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
4A — Wednesday, October 28, 2015

“S

ports are stupid.”

Michigan’s loss that day to 

Michigan State 

was already enough, but 
as I sat in that bar watch-
ing the Mets score another 
run against my beloved 
Cubs in the first game of the 
National League Champi-
onship Series, “sports are 
stupid” was the only logical 
conclusion and the only set 
of words I could conjure. 
In retrospect, trying to 
get over that crazy loss by 
watching the most pitiful 
professional sports team in 
the past century was probably a poor decision.

I was with a Spartan friend of mine from 

childhood who was visiting and is also a Cubs 
fan, so we figured going out to watch the Cubs 
would hopefully be a more enjoyable end to 
the day for both of us.

“Remember a couple years ago where you 

came to East Lansing for the game with me 
and just walked out after Gardner threw a 
pick at the end?” he asked me.

Of course I remem-

bered. I had snuck into 
MSU’s student section 
with him, and in the 
wind and freezing rain, 
watched as the Spartans 
absolutely 
demolished 

the Wolverines. At some 
point in the fourth quar-
ter, with Michigan’s com-
puter-calculated chance 
of winning the game 
probably somewhere in 
the negatives, the interception happened, and 
I just got up and left. I had no idea where I 
was going.

“I thought I’d never see you more dejected 

at a sports game then you were then. Guess I 
was wrong.”

Yeah, guess you were wrong, I told him. 

I’d rather watch that game in East Lansing 
a thousand times than what we had just wit-
nessed.

At this point, Matt Harvey was dominating 

the Cubs and sports were only getting more 
stupid.

“At least I’ve got the Lions to look forward 

to tomorrow,” I said. It’s a joke. It’s the Lions 
— of course it’s a joke.

My dad texted me that night, “I was at the 

Kordell game when we lost,” he said, refer-
ring to when quarterback Kordell Stewart 
threw a 64-yard Hail Mary as time expired to 
lift Colorado to a win in the Big House. “This 
game was way worse.”

It’s a common thing, sports heartbreak. 

I guess when you’re a fan of the Lions and 
your dad raises you to be a Cubs fan like he 
was growing up, you’ve kind of signed up for 
the anguish. When my dad was at the Univer-
sity in 1984, the Cubs, who had a phenomenal 
team that year, choked against the Padres in 
the National League Championship Series. So 
to poke fun at his sports grief, his friends in 
Mary Markley Hall decided to take all of his 
Cubs gear and dress up as a ghost. “The Ghost 
of the Cubs,” they called it. Sports were stu-
pid then, too.

No matter how many times it happens, 

no matter how many different times and 
different ways the team loses, you still come 
back for some reason.

The year after that time I walked out of 

Spartan Stadium I showed up there again. 
One hundred thousand-plus will still show 
up in a couple weeks at the Big House. It’s 
not Stockholm Syndrome or that we haven’t 
learned the pitfalls of being emotionally 
invested in a game. It’s not just the inevi-
table hope of winning that may or may not 
come that draws fans back. People show up to 
sports games not just to feel the happiness or 

sadness but instead just 
to feel anything at all.

There 
was 
a 

commercial a few years 
back, in which the Cubs 
win the World Series 
and fans celebrate in the 
streets. It’s the dream 
of every Cubs fan. And 
then slowly the camera 
zooms out from the 
TV screen, and a guy 
holding his PlayStation 

3 controller, a tear rolling down his cheek as 
he witnesses the video game World Series 
champions. Sports aren’t real; from the 
perspective of a fan, they’re nothing more 
than entertainment. Yet in every form, real 
or not, there’s something enthralling that has 
made sports the integral part of society it is.

There’s something hauntingly beautiful 

about that football game on Saturday. In the 
same place, there were one hundred thou-
sand fans standing in stunned silence, and 
thousands more erupting in cheers. There 
were tears of all kinds, smiles, hugs and 
dejected exits. It’s not the image of the game 
that will stick with me forever, but the image 
of the reactions of 110,000 fans each feeling 
something.

Something in response to nothing more 

than a stupid game of sports.

— David Harris can be reached 

at daharr@umich.edu. 

There’s something 

enthralling that 
has made sports 

the integral part of 

society it is. 

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala, Aarica Marsh, 

Adam Morton, Victoria Noble, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, 

Stephanie Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
The stupidity of sports

DAVID 
HARRIS

Normalizing racism

Monday 
 
 
 
night, 
#AssaultatSpringValleyHigh 

began trending on Twitter when a video 
surfaced that depicted Deputy Ben Fields 
of Richland County, S.C., dragging a Black 
female student from her desk, throwing her 
to the gournd and subsequently arresting her.

This 
sequence 
of 
shocking 
events 

prompted the usual rhetoric from both sides: 
Many people were outraged by the officer’s 
aggression, while others questioned his 
motives, as if something this student had done 
or said could somehow justify the excessive 
use of force. I’m outraged by the video. I’m 
horrified and saddened and speechless — 
but what sickens me most is how used to it I 
 

have become. 

In the last few years in particular, I 

have watched so many similar incidents 
draw national attention before gradually 
subsiding in the face of a newer, more 
gripping tragedy. Names, faces and stories 
have grown increasingly muddled and vague 
over time. A man, woman, child, student, 
veteran, disabled person, homeless man was 
shot, stabbed, assaulted, ambushed, belittled 
by a police officer, store owner, teacher, 
neighbor, sociopath.

National headlines have become a disturb-

ing game of fill in the blank. 

We have become accustomed to the tearful 

speeches delivered by the victims’ families, 
the old photographs, the funeral scenes. Our 
reality has become a segment on the evening 
news, a Facebook post, a hashtag, a brief and 
ardent discussion at the dinner table. People 

are suffering and we are so accustomed to it 
now. The spectacle of adversity is the New 
American Normal.

But how many times can we go through 

the motions — astonishment, rage, sadness, 
hopelessness — before it becomes clear to us 
that stories like this one are not just another 
mundane cycle of news? That they are not 
trends? That they are people who were here 
one day and gone the next because someone 
in a position of power refused to deem them 
worthy of respect, or because a prejudiced 
murderer carried out a twisted plan of racial 
vengeance or because we took no preventative 
measures whatsoever to ensure their safety? 

Our outrage should be consistent. We 

should remember the names of those we 
have lost and take active steps to obstruct 
the emergence of future victims. We 
shouldn’t treat this national predicament 
like we treat other publicized disasters, only 
becoming invested when the story is relevant 
and allowing ourselves to forget after the 
conversation is over. We need to keep the 
dialogue going; we cannot let ourselves 
become desensitized to blatant injustice, to 
prejudice, to murder. 

This is my call to action: Do not allow your-

self to forget, because even as the relevance 
of the story wanes in the media, its impact is 
still very real and profound.

These are people we are talking about, 

after all.

Lauren Schandevel is an LSA freshman.

LAUREN SCHANDEVEL | VIEWPOINT

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. Letters should 

be fewer than 300 words, while viewpoints should be 550-850 words. Send the article, 

writer’s full name and University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

I

t’s never fun being the third 
wheel, as Democratic can-
didate Martin O’Malley will 

soon learn. Dem-
ocratic presiden-
tial 
candidates 

have been drop-
ping 
like 
flies 

in the month of 
October, as for-
mer 
senators 

Jim Webb and 
Lincoln Chafee 
bowed out with-
in days of one 
another. 
Vice 

President 
Joe 

Biden has ruled 
out the possibility of running and 
so the field is set: a huge group that 
is ready for Hillary, a sizable con-
tingent feeling the Bern, and a gui-
tar-playing former governor with 
relatively low name recognition.

This past Friday, I had the 

pleasure of attending an event 
sponsored by the Arab American 
Institute at the University of Mich-
igan-Dearborn, which provided a 
platform for discussion about the 
Syrian refugee crisis and culmi-
nated with a speech by O’Malley. 
About halfway through his speech, 
a familiar iPhone ringtone rang out 
on one side of the auditorium. As its 
owner hurried quickly out the door, 
the governor joked, “I told Hillary 
never to call me here!”

Laughter filled the room, but all I 

could think of was how sadly unre-
alistic the premise was. Why would 
Clinton pay any attention at all to a 
candidate who is polling at nearly 
one-fiftieth her support?

On paper, O’Malley should be 

a dream candidate for liberal pri-
mary voters: As governor, he led a 
campaign to legalize same-sex mar-
riage in Maryland. On immigra-
tion, he implemented the DREAM 
Act before it was even passed on 
the federal level. During his ten-
ure, Maryland repealed the death 
penalty, passed one of the toughest 
firearm laws in the nation, raised 
the minimum wage to $10.10 and 
decriminalized possession of small 
amounts of marijuana. As he spoke 
about foreign policy, welcoming 
the promised 65,000 refugees and 
the current situation in the Middle 
East, I — as a liberal — did not dis-

agree with him at any point.

So why can I not get excited 

about O’Malley? 

Based on the attendance in Dear-

born, I know that I’m not alone in 
this respect. The auditorium was 
not that large to start with, and 
there were plenty of empty seats — 
not exactly the attendance numbers 
you want if you’re running for pres-
ident. As his speech progressed, 
the silences were littered with 
awkward applause and there never 
seemed to be a crescendo. Hav-
ing heard Clinton speak in person, 
I could feel the electricity and the 
magnitude of her words, her name 
and her office. Listening to Sand-
ers call for a political revolution 
in his thick Brooklyn accent and 
watching his upper body gesticu-
late wildly, it’s difficult not to be the 
least bit enthused at the prospect 
of an indepen-
dent senator as 
president. Yet, 
with O’Malley, 
no one seems 
to be on the 
other end of 
that 
enthusi-

asm.

His situation 

looks even less 
favorable when 
you 
consider 

how 
many 

opportunities have come and gone 
for him to stand out. In the first 
Democratic debate, his performance 
was the least memorable, paling in 
comparison to Chafee’s bungled 
answer on Glass-Steagall, Webb 
whining for more speaking time and 
the now-famous Sanders quote about 
Clinton’s “damn e-mails.” Reports 
from the all-important Jefferson 
Jackson dinner in Iowa — a huge 
gathering of Democratic supporters 
and fundraisers — have O’Malley 
garnering mild support but lacking 
the roaring ovations that welcomed 
the two frontrunners.

What begins now for O’Malley is 

a long test for his staff and his wal-
let. There’s an old saying in politics 
that there are only three tickets out 
of the Iowa primary. Based on how 
the Democratic field looks now, one 
of those belongs to O’Malley — if 
his fundraising efforts stay steady 
(or at least afloat, unlike the Perry 

campaign). Why, though, would he 
carry on like this?

Many pundits have posited that 

the goal is to be Clinton’s vice presi-
dential nominee, and not without 
reason. Another explanation may 
be that if Clinton’s troubling num-
bers in terms of trust, warmth and 
overall favorability or Sanders’ 
uncompromising defense of demo-
cratic socialism are enough to sink 
them, O’Malley will be the logical 
life vest of the Democrats’ hopes 
for 2016.

The true nature of this campaign 

will be clarified, and potentially 
decided, next Friday night at the 
second Democratic debate. Presi-
dential campaigns have had late 
starts in the past. Bill Clinton did 
not announce his candidacy until 
October 1991, and at this point in 
1976, Jimmy Carter was one of 13 

candidates 
in 

a 
Democratic 

field 
without 

a 
frontrun-

ner. But this 
would be about 
as late a rise 
into relevance 
as 
histori-

cal 
precedent 

would allow.

One 
quote 

stood out dur-
ing the gov-

ernor’s speech at Dearborn: “The 
difference between a dream and a 
goal is a deadline.”

On behalf of the liberal base, 

going into 2016, I would like to put 
forth a deadline to the O’Malley 
campaign: Nov. 6, the day of the 
second debate. There needs to be 
a moment, like Clinton on Arsenio 
Hall or the introduction of “Yes We 
Can” in 2008. Voters need to see 
the X-factor, the liberal qualifica-
tions, the demographic that can be 
reached that separates O’Malley 
from the pack. Show me why I 
should look past Bernie and Hillary.

Look for that moment (because 

I think the O’Malley campaign 
knows this to be true), or look for 
the Democratic race to be a one-on-
one footrace in Iowa starting in the 
new year.

— Brett Graham can be reached 

at btgraham@umich.edu.

BRETT 
GRAHAM

Why would Clinton 
pay any attention to 
a candidate who is 

polling at nearly one-
fiftieth her support?

O’Slim chance

W

hen I was in elementary 
school, I would get the 
most terrible nosebleeds. 

Not the kind that 
went away quick-
ly, but the kind 
that would put 
me in the nurse’s 
office with my 
head tipped back, 
pinching 
my 

nose for an hour. 
While I would sit 
there, my neck 
getting sore from 
looking up for 
so long, I would 
look at the food pyramid poster that 
was just above and to the right of her 
desk across the room. It had a black 
background with the classic cartoon 
images of bread, rice and grains on 
the bottom and ice cream and snack 
food on the top. To the left of her desk 
was a door with another poster on it; 
bottles of soda were lined up with 
mounds of refined sugar in front 
of them, designed to scare viewers 
away from the beverages. I was in 
second grade, and a mound of sugar 
didn’t look half bad.

These images are just two of the 

many pieces of propaganda that 
detail the government-approved 
answer to an impossible question: 
“What should we eat?”

Every five years, the U.S. Depart-

ment of Health and Human Services 
and the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture publish the Dietary Guidelines 
for Americans, which are based 
on the latest and greatest scientific 
research. These guidelines not only 
promote specific dietary habits for 
individuals, but also serve as the 
foundations of nutrition programs 
ranging from national policies to the 
posters in a small nurse’s office in 
Shelburne, Vt.

The problem is that nutritional 

guidelines tend to act a little more 
like the game of “telephone” than 
an instruction manual. Every once 
in a while, a guideline is blown 

out of proportion and causes 
unintended outcomes.

One 
example 
is 
cholesterol. 

People nearly stopped eating eggs 
and red meat due to the impression 
that consuming dietary cholesterol 
directly caused an increase in blood 
cholesterol levels. Cholesterol in 
the body is infinitely more compli-
cated than such a linear pathway, 
and this myth has been (thankful-
ly) debunked, so put an egg on your 
burger and dig in. 

More problematic is how the 

concept 
of 
a 

“low-fat 
diet” 

continues to be 
lost in transla-
tion. For years, 
the 
guidelines 

have instructed 
Americans 
to 

choose 
lean 

meats 
and 

reduce 
con-

sumption 
of 

fats. But just 
as the game of 
telephone goes, this innocent advice 
has turned into a different beast all 
together. The concept of “low-fat” 
has become nearly synonymous with 
“all-carb,” and people can’t seem to 
let it go. It seems to be common sense 
that eating fat will make you fat.

Even Regina George says, “I 

can’t go to Taco Bell. I’m on an all-
carb diet,” and when has “Mean 
Girls” ever steered us wrong? 
The words “fat free” are every-
where, plastered on billboards and 
 

menus alike.

What isn’t spelled out as clearly, 

however, is what is taking the place 
of these fats. By avoiding fats, peo-
ple instead turn to what Jane Brody 
of The New York Times calls “two 
kinds of carbohydrates, refined 
starches and sugars.”

Brody goes on to claim that these 

carbohydrates “have helped to spawn 
the current epidemic of obesity and 
Type 2 diabetes.” In her article, 
Brody identifies that like cholesterol, 

not all fats and carbohydrates are 
created equal. The saturated animal-
based fats can be harmful if eaten in 
great quantity, but unsaturated fats 
such as olive oil actually benefit car-
diovascular health.

As Frank B. Hu, a professor at the 

Harvard T. H. Chan School of Pub-
lic Health, said in Brody’s article, 
“We have to get out of the fat phobia 
mind-set.”

Similarly, simple and complex 

carbs can be good for you, with 
the main exception being refined 

carbohydrates. 
Refined carbs 
are 
“rapidly 

digested 
and 

absorbed” due 
to the absence 
of 
fiber. 

According 
to 

Brody, excess 
consumption 
of these carbs 
“can 
result 

in 
insulin 

resistance and 

contribute to fatty liver disease.”

The importance of reducing rates 

of cardiovascular disease in the 
United States cannot be overstat-
ed. In 2006, the estimated health 
care cost of cardiovascular disease 
amounted to $403 billion and 26.6 
million adults are currently diag-
nosed with heart disease, making 
it the No. 1 cause of death in the 
United States. Dietary choices are 
one factor, but when other factors 
such as sedentary lifestyle are con-
sidered, the effects become much 
more prominent. In regard to the fat 
versus carbohydrate discussion, as 
Brody puts it, past guidelines “have 
caused the pendulum to swing too 
far in the wrong direction.”

All-carb diets are a bust. Not that 

I’m advocating for Taco Bell as a 
healthy option, but maybe Regina 
George wasn’t right after all.

— Grace Carey can be reached 

at gecarey@umich.edu.

GRACE 
CAREY 

Fats or fiction?

The importance of 
reducing rates of 

cardiovascular disease 

in the United States 
cannot be overstated.

