Opinion

JENNIFER CALFAS

EDITOR IN CHIEF

AARICA MARSH 

and DEREK WOLFE 

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LEV FACHER

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

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.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, January 16, 2015

T

he New Year has just rolled 
in. Full of promise, 2015 
is said to actually be the 

year of change. 
Resolutions have 
been set, wheth-
er 
thoughtfully 

planned 
out 
or 

drunkenly thrown 
together at 11:53 
p.m. on New Year’s 
Eve. We strive to 
start out the New 
Year with goals 
that 
will 
make 

us better people, 
healthier people and happier people. 
But come a month later, do they even 
stick? What kinds of resolutions 
have been made, and what kind of 
success can be foretold by the nature 
of the resolution? If it is vague, say, 
“be a happier person,” is it more like-
ly to fail? If it is specific, say, “eat a 
salad for dinner three times a week,” 
is it more likely to succeed?

I believe we make resolutions 

because we appreciate a fresh start, 
a way to say that what we have done 
in the past is just that: in the past. 
Jan. 1 is a way to have the past year 
forgive us and the New Year give 
us a chance. We want to show that 
we have the ability to make these 
promises and keep them; that we 
can commit and succeed at these 
personal tasks. Do we feel guilty if 

we start to falter in our resolutions 
by February? What about July?

I began with myself, for how will 

I best understand others’ resolu-
tions if I cannot identify some for 
my own well-being? My goals: lose 
15 pounds, keep my desk clean, 
shrug off the little stuff. Three 
supposedly simple goals, but I will 
see how the next few months pan 
out. I have learned through many 
failed resolutions that I need more 
tangible and simple goals. A list of 
three is much easier for me to man-
age with a busy lifestyle. Having an 
extensive reason also helps to solid-
ify the resolutions, making them 
more pertinent to your life, a better 
reason of “why I need this,” rather 
than “just because.” Losing weight 
is specifically geared to certain jobs 
for which I am applying, the desk is 
so I have a clean workspace and will 
be encouraged to avoid procrasti-
nation, and shrugging off the little 
stuff is to keep my mind focused on 
the important aspects of my life. By 
having reasons, we are able to con-
tinue with our resolutions because 
they have meaning in our lives, 
whether they are a goal down the 
road or a day-to-day task.

Sometimes we need help, and we 

should not be afraid to seek it. At the 
beginning of the New Year, we look 
for ways to best complete our goals 
with helpful hints from BuzzFeed 

articles, using our friends to encour-
age each other, looking at others’ 
habits and setting reminders on 
phones and computers. I know this 
works for me: my roommate’s desk 
is spotless and I would like it to 
look like hers. My friend and I will 
drag each other to the gym and do 
workouts together. It is much more 
successful when you are able to 
combine resolutions, providing a 
lower chance of failure when two 
bodies are pushing for the same 
goal. But many of our mental reso-
lutions are personal, where we need 
to think to ourselves about how we 
manage situations and how we can 
change our mentalities.

According to Stephen Covey, 

author of the book “7 Habits of 
Highly Effective People,” it takes 30 
days for a habit to become solidified, 
whether it be forming a new one or 
breaking an old one. If we go by what 
Covey says, then the month of Janu-
ary is the most crucial. We need to be 
more active in remembering our res-
olutions so that they will, hopefully, 
become part of our routine: forming 
good habits, breaking bad habits and 
keeping the resolutions that we said 
we would. And just think, maybe 
keeping your resolutions can be a 
resolution. Good luck!

 — Sara Shamaskin can be 

reached at scsham@umich.edu.

New Year, New Me

Edvinas Berzanskis, Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Devin Eggert, 

David Harris, Rachel John, Jordyn Kay, Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, 

Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, Matthew Seligman, Linh Vu, Mary 

Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

T

he podcast revolution is upon us, and 
at its forefront is “Serial” — a spin-
off of “This American Life.” Dictated 

by Sarah Koenig, “Serial” 
investigates the 1999 murder 
of Korean-American high 
school student Hae Min Lee. 
However, what at first seems 
to be a reporting endeavor 
quickly becomes the process 
of garnering an acquittal 
for Adnan Syed, the ex-boy-
friend of Lee who was con-
victed of her murder. He has 
maintained his innocence 
for 15 years. 

Koenig’s voice began to feel like a compan-

ion of mine — accompanying me along long car 
rides, walking me to class, annoying me with 
her repetitive claims. Her obsession is ground-
ed in the need to truly uncover what happened 
on Jan. 13, the day of Lee’s killing. The spin 
is that, unlike very hard journalism, Koenig 
manifests the desire to prove Adnan Syed’s 
innocence, given that the only real evidence 
connecting him to the crime is the very shaky 
witness testimony of one Jay Wilds. 

Koenig approaches inconsistencies in events, 

the sheer lack of physical evidence linking 
Adnan to the murder and a drive to uncover the 
truth in an honest tone — one reminiscent of 
something you might hear in “This American 
Life” or “Radiolab.” But different than these 
other podcasts which, in some cases, divulge 
almost too much information about their sub-
jects in one episode, “Serial” focuses on the 
same people, on the same story, with new inter-
spersed information for 12 episodes. There is 
a ton of information shared about the victim, 
Hae, the supposed perpetrator, Adnan, and 
their respective families, friends and lives.

It’s easy to say that this podcast was pro-

duced in the name of journalism — that is to say, 
in the name of uncovering the truth. However, 
the element remains that this podcast was also 
produced in the name of entertainment. Crime 
investigation stories are so popular because 
crime is so sexy. The haunting nature of mur-
der is alluring in that, when talked about over 
a podcast, one can be distanced from the actual 
act of it. But if the whole consumer base is so 
invested in “Serial” because of its entertain-
ment purposes, how is it ethical? Given the 
incredible rarity of appealing and overturning a 
conviction, do people really think that Adnan’s 
case will conveniently be overturned by the 
end of the 12th episode? And further, when any 
white woman enters a scene and picks apart 
the relations between two kids with immigrant 
parents — a Korean-American girl and a Mus-
lim boy of Pakistani descent — there is bound 
to be a component of white saviorism buried 
within the story.

There is a point midway through the season, 

during episode six, when Koenig unknowingly 
illustrates a motive she might not be conscious-
ly aware of: her desire to play heroine to Adnan. 
During this episode, Adnan asks Koenig over 
the phone, “Why are you doing this?” To which 
she replies, “My interest in it has honestly been 
you. Like, you’re a really nice guy.” His response 
to that is surprising to Koenig — he claims that 
she doesn’t really know him at all. She’s com-
pletely taken aback by this, and in her com-
mentary, she calls his remark almost hostile. 
His honesty is considered to be hostile when it 

doesn’t congratulate her. 

While disturbed by Koenig’s interpretation 

of Adnan’s feelings, I also saw a lot of myself in 
her. Over two years ago, I began volunteering 
in prisons through the Prison Creative Arts 
Project, facilitating creative arts workshops 
for male prisoners. My first workshop, a the-
ater class, took place at the Michigan Reforma-
tory in Ionia, Michigan For two hours a week, 
my partner and I introduced 10 men to the-
ater. I loved being there, providing a space for 
their creative expression, but during my first 
workshop I also felt myself loving my place in 
the situation. They’d share stories about their 
lives, and in doing so, I felt that I knew them 
— from head to toe. This was not the case. It 
took a downturn of events and experience in 
another prison facility to understand that this 
work was not intended to assuage me, and that 
being in a creative space with someone for two 
hours a week did not mean I knew their story 
in its entirety. 

Koenig’s feelings are human ones. It’s even a 

little refreshing to see her playing the heroine 
and simultaneously expressing an overabun-
dance of doubt. And perhaps part of the point of 
“Serial” is to show this raw side to investigative 
journalism. But in doing so, it becomes unfair 
to Adnan. It’s a two-faced approach in which 
Koenig is willing to be the savior, but in real-
ity is questioning whether or not Adnan should 
even be saved. 

About a month ago, when “Serial” was still 

the number one buzzword, two individuals 
asked me separately, “Have you listened to 
‘Serial?’ You know the part with the Inno-
cence Project? That’s what I want to do!” 
For people who had never before expressed 
interest in helping the incarcerated, or get-
ting wrong convictions overturned, this was 
shocking to me. Listening to a podcast had 
actually formulated the desire to help the 
imprisoned. Naturally, since I am working 
with the incarcerated myself, I questioned 
their motives. But the truth is, if “Serial” 
can safely introduce people to a prisoner, 
Adnan, and show them how human he is, 
then maybe it’s accomplishing a lot more 
than entertainment.

There are real ethical issues to “Serial.” 

Koenig, although sensitively, reveals anec-
dotes, diary entries and family issues of Hae’s 
that morph her into a storyline, rather than a 
dead girl whose black hair was found peeking 
out of a shallow grave. Adnan, who’s been in 
prison since 1999, is now known all around 
the nation — his innocence discussed in class-
rooms and raging debates on whether he did 
or did not strangle his ex-girlfriend with his 
bare hands. For me, for some reason, I don’t 
really care if he did or didn’t do it. What’s so 
impressive about “Serial” is its smart inves-
tigation, attention to small details, personal 
accounts and, most importantly, its exhibi-
tion of Adnan’s humanity. Maybe it’s a feat of 
entertainment. But if it is inspiring to people, 
if it is allowing them to look at the many facets 
of crime and those involved in it, then, I guess, 
who cares if it’s entertainment? As for Koenig, 
even if she’s looking for that pat on the back 
throughout the whole series, I guess we can 
forgive her. Because she’s human — just like 
Adnan, just like you and just like me.

— Abby Taskier can be reached 

at ataskier@umich.edu.

ABBY 
TASKIER

The ethics of Serial

T

hey say you never realize how much 
you miss something until it is taken 
away from you.

A loved one who passes 

away, a friend who moves 
across the country, my old 
Pokémon Blue video game 
that my mom always took 
away from me when I was 
grounded — we all face these 
trying times in our lives. 
Goodbyes are essential to 
existence, however tough 
and unexplained.

There are many charming 

things about this University, and somewhere 
down on that list, right after “has class in Wine 
Tasting,” are our wonderful cafeterias. After 
all, at what other school can you take a date to 
a $60 million restaurant for the low cost of a 
guest-meal swipe? Way to go, South Quad.

Most of my dining hall experiences involved 

stealing entire trays of cookies, storing them in 
Tupperware and carrying them to my room, 
as well as Frosted Flakes and salad with every 
meal because I’m a responsible college student. 
But also intrinsically tied to the experience was 
the impossible game of Tetris that was fitting 
multiple circular plates onto a square piece of 
plastic. But some men just want to watch the 

world burn, and thus, we were forced to part 
ways with our plastic dining companions.

Okay, that’s probably a little harsh. There 

are reasonable explanations for getting rid of 
them: saving water and resources needed to 
wash them, cutting down on food waste or 
more subtly training those of us who won’t be 
employed after graduation in the art of balanc-
ing multiple plates for our future of waiting 
tables. Rather, the real shame is that two years 
removed from their fateful departure, the 
Michigan winters have only become harder to 
endure as the main vehicle for being transport-
ed from point A on top of a snowy hill to point 
B at the bottom is no more, and it still hurts.

Sledding on a cafeteria tray has been a rite 

of passage for college students throughout 
the ages. In the college universe, where a sled 
would take up about 27 percent of the floor 
space in our tiny rooms, the cafeteria tray was 
a hero. It was not the hero that we deserved, 
but the one we needed.

At its surface, it is nothing more than a 

rectangular piece of plastic with some glossy 
coating that is almost certainly not environ-
mentally friendly. But the uses of the tray are 
limitless. One day, someone had the idea to use 
it as a means of carrying food around. Another 
saw a snowy hill, lacked a full-featured sled 
and knew exactly what he was going to use 

DAVID 
HARRIS

Dying a hero

instead. One day, I came back to my 
dorm room with the aforementioned 
12-by-18-inch piece of plastic and 
decided to use it as a doormat for my 
wet shoes.

The cafeteria tray was the pin-

nacle of college resourcefulness. 
The average college student is broke, 
living and keeping all of his or her 

essential belongings in a room about 
the size of a walk-in closet, but the 
tray was a source of empowerment. 
It may be gone for now, but its impact 
will be felt forever. We never said 
thank you to this dark knight, and 
we’ll never have to.

No memoir could do these rectan-

gular squares of freedom justice. It is 

said that you either die a hero or live 
long enough to see yourself become 
the villain. The cafeteria tray is for-
ever the former.

Yet riddle me this: Bursley still 

has them.

— David Harris can be reached 

at daharr@umich.edu.

SARA 
SHAMASKIN

Barging in

Those of you who are particu-

larly social media-savvy might have 
noticed an interesting hashtag orbit-
ing the Twittersphere as of late: 
#BargeX. Amidst the rumbles and 
flashes of #JeSuisCharlie, Air Asia 
and George Zimmerman, six cryp-
tic letters can be easy to miss. What 
does it all mean anyway? In short, a 
space company (almost!) landed a 
rocket on a boat from orbit. Big deal? 
Yes. Here’s how they did it:

On Jan. 10 at 4:47 a.m., the Space 

Exploration 
and 
Technologies 

Corporation, popularly known as 
SpaceX, launched an unmanned 
rocket — the Falcon 9 — to the Inter-
national Space Station to replenish 
supplies there. This time, though, 
this routine mission had an added 
twist. Usually, after a rocket’s first 
stage booster separates from its 
payload high in the atmosphere 
(travelling at around 1,300 meters 
per second, or nearly four times the 
speed of sound), it’s allowed to sim-
ply fall out of orbit into one of the 
conveniently located oceans below 
for “splashdown.” However, last 
Saturday, the thrusters on the first 
stage were reignited, reorienting 
the booster in the atmosphere, turn-
ing its free fall to the Earth’s sur-
face into an elegant controlled dive. 
This itself is mind-bogglingly diffi-
cult — SpaceX itself described it as 
“trying to balance a rubber broom-
stick on your hand in the middle of a 
 

wind storm.”

Obviously, hitting a boat at Mach 4 

would make quite a mess. The rocket 
had to slow its sharp descent and 
reduce its speed. So began a number 
of controlled ‘burns,’ or firings of the 
engine, that attempted to reduce the 
speed of the 14-story rocket from 
Mach 4 to about two meters per sec-

ond, which is the speed of a brisk jog.

Let that sink in for a moment.
To further complicate matters, 

the unanchored boat (or barge, as 
some are calling it) that the rocket 
was aiming for was at the mercy of 
the tide, despite having powerful 
thrusters to stabilize it.

To even have a chance of hitting 

the target, the booster had to have 
a high-precision course adjustment 
system, which basically means a 
really good steering wheel. It relied 
on its brand-new fins for that. Fold-
ing out from the chassis à la X-Wing 
in “attack formation,” each fin was 
programmed to move independent-
ly to change the direction of the 
booster in each of the three dimen-
sions: roll, pitch and yaw. Combine 
that with an engine mounted on a 
set of gimbals that allow it to roll, 
pitch and yaw as well, and you end 
up with a rocket that can practi-
cally fly itself!

And that’s exactly what it did; 

the whole process described above 
was performed autonomously. No 
human was involved in the landing 
of this rocket.

So that’s what was supposed to 

happen. Unfortunately, rocket sci-
ence and engineering is hard, and is 
rife with false starts and missteps. 
On the upside, the engine burns did 
their jobs, and the Falcon 9 booster 
made contact with the barge. Well, 
contact is actually the wrong word: 
the booster slammed into the barge 
and broke apart on impact. The 
problem was that the hydraulic 
fluid used to operate those steer-
able fins ran out before landing, and 
the spacecraft couldn’t slow down 
enough without them.

OK, so it didn’t work this time. 

Why should you care? Well, being 

able to actually land a rocket means 
we can reuse it, for one. And we can 
do it, no doubt.

SpaceX plans to try again in one 

of its other seven planned resup-
ply missions, this time with more 
hydraulic fluid. But it’s space. Pro-
verbially, space is always over there, 
seeming disconnected from the rest 
of us. Why spend $900 million to 
develop a rocket only to pull some 
silly stunt with a barge? Some jus-
tify the expense as an investment: 
if rockets can be reused, spaceflight 
becomes cheaper, and space becomes 
accessible to more than just coun-
tries, corporations and universities. 
We at SEDS (Students for the Explo-
ration and Development of Space), 
meanwhile, support this endeavor 
simply because any significant stride 
in space is unequivocally a boon for 
humanity as a whole. The effort to 
make space accessible to society has 
an importance on a scientific and 
technological level that cannot be 
understated. Yet, it is just as impor-
tant as another step in expanding 
our understanding of the universe. 
As some famous astrophysicists are 
wont to say, “We are star stuff.”

Look, this is 2015. This is the year 

Marty McFly shows up and sees 
hover boards, flying cars and self-
tying shoelaces and a future that 
seems ... cool! We might not have fly-
ing cars today, but how about a rocket 
that can fly itself to space and back? 
Or a space program that operates on 
timelines of weeks, not months or 
years? That’s a future worth building.

Ad Astra, my friends.

 This viewpoint was collaboratively 

written by the University’s chapter 

of Students for Exploration and 

Development of Space.

STUDENTS FOR EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE | VIEWPOINT

 
 

—Michigan football coach Jim Harbaugh (@CoachJim4UM) tweeted on January 15 
to his 157,000 followers. The tweet was favorited 5,560 times and retweeted 6,108 

times as of 11:19 p.m. on January 15.
“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

Attacking this day with Enthusiasm 

Unknown to Mankind.”

