4 - Friday, October 5, 2012
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
4- Friday, October 5, 2012 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom
C Mihigan al*j
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
TIMOTHY RABB
JOSEPH LICHTERMAN and ADRIENNE ROBERTS ANDREW WEINER
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
The windy state
Michigan should implement turbine farms
n Joyfield Township, Mich., plans to build wind turbines have been
met with a bizarre form of resistance. Amid concerns over poten-
tial noise and lowered property values, some residents of Joyfield
protested the turbines' construction by building heliports - small air-
ports just for helicopters - in their backyards. Because wind turbines
cannot be built near heliports, several people applied for permits to build
landing pads on their property. Though property owners have the right
to use their land as they wish, using a loophole to combat the construc-
tion of wind turbines is simply an abuse of the law. Citizens of Joyfield
and the rest of Michigan should consider the statewide benefits of wind
power and other forms of clean energy before exploiting regulations.
Romney's 'morals'
W ednesday night, Mitt
Romney played the mor-
als card. During the
debate, he stated
that the budget
deficit is not just
an economic
issue, but moral
as well. What
Romney was
referring to was
the supposed
moral violation JAMES
of borrowing BRENNAN
money that will
have to be paid
back by future generations. I think
most Americans would agree. It
really isn't OK for the federal govern-
ment to borrow trillions of dollars,
allowing for debt to accrue and pass-
ing the bill onto the next generation.
What I found most compelling about
this statement, however, was the use
of the term "moral."
We're not talking about far-right
religious morals. This morality is one
of simple right and wrong - mor-
als in their most basic sense. I find it
interesting that Romney would ref-
erence morality when talking about
deficit reduction, given his policies
and his choice of running mate.
"The Path to Prosperity," better
known as VicetPresidential nominee
Paul Ryan's budget proposal passed
by House Republicans, calls for mas-
sive cuts to Social Security, Medi-
care, Medicaid and Pell Grants. This
essentially amounts to balancing the
budget on the backs of the poor. In a
recent New York Times article, Lar-
kin Warren, a self-professed "former
welfare mom" told her story of get-
ting through four years of college by
heavily relying on government assis-
tance. She took out student loans,
accepted Pell Grants and used food
stamps. Her road was an arduous one,
but with perseverance, hard work
and a lot of help, she eventually grad-
uated and found gainful employment.
Romney's injection of morality
into the debate will likely go unno-
ticed, but it shouldn't. The plans
that he and his running mate have
put forward are, at best, of question-
able morality. Though Romney and
Ryan both preach "self-reliance" in
accordance with their religious mor-
als, they're largely dodging the ele-
phant in the room. Cutting welfare,
whether it's for students, the elderly,
children or just people down on their
luck, is horrifically immoral. People
need these programs, especially dur-
ing a period of economic crisis - not
just to advance in society, but to get
by day-to-day. If Romney wants to
talk morals, he needs to justify how
he can propose hurting the poor so
badly to balance the budget.
Yes, I realize that paying off
our federal debt would be a moral
achievement. The massive debt we
carry makes our country extremely
vulnerable, as well as weak in diplo-
matic relations. It would be good for
us to be debt-free, or at leastamini-
mally in debt. But we cannot allevi-
ate this problem on the backs of our
poor. The people in this country
who have the hardest lives already
shouldn't be asked to sacrifice even
more when there are other ways to
balance the budget.
As President Obama asserted,
the very wealthiest in America can
afford to pay a little more. I'm not
proposing we balance the budget
purely through increased taxes on
the rich - that isn't moral either.
Plus, it would staunch economic
growth. The facts, however, are
that the richest 1 percent of the
country own more than 40 percent
of the nation's wealth and pay his-
torically low tax rates. Everyone
needs to pay his or her fair share,
especially those who can afford a
little extra. By increasing taxes,
we can begin to cut down our defi-
cit while still providing essential
services to grow the economy.
I commend Romney for bringing
morals into the discussion - morals,
after all, are the basis of law. Rom-
ney's ideas on economic morals,
however, are just plain backward. If
I were President Obama, I'd be sure
to point that out at the next debate,
especially considering the sharp
contrast his economic policies pres-
ent. Romney was the clear winner
of Wednesday night's debate, but
he shouldn't have been. After tak-
ing such extreme positions during
the primary, not to mention a slew
of gaffes and Obama's campaign ads
- which have painted a less than
flattering picture of the former gov-
ernor - I was expecting Romney to
be left in the dust during the first
debate. President Obama, however,
faltered, while Romney pounded his
best talking points home.
The wealthiest
can afford to pay
a little bit more.
Here's a piece of advice for the
president: if he wants to win, he
should remind everyone that the
guy at the other podium wants to
decrease help for the poor. Then he
should ask the American people if
they'd consider someone willing to
do that to be "moral."
- James Brennan can be reached at
As Michigan begins to move to alternative
energy sources (as evidenced by the consid-
eration of Prop 3), citizens must inform them-
selves on the reality of current clean energy
methods. A lack of public knowledge of wind
farms is evident: only 12 percent of respondents
in a Michigan State University Land Policy
Institute survey reported agreement or strong
agreement when asked ifthey considered them-
selves well-informed on the topic. As green
technology improves, concerns regarding the
noise, safety and property value decline associ-
ated with wind energy are often put to rest.
According to Jim Cummings, the execu-
tive director of the Acoustic Ecology Institute,
improvements in turbine designs, including
adaptive controls that allow rotation speed to
be adjusted, have resulted in quieter turbines.
Other manufacturers have begun to incorpo-
rate a nighttime mode, which slows the tur-
bine's speed in order to reduce noise. Duke
Energy Renewables, the company that was
hired to install the turbines in Joyfield, main-
tains that noise is not a problem in modern
wind technology. Further research from the
U.S. Department of Energy suggests that prop-
erty values are not affected by the presence of
turbines, stating that neither the view of wind
turbines nor the distance of the home to such
facilities appear to have a statistically signifi-
cant impact on property value.
While residents should continue to research
and make informed decisions regarding clean
energy, energy companies and local govern-
ments that hire them must do a better job sur-
veying community interest in such projects. In
the case of Joyfield, where residents resorted to
building backyard helicopter pads to stop tur-
bine construction, it's clear that widespread
consent was not sought by contractors. Con-
ducting surveys before embarking on clean
energy initiatives would allow companies
and residents to determine what technology
best fits the community's needs. Public dis-
cussions on pros and cons of wind facilities
could also appropriately gauge interest and
further community knowledge on clean ener-
gy. Open dialogue is key to keeping contrac-
tors and citizens satisfied with community
development and its realities.
As the United States moves toward inde-
pendence from foreign oil, alternative sources
like wind energy are poised to supply power to
more American communities. It's imperative
that citizens continue to educate themselves
on improvements in the field, and express their
concerns in the public forum. Open communi-
cation between companies and the communities
they serve will ensure effective implementation
of fossil fuel's greener alternatives.
Deliberately disenfranchised'
JORDYN KAY|z
Lies and tall ta
First, a public service announcement:
"Hey black people, old people, poor
people and students! Guess what you
all have in common? Law-
makers are trying to fuck
you in your assholes!" says
Sarah Silverman about
new voter identification
laws in a video introduc-
ing a new initiative, "Let
My People Vote."n
On that note, let's talk
about voter registration. YONAH
In dozens of states, the LIEBERMAN
final day to register to vote
is during this coming week.
In the Michigan it's Tues-
day, Oct. 9. So all the hubbub about new voting
laws and getting people registered is about to
come to a head.
Of the 11 states that have passed strict voter
ID laws since 2005, 10 have been passed by
Republican-controlled legislatures. Their justi-
fication is to crack down on voter fraud. How-
ever, since 2000 there have been only 10 cases
of voter fraud nationally that would've been
prevented by these new laws.
Pennsylvania's state legislature passed a
voter ID law that's currently being challenged
in court. University of Washington political sci-
ence prof. Matt Barreto determined that more
than 1-million Pennsylvania voters - nearly
13 percent of registered voters in the state -
would be taken off the voter rolls for not hav-
ing the right voter ID. On top of that, this law
disproportionately affects black voters.Accord-
ing to a study by Azavea, a geospatial analysis
firm, voters in predominately black precincts
of Philadelphia are 85 percent more likely than
voters in predominately white precincts to lack
state-issued IDs.
New laws in Texas and Kentucky ensure
that students - who reliably vote Democratic -
cannot use their university IDs. But those same
laws allow gun owners - who reliably vote
Republican - to use firearm permits. This was
an explicitly political act.
Stepping back, across 23 states, up to 10 mil-
lion registered Latinos could be taken off voter
rolls, according to a study by the Advancement
Project, a civil rights activist group. This is
for a hodgepodge of reasons: strict photo IDs,
requirements to prove citizenship and purg-
ing the records of alleged non-citizens. Each is
more disgusting than the last.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has the
courage to call these laws out for what they are:
"We call those poll taxes," he said in Houston
on July 10. He was referring to the Jim Crow
laws, which systematically denied blacks in the
South the right to vote inthe early 1900s. Clear-
ly this is just a 21st century version.
On the contrary, the Obama campaign has
made it a priority to register voters. It has done
so by actively shaping its strategies to combat
the new restrictive laws and by seeking out
neighborhoods with historically low voter
turnout and registration. It's also created an
entire website, gottavote.org, devoted to giving
people state-specific information about how to
register and what they need at the polls.
This week, as you walked around campus,
you were probably repeatedly asked if you're
registered to vote - chances are those people
are with organizations trying to get Barack
Obama re-elected.
Provingthe Democrats' greater emphasis on
fair voter registration is as simple as compar-
ing one sentence from the leaders of each party.
From the Republicans: "Voter ID, which
is gonna allow Governor Romney to win
the state of Pennsylvania: done." said Mike
Turzai, Pennsylvania State House majority
leader, after listing a number of legislative
victories for the Republicans.
From the Democrats: "What I want is for
people to vote. And yes, of course we want
people to vote for the President. But that's not
what voter protection is about ... A victory is
when people are casting their ballots." said
Courtney Wheeler, national voter protection
coordinator for Obama for America.
The bottom line is this: While one party is
doing all it can to make it harder for U.S. citi-
zens to vote, the other is pulling out all the stops
to register new voters and keep existing ones on
voter rolls.
Let me be clear. I'm not angry at all people
who identify as Republican and I don't dis-
agree with all ideologies commonly associ-
ated with that party. What I struggle with is
a campaign strategy aimed at undermining
our fundamental ability to participate in the
democratic process.
Voter registration strategy is possibly the
starkest contrast here between Democrats and
Republicans. The future of Americans' basic
right to vote is at stake in November.
To me, the choice is clear.
- Yonah Lieberman can be
reached at yonahl@umich.edu.
Wednesday night, about 40-mil-
lion people tuned in to watch
President Barack Obama and
Republican presidential nomi-
nee Mitt Romney duke it out in
the first presidential debate of
the 2012 election. These viewers
watched and listened as Romney
and Obama went back and forth
about their plans for America and
what the future would hold for the
country if they were elected presi-
dent. Obama continually talked
about Romney's supposed plan for
a $5-trillion tax cut, and Romney
responded with accusations that
the president plans on increas-
ing taxes. They argued over what
the government's role should be
in health care and big business
regulation. Numbers and dollar
amounts were being thrown out
left and right by both candidates,
such as Romney claiming Obama's
$716-billion Medicare cut, or
Obama claiming that approximate-
ly 5-million jobs have been created
since he took office. But how many
of these numbers are accurate -
how much of what the candidates
are saying is actually true?
In last night debate were numer-
ous accusations that didn't hold up
after careful investigation. Now,
the only reason I'm aware of this
is because I've been following poli-
tics and the election, and because I
tuned in after the debate on CNN
to watch an analysis and fact-
checking discussion. One claim put
forth by Romney was that there are
23-million people outof work. Upon
further research, it was discovered
that this number isn't completely
correct. According to a fact check
by the Chicago Tribune, Romney
would've had to add together the
number of unemployed people, the
number of people who're employed
part-time but want to work full-
time and people who've completely
stopped looking for jobs. Accord-
ing to a breakdown by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics in August, the
number of officially unemployed
people is 12.5 million - this is also
where we get our figure of 8.1 per-
cent unemployment among eligible
workers.
In order for Romney's claim to
be accurate, he needed to say it
was the number of unemployed
or underemployed, an extreme-
ly misleading omission. Also,
Romney's claim that $716 billion
would be cut from Medicare as a
result of the Affordable Care Act
is false, according to a fact check
by USA Today. Romney's claim
that he wouldn't cut taxes for
the wealthy also turned out to be
inaccurate. And according to USA
Today and Chicago Tribune's fact
checks, Obamacare hasn't actually
reduced costs in health insurance
yet.
So what do viewers of the debate
walk away with when so many of the
things the candidates claim about
themselves, their opponent and
their plans seem to be untrue? Well,
for people who follow the election,
des
keep up with politics, make sure
to get all the information and tune
into the fact checking, maybe they
walk away with a mostly factual
view of what's going on. However,
for the people who tuned into the
debate with little prior knowledge
of the political process, where the
candidates stand and what they've
done, they walk away with an inac-
curate and falsified view of the can-
didates and their claims.
After the debate, a poll from
CBS News revealed that support
for Romney from undecided vot-
ers increased by 12 points, though
other estimates are lower. During
the debate, Romney shied away
from his harsh, conservative view,
which he has been running his
entire campaign on, and adopted
a more centrist attitude. However,
for those who know nothing about
Romney's campaign thus far, this
could result in completely inac-
curate views of his policies, which
have become more and more con-
servative. This affects the polls and
could ultimately affect who wins
the election.
The presidential debate is a dan-
gerous thing for the uninformed.
The sheer number of lies can have
detrimental effects on people who
don't know enough about the elec-
tion and are using the debate as
their ultimate source of informa-
tion about the candidates, policies
that don't align with their own.
Jordyn Kay is an LSA sophomore.
FOLLOW DAILY OPINION ON TWITTER FOR UP-TO-DATE ELECTION COMMENTARY
Keep up with columnists, read Daily editorials, view cartoons and join in the debate.
Check out @michdailyoped to get updates on Daily opinion content throughout the day.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
0
Kaan Avdan, Sharik Bashir, Eli Cahan, Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein, Melanie Kruvelis,
Patrick Maillet, Harsha Nahata, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts,
Vanessa Rychlinski, Sarah Skaluba, Michael Spaeth, Gus Turner
At