100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

January 16, 2015 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

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.”

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan