4A -Wednesday, September "21, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 4A -ednsday Setembr 2, 201 Te Mchign Dily mihigadaiyco Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 - Ptothedaily@michigandaily.com SUMMER KRINSKY E-MAIL SUMMER AT SKRINSKY@UMICH.EDU. SUMMER KRINSKY E-MAIL SUMMERAT SKRINSKY@UMICH.EDU. Who wants a ^ piece of us? That's right, we're nationally ranked. Welcome to the Big House. \i \ STEPHANIE STEINBERG EDITOR IN CHIEF MICHELLE DEWITT and EMILY ORLEY EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS NICK SPAR 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. F ROM T HE DAILY Shape up, Michigan, Gov. Snyder's health care plan shows promise Michigan was named the 10th-most obese state in the nation in July. In light of this staggering ranking and other alarming health statistics, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder unveiled a health care plan that aims to promote overall wellness for Michigan citizens. Flexing conservative muscle 6 The obesity rate in Michigan are among the highest in the nation - almost 70 per- cent of the state's residents are overweight or obese - and this number has steadily risen for the past 15 years. But Snyder is taking realistic action to combat this statistic. His plan includes providing healthier cafeteria choices to schoolchildren, improving exer- cise programs and keeping track of cases of childhood obesity by putting the data into a state registry. A primary aspect of the proposal is the plan to require pediatricians to report their patients' body mass indices. While monitor- ing children's BMI may seem invasive, the practice should ultimately prove beneficial. Based on their BMI, 12.4 percent of children in the state are considered obese and obtain- ing information to track obesity data can help communities form comprehensive plans to combat childhood health issues. Efforts like providing healthy, affordable school lunches and ensuring children see a doctor regularly will help Michigan children develop positive habits for the future. Another aspect of Snyder's proposal is to ban smoking on beaches- a measure compa- rable tothe University smoking ban that went into effect in July. Smoking poses widely known health risks, and health care modifi- cations should promote statewide education and assistance in curtailing these risks. But the decision whether or not to smoke should ultimately reside in the hands of individual citizens, not the government. In addition to attempting to curtail smok- ing, his "4x4" plan emphasizes the impor- tance of a balanced diet, regular exercise and yearly physicals. These efforts are appropri- ate and beneficial because they promote well- ness while simultaneously allowing residents to make positive choices for themselves. Snyder's plan also seeks to combat autism in children. Believing that those with the dis- order are best treated early in development, Snyder proposed to help families with autis- tic children by providing them with better health coverage aswell as treatment options. In his statement, he explained that Michigan is one of the worst states to raise an autistic child. Improvements in care for young chil- dren are important in combating autism. The proposal also called for a new meth- od for health insurance in the state - the MIHealth Marketplace. With an unofficial start date of Jan. 2014, the plan would cover upwards of 500,000 Michigan citizens and be overseen by a nonprofit firm. Unlike many conservative governors who are fighting President Barack Obama's health care ini- tiative, Snyder is showing bipartisanship by developing an insurance program that is in line with the federal government's plan. Many alterations in Snyder's health care reform plan are common sense. The state should get behind the changes and show a commitment to improvements in the overall health and wellness of Michigan's citizens. f you've everhappenedtowatch a professional ~ bodybuilding competition, you might agree. with this assess- ment: The con- testants don't look human with their bulg- ing muscles and grossly-propor- tioned bodies. You might ques- tion whether DARWEI engaging in CHEN such an activ- ity is healthy, as bodybuilding requires insane diet- ing, extreme training regimens, unhealthy steroid use and other unnatural behaviors. I'm not even sure if most bodybuilders would be able to perform basic athletic acts like running an eighth of a mile. The point here is that bodybuilding is almost functionally useless and serves only to fulfill a misguided notion about the "ideal" man. So how is bodybuilding compa- rable to the current Republican field of presidential candidates, and what can it tell us about the upcoming pri- mary seasontA striking similarity is the extent to which both are extreme and ideological. When bodybuilders traintheytake an activitythatmany people do to some extent (working out and getting in shape) and carry it out to absurd extremes - conse- quences be damned. Sounds like the GOP. Many around this country consider them- selves to be politically conservative, and nothing is wrong with that. However, being moderately conser- vative is not enough to run for pres- ident in today's Republican Party. The modern Republican Party has an unspoken conservative purity test that every candidate must pass. One of the criteria on this test is being anti-science, presumably because scientists are liberal elit- ists. Top-tier candidates, Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann have unequivocally denied the sci- ence of climate change, which is a message that runs counter to the opinions of every major scientific body of national and international standing. Former Gov. Mitt Romney has been slightly more accepting of the science, but not by much. The only GOP candidate to embrace cli- mate science is Gov. Jon Huntsman, who has actuallycalledoutthe other candidates for being anti-science. However, his position on science is very unpopular and the criticism he has received for it as well as his poll, numbers indicate as much. In terms of evolutionary theory, the situation is similar, as Huntsman is the only major candidate to openly accept evolution. And just like in bodybuilding competitions where the most mus- cular contestant is rewarded with the grand prize, the GOP candidates who exemplify the most extreme forms of conservatism are rewarded with public support. In the Fox News debate held this summer, all eight contenders onstage raised their hands when asked whether they would reject a deal that contained $10 of spending cuts for every dollar of revenue increases. Of course, the audience applauded enthusiastically as this scene unfolded. For refer- ence, former president and conser- vative saint Ronald Reagan accepted a deal with a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases. Why do these candidates show such deference to the politics of the far-right wing if the views are so extreme? The answer is simple: The candidate, by taking these absurd stances, shows thathe or she is ideo- logically pure. In bodybuilding, the competitors chase the "ideal" bodys in the modern GOP, candidates want to be the "ideal" conservative. How- ever, we know that in both cases, these notions. of what is ideal are very wrongbecause extreme conser- vatism (like professional bodybuild- ing) is unhealthy. But in today's GOP, the farther right you are, the more ideal you are. For example, let's look at the MSNBC Republican debate held a couple of weeks ago, where the audience cheered when moderator Brian Williams talked about Rick Perry's record-breaking execution record as governor of Texas. Fur- thermore, the audience applauded when Perry denied ever struggling with the possible innocence of any of the executed. I don't think I am being unreasonable when I say that most people would rather not live in a country where the death penalty is recklessly and unapolo- getically applied. How about last week's debate sponsored by the Tea Party and CNN, where the audience apparently agreed with the idea that uninsured patients should be left to die if they have life-threatening illnesses, and Ron Paul insinuated that churches should be responsible for the uninsured, not government. These views are literally unhealthy. S GOP should stop being extreme and ideological. The current Republican candi- dates do not seem to understand the consequences of their stances and, more disturbingly, they do not seem to care. For them, the ideal image is being ideologically and purely conservative, regardless of wheth- er governing the country in such a way is functional. But in the sport of governing, the country needs an athlete, not a bodybuilder. Let's hope for some reasonable options from the GOP. -Dar-Wei Chen can be reached at chendw@umich.edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Aida Ali, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Teddy Papes, Timothy Rabb, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner PATRICK MAILLET T Reignite political passion Regulate gases, regulate health During one of my classes last week, my pro- fessor decided to take a quick poll. The ques- tion he asked was whether you A) approved of President Barack Obama's performance thus far as president B) disapproved of Obama's performance thus far as president or C) did not care. The response was that 26 percent of the class approved of Obama's performance thus far, 34 percent disapproved and 40 percent did not care. The problem isn't the fact that more kids disapproved than approved of Obama's job - it's that 40 percent simply didn't care enough to express an opinion. Normally this breakdown would not be that odd consideringthattheAmericanyouth rare- ly devotes much attention to politics. How- ever, this poll was taken in a Ford School of Public Policy class - a class in which students are almost unanimously interested in politics and government. Also, let us not forget that we go to the University of Michigan - one of the more liberal and politically affluent public universities in the country. So here isthe prob- lem: If young people in a public policy course at the University of Michigan do not care about what the president has or has not done, then who does? During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama was able to harness the youth vote bet- ter than any candidate in recent American his- tory. His undeniably exceptional oratory skills captured young audiences across America, and students organized in record numbers to support him. On his platform of "hope" and "change," Obama was ableto convince my gen- eration that he represented an alternative to the status quo. And sure enough, we believed him. According to Civicyouth.org, an organi- zation that promotes raising youth voter turn- out, 51 percent of people ages 18 to 29 voted in the 2008 election, which is the highest voter turnout for this demographic since 1972. Fur- thermore, 66 percent of these young people voted for Obama and volunteered more exten- sively than any other age group. These young people not only gave Obama their vote, but many of them worked painstakingly to lobby other people to do the same. It's almost impos- sible for one to deny the colossal effect that young Americans had on securing Obama's 2008 election victory. Unfortunately, times haven't changed. We're still at war with Afghanistan and Iraq, Guantanamo Bay is still open and tuition pric- es have only continued their ridiculous climb. These issues, among many others, are the rea- sons young people have given up on American politics. This compounded by the seemingly daily fiasco of watching our politicians stub- bornly refuse to work together has turned so many people in my generation away from politics. Many people believed Obama would represent a new era in modern politics. More specifically, young people supported Obama because they believed he was the first major presidential candidate that actually under- stood and cared about the problems of Ameri- ca's youth. Sadly, the "hope" and "change" we were promised simply wasn't as drastic as we would have liked. The worst part about this is that it's not entirely Obama's fault. In reality, it's ours. Obama has made some fantastic strides during his time as president. Allowing kids to stay on their parent's health insurance until age 26, reforming credit card law and hunting down Osama bin Laden all benefited Obama's young voters terrifically. However, to put it bluntly, we were promised more. Many of the young people who supported Obama expected everything to be fixed after he was elected. After all, we were promised 5 million green jobs, an effective health care system and financial reform that benefit those who need it, not those who need another yacht. Call it naivete, call it just plain stupid, but unfortu- nately we set our sights way too high. The mesmerizing and electric 2008 presi- dential campaign simply cannot be recre- ated for the 2012 election. These young voters aren't going to vote for the Republican nomi- nee. They just aren't going to vote at all. And that is where the problem lies. Obama, in order for you to be re-elected in 2012, you must reig- nite the passion within America's youth, and unfortunately, this might just be impossible. Patrick Maillet is an LSA sophomore. Revisions to the Clean Air Act were again delayed ear- lier this month. For those of you who may be a little rusty . on Environmen- tal Protection Agency guide- lines, the Clean Air Act, intro- JOE duced in the SUGIYAMA 1970s,isdesigned to reduce the amount of pol- lutants - known to have adverse effects on humans - from being released into the atmosphere. Much like the Safe Drinking Water Act - whichisn't just a clever name - the CAA is designed to protect the over- all health of Americans. The CAA is a success story of the EPA, and our country is bet- ter for it. But with any regulation, the name of the game is adapt or die. That's why in 2009, the EPA was given the go-ahead to regu- late greenhouse gases (GHGs) after years of research indicated that the six gases - including carbon dioxide - are detriments to human health as well as the environment. After the controversial ruling to regulate greenhouse gases, I thought the EPA would have a great deal of power to tweak the CAA to provide a healthier environment for Americans and rule the air with a zero-emissions fist. Not so. Ear- lier this month, stricter regulations on acceptable levels of smog in the atmosphere, and the execution of regulating GHGs were delayed for the second time in three months. If you're sitting there thinking that I'm just another hippy, who only stops hugging trees long enough to spew out some global warming non- sense, hear me out, These stricter guidelines would reduce acceptable amounts of smog in the atmosphere from 75 parts per billion to some- where between 60 and 70 ppb. These new rules are the result of years of scientific investigation of the effects of smog on humans. Experts have estimated that this reduction would prevent nearly 2,200 heart attacks and 8,400 emergency room visits in the next eight years. It isn't the trees that the EPA is trying to save, it's the lives of thousands of Americans. The steps taken to improve the quality oflife aren'tsolely because of the EPA. A Sep. 15 blog post by the New York Times explains that the U.S. Supreme Court has mandated the regulation of emissions to be "a threatto human health and the envi- ronment." The EPA has provided proof that the current acceptable levels of smog and GHG under the CAA are just that. The backlash of increasing these regulation levels. comes from the expected industrial parties who argue the new regulations will cost them money they don't have. And, though EPA officials have said the delay is a result of "agency consider- ations and not by political pressure from the White House," it's apparent that this isn't the case. President iBarack Obama is a for- ward-thinking man when it comes to decisions that could jeopardize his re-election in 2012. Sen. James Inhofe (Ok.-R) seems certain, according to a press release, that the price of these new regulations could "cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs, [as well as costing] President Obamahis own job, and he knows it all too well." On the flip side of this are experts who argue the lack of regulations are more costly to Americans than the actual employment of these guide- lines. Mark Jacobson, a greenhouse gas expert at Stanford University, told the Huffington Post that "the EPA is well aware that controlling air pollutionhas abenefit-to-costratioof about four to one" due to the health care expenses of hospitalvisits. These academic endorsements on the new regulations are to be expect- ed with as much certainty as indus- trial companies' opposition on the matter. We've come to an impasse- one that certainly won't be resolved until after the 2012 election. Act needs to provide cleaner air for Americans. 0 Though it's clear thattaking away a person's job is the quickest way to create a straight Republican ticket, Obama should have a little more pride when it comes to following up on promises. I can't even begin to imagine the pressures of running for office, and I'm not so naive that I turn everything a president says into gospel. But I do sense a certain trend of actionsby the current administra- tion. Think big. Act small. These new regulations will undoubtedly create a healthier environment and save lives. The research and plans for implemen- tation are there, yet the courage to stand behind an unpopular decision is not. If every president's decisions came down to a popularity con- test, Obama would certainly not be in office. Though the CAA is a far cry from emancipation, they both require courage by our country's leader. Courage that I hope is dis- played soon. Joe Sugiyama can be reached at jmsugi@umich.edu. '" 4