I
4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, May 30, 2006
UWj £idgwn &Iitu
FROM THE DAILY
Inadequecy vs. lunacy
Solution to energy crisis requires lifestyle changes
JEREMY DAVIDSON
Editor in Chief
IMRAN SYED
Editorial Page Editor
JEFFREY BLOOMER
Managing Editor
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890.
420 MAYNARD STREET
ANN ARBOR, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other
signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their author.
Editorial Board Members: Amanda Andrade, Emily Beam,
Jared Goldberg, Theresa Kennelly, Christopher Zbrozek
FROM THE DAILY
CSI: W-ashi-ngto
Coverups have no place in a democracy
After a year of record-setting gas
prices, oil companies have earned
record-setting profits. In response,
Gov. Jennifer Granholm - hoping to send
the right message to such companies and vot-
ers alike - submitted an online petition last
week to President Bush, urging, among other
things, a profit cap and a repeal of the tax cuts
that have mostly benefited the wealthy.
But while it is well intentioned and a step
in the right direction, Granholm's petition
will not be successful in helping most driv-
ers' top concern: lowering the price of gas.
Even so, her efforts were not made in vain.
In the absence of an external force such as
a natural disaster to drive oil prices up, the
apparent avarice of oil executives - for-
mer ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond's $98
million retirement package comes to mind
- has made many Michiganians angry,
and rightfully so. A tax on oil profits will
bring some much-needed revenue, but with-
out attacking the real causes of rising gas
prices rooted in our addiction to oil, it will
fall short of its intention.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick
DeVos's energy plan, on the other hand, can
only be described as foolish. DeVos, who
believes that taxing oil profits will stifle invest-
ment, wants to eliminate the sales tax on gaso-
line. This plan would only save the consumer
$0.06 for every dollar that the price of gas
increases above $195. However, the amount
of revenue the state would lose as a result is
a whopping $285 million. Without a plan to
make up the difference, key funds like those
for school aid, local government sharing funds
and the state general fund may fall short.
There are better ways to knock gas prices
down and to lower our dependency on oil.
Making fuel-efficient cars more readily
available is a good first step, as is focusing
more resources on alterative fuels like etha-
nol. Consumers should also be encouraged
to drive less, participate in carpools and car
sharing when possible or use mass transit
systems, such as subways, elevated trains
and buses. (Of course, such mass transit
systems must first be built.) Less people on
the road will cause the demand for gas to
decrease, and thus drive down prices.
Even with allthese changes,we canno lon-
ger overlook the fact that it is time to reeval-
uate our ingrained perceptions of where and
when to drive. As suburbs move farther and
farther away from centers of employment,
Americans find themselves commuting up
to two hours each way for work. Given the
skyrocketing price of gas and dangerous
increases in greenhouse emissions, we must
accept that the era of one person driving a
seven-seat SUV 50 or 60 miles to and from
work is over. This solution will take more
time and effort than others, but it is the only
one that will prove viable in the long run.
Gov. Granholm's proposals reflect the
outrage of the ever-increasing price of gas
coupled with record profits by oil compa-
nies. But simply increasing taxes (or fool-
ishly decreasing them, as DeVos would do)
will not counter the threats we face in the
long run. What we need is a cure, and we
cannot back down if, like all life-saving
medication, it is a little hard to swallow.
A government that is willing to
violate its own laws to spy on its
citizens is worrisome enough.
But one that refuses to allow
investigations into whether its actions have
broken the law is even more dangerous.
In a number of recent actions, the Bush
administration has sought to shut down
inquiries into whether the National Secu-
rity Agency's spy programs have violated
civil-liberty protections. Such contempt for
investigation is simply unacceptable in a
society based on the rule of law.
When reports surfaced last December that
the NSA had been listening in on the inter-
national phone calls of Americans without
a warrant, the Justice Department tried to
investigate whether the lawyers who had
reviewed the program acted appropriately.
The Office of Professional Responsibility,
the Justice Department's ethics office, sought
security clearances in January to review the
classified NSA program. Earlier this month,
it found out that its investigators had been
denied security clearance, a decision its
director described as "hard to believe." With-
out any way to access information, the office
was forced to drop its investigation.
The secrecy surrounding the NSA pro-
gram has suffocated other investigations.
After USA Today reported that the NSA
had obtained the phone records of tens
of millions of Americans, members of
Congress requested the Federal Commu-
nication Commission to investigate; the
NSA's program, after all, is ostensibly a
violation of federal telecommunications
laws. Yet the FCC announced last week it
would not investigate the matter, citing the
difficulty of obtaining information about
the classified program. National security
concerns may also ultimately lead to the
dismissal of class-action lawsuits brought
against phone companies alleging that
they violated their customers' privacy by
cooperating with the NSA.
Indeed, the Bush administration has
greatly increased the use of the so-called
"state secrets privilege," a legal mecha-
nism to encourage the dismissal of cases
that might reveal information critical to
national security. It used the state secret
privilege successfully this month to ensure
the dismissal of a case brought by Khaled
el-Masri, a German citizen who was
apparently kidnapped in Macedonia by
the Central Intelligence Agency through
its "extraordinary rendition" program. El-
Masri was held at a secret CIA prison in
Afghanistan for five months before the
government realized they had the wrong
guy. This month, the administration again
asserted the state secret privilege on behalf
of AT&T, which is being sued over allega-
tions that it has allowed the NSA to con-
struct secret computer rooms at its facilities
to spy on phone and internet traffic.
National security reasons do, in rare cir-
cumstances, have the right to prevent the
prosecution of claims against it in open court.
Yet a drive for secrecy cannot legitimize a
wholesale refusal to allow investigations.
The state secrets privilege was used about 55
times through the entire Cold War up until
2001. In the first four years since Sept. 11, the
Bush administration has used it at least 23
times. And the fear that state secrets would
be revealed in open court, of course, has no
bearing on the refusal to grant security clear-
ances to DOJ and FCC investigators.
There are ample means - from internal
investigations and closed sessions of the
Congressional intelligence committees to
secret intelligence courts - to balance a
legitimate need for secrecy with the abso-
lute requirement that a nation governed by
laws allow investigations when laws may
have been broken. This administration,
however, is far too fond of secrecy, and far
too ready to stifle investigations.
In the past, claims of "national security"
were used to justify gross abuses by intelli-
gence agencies such as opening mailofprivate
citizens and members of Congress, and even
CIA tests of drugs such as LSD on unsuspect-
ing citizens. These agencies were only able to
act with such disregard for the rights of those
they were sworn to protect because of an
abiding and pervasive lack of will to oversee
anything said to concern national security.
As people who value freedom, Americans
shouldn't stand for a government that will
shut down any investigation into the excesses
of its national security apparatus.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Columnist doesn't understand
Wal-Mart's destructive power
To THE DAILY:
Unfortunately, Wal-Mart is not the out-
standing corporate leader John Stiglich
wants us to believe (Walmart: poverty war-
rior, 05/22/2006). To claim it provides ade-
quate healthcare and helps local economies
is a misjudgment.
Let's look at the facts. Sources at www.
walmartwatch.com indicate that fewer than
half of Wal-Mart's employees are covered
by its insurance plans - which are packed
with hidden fees. This leaves the remaining
600,000 employees to rely on public health
assistance, paid for by taxes. Essentially,
you and I are paying for our local Wal-Mart
to stay in business.
Meanwhile, local economies are devas-
tated when new Wal-Marts open. An aver-
age of two local supermarkets will close
T nZ Tr r-- 1 D =
with each new Wal-Mart, not to mention the
effect on hardware stores, automotive shops,
clothing retailers and pharmacies. Also,
local businesses spend much more within
their neighborhood than the outsourcing
giant Wal-Mart. While no one asks retail-
ers for higher prices, we must consider the
full picture of what Wal-Mart is doing to our
country. If we value capitalism, shouldn't
diversity in the marketplace be one of the
defining features we agree to protect?
Finally, I question if a distribution plant
in Somerset, Md. would have really helped
poverty in that area. Consider that Wal-
Mart's average employee makes $1,000
below the poverty line if he has a family of
three. Wal-Mart's record of violating envi-
ronmental laws and discriminating against
women and minorities probably wouldn't
end in Somerset either.
I don't shop at Wal-Mart because its poor
quality goods and services are something
See LETTERS, Page 5
JON OQUIST
'HIS SMALL, BLURRY,
oo srss s ssr
UZZY, PREY OBJET MUS $0YOaS rEEt, CA stLAETRUCK
t LIGHT11 Tst WOLITRAtDEllR
80 501'UFFTHE PENTAD
AND ANEDINSA tIE I
PES55 nMM1.0U5 FlOS
a, 3A 1 NA ILDI