economic future, but also for the future of the planet. Michigan companies need follow DTE's lead, and make a conscious effort to become more sustainable. DTE's investment in wind turbines across the state was a smart move, both economically and environmentally. Other Michigan busi- nesses should mirror DTE's efforts and end 'business-as-usual' environmental practices, in exchange for innovative, green technologies. don't care about college foot- ball, but plenty of my friends do. Every Michigan fan I know is excited about the Brady Hoke Era. This new era will not have any impact on my life, but I am pulling for him. I still root for the school, and more impor- tantly - speak- / ing as someone NEILL who received MOHAMMAD a degree from the University of Illinois - for the Big Ten. Any- thing that might restore midwestern glory at the expense of the rest of the country is a cause I can get behind. But as someone who studies polit- ical behavior for a living, the total about-face among the Michigan fans overthe pastfewyearsis fascinating. Lloyd Carr was hustled out of his job by disgruntled alumni because he was unfairly perceived to be insuf- ficiently modern. Just a few years later, Carr's high-tech, bleeding edge successor, Rich Rodriguez, has also been replaced, but by someone who seems to out-Carr Carr him- self. Hoke's persona and philosophy, as they are described in the media, areso old-fashioned and home-spun that they come off as caricature. Rodriguez, the slicked-back opera- tor, managed to convince Michigan to pitch in for his multi-million dol- lar penalty from breaking a contract at West Virginia University early. By contrast, Hoke famously signed his contract with the University with- out reading it, or even bothering to ask what he'd be making. I still find that hard to believe, though I com- pletely believe that the idea that it could be true is important to many fellow fans. t As is so often the case with nos- talgia, the facts themselves get in the way. Carr's farewell tour in 2007 wasn't greeted with the salivation that Rodriguez's dismissal was, but most people thought it was for the best. The conventional wisdom was unambiguous: Michigan foot- ball needed to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the modern era. Enter Rodriguez, whose spread offense put an unheralded West Vir- giniateamin two BCS bowls in three years. Of course, the formula didn't work at Michigan. But now, under Hoke, the fans have decided after the fact that not only was a Rodri- guez himself a poor hire, but the entire idea of bringing in a modern- izing figure was a mistake to begin with. In 2007, Michigan football was too hidebound and traditional to compete, but after the 2010 season, Michigan football was too modern. What ails us now isn't a failure of tradition, but instead a failure to be traditional enough. This same pattern plays itself out, over and over again, in sports and in the wider world. Consider the budget wars taking place in Lansing, in Washington, and seem- ingly everywhere in between. In the fall of 2008, Barack Obama was a mortal lock to win the presiden- cy after eight years of Republican rule. This was largely because of those eight years, seven were spent assaulting the middle class and the eighth saw the largest single eco- nomic crisis since 1929. Though this synopsis probably reads like ancient history, it was only two and a half years ago. Over the past few weeks, col- lective amnesia has set in with a vengeance. Everything we took to be true in 2010 - that tax cuts for the wealthy don't produce growth, that gutting economic regulations damages the economy and leaves the middle classes holding the bag, that we can't keep paying more for healthcarethan any other developed economy in the world and getting such poor care for our money - has been cast out.Even modest changes, like a healthcare bill that makes it slightly more difficult for private insurers to cancel coverage if you get cancer, have been painted as some sort of Communist plot against free enterprise. Warren Buffet already pays less in taxes, as a percentage of his income, than his secretary does. But in 2011, Paul Ryan can peddle the same regressive tax cuts his party has proposed for the last 30 years and come off like a courageous reformer for doing it. Facts seem to get in the way of nostalgia. Change is hard. New ideas don't always work as quickly or as neatly as we'd like. Brady Hoke has been given the opportunity of a lifetime because Michigan fans have for- gotten every word they ever said or thought about football three years ago in order to scapegoat Rich Rodriguez. These are unfortunate circumstances to be sure, but I hope Hokedoes well because he seems like a good guy. I wish I could say the same for the people benefiting from our political amnesia. -Neill Mohammad can be reached at neilla@umich.edu. 6 6 6 TEDDY PAPES W Relative morality 6 Conservatives often counter the propos- als to legalize gay marriage with the "slip- pery slope" argument. I was listening to a Glenn Beck broadcast in which he warned that defining marriage between two consent- ing adults would open the door to incest and other deviant persuasions. Some may claim that these are different situations and that Republicans are scaremongering, but I would say that Glenn Beck has exactly the right idea. I hope that with the legalization of gay marriage, our other marriage taboos - spe- cifically our laws against incestuous marriage - will slide down the proverbial slope into humanity's closed-minded history. If you think gays shouldn't get married, you're probably not going to be convinced by this article. But if you tend to favor an expansion of our current marital parameters, I think some reflection is in order. The laws barring interracial marriage weren't over- turned until 1967, when 15 states still had laws against such a union. God did put differ- ent ethnicities on different continents, so do we really want to violate his grand plan? It's important that we step out of our contempo- rary societal (and religiops) constraints and reflect on our culture and history. Our goal should be to create a contemporary world that will not have a progeny that is embarrassed of its forebears. The logical step when we federally give gays the rights to marry must also extend the parameters to incestuous marriages. The argument that it is gross certainly has no bearing. Many people are bothered by homosexual relationships and consider them unnatural or depraved. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that should not give these opinions any legal credibility. Our sen- sibilities changed for interracial marriage, our sensibilities are changing for gay mar- riage and our sensibilities should, and most likely will, change for incestuous marriages. The best argument levied against incestu- ous marriages is its effect on children. The chance of genetic defects among the offspring of incestuous couples is increased because of an increased prevalence of recessive genes. If this is going to be the main argument, wouldn't it logically follow that we should ban couples that are known carriers for reces- sive genetic disorders? Ashkenazi Jews had a higher prevalence of Tay-Sachs than the general population. They underwent genetic screening to avoid having children who had Tay-Sachs, but if a couple both tested posi- tive, shouldn't they be barred from having children? Legalizing marriage in no way means legalizing procreation, and incestuous cou- ples could easily have children even if their cohabitation isn't legally recognized. As a form of compromise to those concerned with the children of incestuous marriages, the U.S. could arrive at a law that legalized incestu- ous marriage, but still barred incestuous procreation. The marriage law could require medical proof of a vasectomy or a tubal liga- tion. Incestuous couples simply cohabit with the marriage benefits that the U.S. extends to childless couples. What argument could people levy against people taking precaution- ary and socially responsible steps to ensure the prevention of children with birth defects, who want to receive marriage rights with the one they love? And if children truly are the main concern, then the legalization of same- sex incest and same-sex incestuous marriag- es circumvents any concerns for offspring because they obviously won't be having any children. Incest with minors is and should remain a crime, but its legality between consen- sual adults needs to be modified. Consen- sual incest between adults is legal in Rhode Island and New Jersey and is completely legal between consenting parties in France. In 25 U.S. states, marriage is legal between first cousins, while some have counseling mandates for cousins who want to get mar- ried. For example, Illinois allows cousins who are unable to reproduce or are 50 years or older to get married. These laws need to be expanded to all 50 states and need to apply to sibling and other more immediate family relationships. Cousins who want to get mar- ried are forced to travel to other states where it is allowed, much like homosexual couples of today. This may be a little hard to swallow, but whatever progressive logic we apply to homo- sexual matrimony needs to apply to other marginalized groups within the country. It may be complicated, but that doesn't mean we should wholeheartedly ban incestuous rela- tionships., Our easily offended sensibilities shouldn't create victims out of those whose love manifests itself in a form different than our own.p Teddy Papes is an LSA junior. EDITORIALBOARD MEMBERS: Aida Ali, Will Butler, Ellie Chessen, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Melanie Kruvelis, Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga, Teddy Papes, Timothy Rabb, Asa Smith, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner IMRAN SYED W The wrong choice for Senior Day 0 Each year, the University Law School has its own graduation ceremony on Senior Day, which takes place the week following the University-wide commence- ment. Senior Day is a much more intimate and personal event than the University's ceremony - understand- able because the graduating law school class is much smaller, and therefore everyone knows pretty much everyone else. The Law School announced the selection of this year's Senior Day speaker on Monday: It will be Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), an alumnus of the law school. Before being elected a senator, Portman served in the House of Representatives and in a couple different positions in the George W. Bush administration. The students who are aware of Portman's selec- tion are largely disappointed - highlighting his dubi- ous positions on civil rights issues most salient to the new generation of lawyers being minted on Senior Day. For example, the website On The Issues notes that Portman opposes affirmative action, voted to ban adoptions by gay people, opposes gays serving in the military and has even gone so far as to support a consti- tutional amendment barring gay marriage - a position considered somewhat extreme even within the Repub- lican Party. Some will say it's sad that the mere fact that Portman is a Republican makes him a controversial and unpopu- lar selection. Last year's Senior Day speaker was Val- erie Jarrett, advisor to President Barack Obama. And while she was also a politicized selection, the majority of students found her perfectly palatable. But Portman is not coming to the law school to speak on gay rights. So should it matter what his political positions are? Is the fact that he is a successful alumnus of our Law School and a person who can certainly impart some words of wisdom on us lawyers-to-be enough to over- look the rest? Actually, the problem is deeper than that, and tied mostly to Portman's views on civil rights for gay peo- ple. Our graduating class is among the first of a genera- tion that views equality based on sexual orientation as something more than an academic question on which people can agree to disagree. Rather, we have been raised in a slightly more enlightened world, and count amongst our friends and colleagues many gay people who continue to face discrimination that is abhorrent to the spirit of constitutional protections afforded to all people. There was a time when such discrimination was common, and acceptable. That time has passed: Equal rights in terms of sexual orientation have become the most salient social issue for our generation. While plenty of diversity of opinion remains in our class and generation, the vast majority of us who find Portman's views on civil rights tobe outright despicable cannot be expected to applaud him as an intellectually and pro- fessionally viable selection. Senior Day is different from most platforms a pub- lic university and law school may provide. While I'd generally commend the presentation of speakers with diverse opinions, Senior Day is not the time or place to present a man whose position on perhaps the most important social issue of our time is so person- ally offensive and egregious to the vast majority of the graduating class. We lawstudents are adults, and the vast majority of us are responsible, open-minded adults. We should and do know how to disagree about important things with- out being belligerent. Even if we strongly disagree with his political stances, we should be able to listen to Port- man, politely clap and move on. We should be able to do this, but we should not have to - not on our Senior Day. Senior Day is not supposed to be about politics. I have always been a strong believer that there is a time and place for political debate and disagreement, but by presenting Portman as speaker, the Law School has made Senior Day the appropriate time and place. I'd rather it wasn't this way. But it is equally crucial that we Law School students, who owe so much intellectual growth to our years at this amazing law school, exer- cise the rights and ideals that we have spent our lives learning about. Failing to speak our objection in light of the Law School's decision to give a platform to a man who advo- cates positions that are outright discriminatory toward many of our friends and colleagues is simply unbecom- ing: We who follow as proud Michigan Law alumni in the spirit and footsteps of giants of social justice like Clarence Darrow, Frank Murphy and Branch Rickey cannot make such a glaring omission. Imran Syed is a University Law School student. A i 6 6 6 6