Opinion
SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF
CLAIRE BRYAN
AND REGAN DETWILER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LAURA SCHINAGLE
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 — Thursday, January 28, 2016
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan,
Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala, Aarica Marsh,
Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke, Rebecca Tarnopol,
Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe, Hunter Zhao
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
T
he current Powerball jackpot sits at
a measly $75 million, and well out-
side of news coverage, too; it’s a mere
fraction of the record $1.5
billion jackpot set a few
weeks ago that dominated
headlines and office water-
cooler conversations.
Perhaps it’s out of the
news for more pragmatic
reasons as well. Math-
ematics is a form of prag-
matism, in my opinion. For
a mere $2, you can play
one in 292,201,338 odds
to hit all six numbers and
take the jackpot. Working
out the expected value for such a play, or the
return on investment in a sense, is difficult
since it depends on the prize amounts and
number of players, but excluding those fac-
tors gives an expected value of somewhere
around negative $1.42. Once you include
splitting the earnings with other winners in
the same prize tier, as well as paying taxes on
the earnings, reduced cash value if prizes are
taken in the lump sum and inflation on prizes
taken as annuity, at some point for the lower
jackpots the cost of paper
and ink for the ticket is
worth more than its pos-
sible earnings value. Even
at the record $1.5 billion
jackpot, a ticket was only
worth about $1.32.
Nobody should be sur-
prised at these figures.
Like any form of gambling,
the lottery is carefully
formulated and mathe-
matically plotted out such
that the odds are against
the players, so that the
house, or in this case the
state, can make money.
The Powerball officials
certainly know this, and use it to their advan-
tage. Changes to the Powerball rules reduced
the odds of winning the jackpot specifically
so that it could grow to record heights and
draw in more ticket buyers through the viral
media billions of dollars tends to generate.
With the odds in their favor, the Powerball
makes more money, even if someone wins the
jackpot. The odds are against the players in
extreme ways at these lower jackpot values,
and it’s these players playing at these low
jackpot levels who drive up the jackpot of the
Powerball. It’s unlikely there’s a winner any-
time soon, as it takes more than 300 million
tickets in play before the odds of a winner
become more favorable, and thus the Power-
ball and lottery news will be out of the daily
news cycle. But it’s the demographics of these
players who regularly play and drive the jack-
pot up that show the nasty, predatory nature
of the lottery.
Citizens from impoverished counties play
the lottery at much higher rates than resi-
dents of wealthy counties. Tickets are bought
in significantly disproportionate amounts by
those who are unemployed and lower class,
and those who lack secondary or post-sec-
ondary education. One study showed that 71
percent of lottery players would use the win-
nings to pay off debt, a clear sign of financial
instability worsened by the poor investment
strategy of playing the lottery. While the old
adage of “the lottery is a tax on the mathe-
matically challenged” is somewhat demean-
ing, the regular players of the lottery, and
those buying tickets that drive up the Power-
ball jackpot in its early stages of the cycle, are
the ones who cannot afford the repercussions
of playing. The lottery, like any form of gam-
bling, has the potential to be addictive and
destructive, and lower socioeconomic status
has been shown to be a significant risk factor
for developing into a problem gambler.
This money, essentially a voluntary tax,
goes directly to the state; on average, the lot-
tery pays out 62 percent of its revenue as win-
nings, and thus represents a 38-percent tax
rate on purchases. The moral dubiousness of
fundraising at the expense of citizens who
can least afford this tax would be offset by
tying the lottery to the one cause people tend
to be in universal favor of: education funding.
Yet, studies show that the lottery fails to pro-
vide any benefit to education itself, as not only
do non-lottery states pro-
vide more funding in their
budgets than lottery states
with lottery revenues, but
after the implementation
of a lottery, states tended
to
decrease
education
expenditures, and often
directed the earmarked
funds to other causes
anyway. The lottery has
become
nothing
more
than an obstacle to insti-
tuting sensible tax policies
and budgets that prop-
erly and morally support
education, at the expense
of an already marginal-
ized lower class. The mantra that the lottery
is good for education is nothing more than a
fraudulent explanation to plug holes in a state
budget with decreased debate. The lottery
draws in a lot of money from a small pool of
players: Depending on the state and study, 70
to 80 percent of lottery revenues come from
20 to 30 percent of the players. The lottery
doesn’t affect the majority of tax-paying citi-
zens and thus there is not much of an axe to
grind with the process. It sets up the lottery as
nothing more than a political ploy.
Nobody is going to win the Powerball
jackpot for some time. The amount will con-
tinue to balloon to some astronomical num-
ber, sparking a situation in which the media
sends buyers into a frenzy, tickets are bought
and news stories are written about how the
lives of the winners are forever changed. Yet
the important stories will come in the weeks
after, in the stories of the lives of those who
will buy the tickets in vain. Their lives, too,
are changed, one loss at a time.
—David Harris can be reached
at daharr@umich.edu.
Foregoing the lottery
Psychologists, therapists, sociolo-
gists, etc. all claim through research
to have the cure for what has become
the modern-day disease plaguing
relationships: divorce. There are
many statistics out there for the cor-
rect and accepted divorce rate. Some
sources claim the rate of all mar-
riages ending in divorce is upward
of 50 percent, while others cite it as
being closer to 30 percent. Whatever
the number, it is still disturbing and
worthy of inquiry to study why so
many marriages end tragically. Being
divorce conscious and researching in
depth what really makes a healthy
marriage or relationship seems coun-
terintuitive. People have maintained
successful and happy relationships
in the past, so why does divorce seem
like such an issue now? Perhaps
the answer to the question of why
divorce happens is simpler than so
much research tries to explain.
My personal experience with
divorced parents has shaped the way
I view the study of relationships as
well as these statistics that so many
professionals try not only to explain,
but also to prevent from increasing.
My parents divorced when I was 10
years old, resulting in my mom leav-
ing the house and moving to a neigh-
boring city to be close to my brother
and me. Each of my parents, prior to
their relationship with each other,
had divorced their first spouses as
well. Now, both of my parents have
moved on to third marriages. While
this may seem insane to some who
have no experience with divorce,
it became very common to me as I
grew up and began to develop as my
own person.
As a child, growing up in what is
often termed a “broken household,”
I quickly became aware that there
was barely a difference between my
parents and my friends’ parents who
were still together after X years of
marriage. My parents fought, their
parents fought, too. My parents
were able to be happy around each
other for the sake of their children,
and those other parents who were
still together were able to be happy
despite fighting, too. So what made
my parents so different from those
other ones who were able to stay
together? Only since moving out and
coming to college have I discovered
any real answer to this question. I
can now view my own family from an
outsider’s perspective after not living
at home for six months or so, but still
receive the details of what is going
on and who said what in this fight or
another. This has helped me realize
that the secret to a lasting relation-
ship may be easier to find than I orig-
inally perceived.
Communication is key. Yes, I
think the solution to keeping two
people together indefinitely is as
simple as being able to effectively
communicate with each other. When
referring to communication here,
I am not suggesting that talking at
one’s spouse will save a marriage.
However, being able to objectively
express one’s emotions, grievances
and thoughts to another person,
hearing and allowing the other per-
son to reciprocate and be listened
to is the huge secret to the success-
ful maintenance of any relationship.
This communication, if completed in
a manner that allows both people to
feel heard and respected, can resolve
any issue that may arise and create
an air of intimacy between people.
The research done on the subject
of divorce that most parallels this
idea of communication being the
most important aspect to a healthy
relationship comes from the work
of psychologist John Gottman,
who has studied relationships for
more than four decades. His work
has shown that when comparing
groups of couples who have main-
tained their relationships to groups
of couples who have split up, there
are a few defining characteristics
that separate and explain why the
people who stayed together were
able to stay together, and why those
who separated were not able to stay
together. From this research, Gott-
man found that physiologically,
those who stayed together main-
tained calmer and more trusting
states during conversation while
those who had split up were con-
tinually
showing
flight-or-fight
responses, even when discussing
simple events from the day. The
ability to trust and feel respected
and happy during conversation
comes directly from practicing
effective communication.
Proper communication extends
further from the topics that are
most important to couples, the ones
that may cause arguments into silly
little conversations that seem mun-
dane. Gottman’s research continued
to say that those couples who stayed
together were more likely to indulge
in their partner’s “bids” or attempts
at getting the other person’s atten-
tion with some seemingly insignifi-
cant occurrence, such as wanting
to talk about something funny that
happened at work that day. In Gott-
man’s research, those couples who
listened and recognized the need
for this simple form of communica-
tion were able to make their partner
feel heard and emotionally fulfilled.
Those couples who split up were
less likely to humor their partner
and disrupt their own lives to dis-
cuss these kinds of topics.
Proper communication for both
important and unimportant topics
has become a sort of lost art in rela-
tionships. People either do not know
how to communicate effectively or
are not willing to put in the energy to
do so, and the institution of marriage
has suffered for it.
—Caitlin Heenan is an
Editorial Board member.
Divorce disease
CAITLIN HEENAN | OP-ED
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than
300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850
words. Send the writer’s full name and University
affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
DAVID
HARRIS
E-mail michEllE at shEngmi@umich.Edu
MICHELLE SHENG
I haven’t been a conservative
forever. Until my junior year of
high school, I considered myself an
unavowed liberal. I won’t bore you
with the entire story, but several
factors contributed to me coming
to the realization that I harbored
many conservative thoughts — not
an absolute ideology, however.
Not surprisingly, I started to
identify with the Republican Party
— it seemed like the logical deci-
sion. I am now a proud member of
the College Republicans here at
the University — but of my party
at large, I cannot express the same
degree of pride.
As I survey the current presiden-
tial primary battle, my choices have
been narrowed down to the lesser
of many evils. Call me a “slave to the
establishment” or not a “true con-
servative” — frankly, I don’t care. I
am not one to shy away from saying
I adhere to some liberal ideas along
with my conservatism.
What!? A member of a political
party who doesn’t agree entirely with
their party’s platform? Such horror!
Therefore, I’m sure you can
understand that with the advent
of the likes of Donald Trump, Ted
Cruz and the other bloviating insti-
gators who occupy Republican
debate stages, I am filled with utter
disgust at the state of our party. Not
only is it a detriment to moderates
like myself to have bigoted bombas-
tic individuals holding the banner
of the GOP, but it moves our nation
further along a partisan divide that
seemingly increases day by day.
However, I want to focus on
Trump as the true symbol of my
current distaste.
Yes, I know, he is discussed
incessantly ad nauseam. But it isn’t
the man I concern myself with, it’s
what he epitomizes.
The prospect of Trump as the
Republican nominee is becoming
increasingly viable — he was poll-
ing at 41 percent in the latest GOP
primary poll. This means several
things, but perhaps the most strik-
ing is this: Apparently, if you asked
about two-fifths of GOP voters,
they would consciously cast a ballot
for a candidate who promoted a pol-
icy banning an entire religion from
entering the nation, who suggested
we deport 11 million illegal indi-
viduals “humanely,” who doesn’t
have a shred of political experience,
who attributed global warming to a
Chinese hoax to somehow gain an
economic advantage over the Unit-
ed States and who cannot answer
basic questions regarding foreign
or domestic policy.
You really can’t make this stuff up.
It is easy to pry for sympathy
from those who aren’t Republicans,
as Peter Wehner recently did. Bear
in mind, Wehner worked for the
previous three Republican admin-
istrations, and now he is clamoring
to vent his frustrations in arguably
the nation’s most liberal main-
stream newspaper.
As I read the comments section of
that article, almost every single state-
ment reflected the same principle:
Sorry, GOP, but this one’s on you.
Unfortunately, they are spot on.
After years of unrelenting nay-
saying — at times, clear racism
— a lack of basic knowledge about
reproductive health, along with
just plain ignorance about women
and the election of congressmen
who disrupt a State of the Union
address with exclamations of “you
lie!” — just to name a few — we have
formulated a party that would not
only accept the likes of Trump as
our standard-bearer, but fervently
support him.
As Wehner points out, there was
a time when the GOP stood for con-
servative ideals, but wasn’t catering
to prejudicial remarks or proposals.
There was even an era when work-
ing with Democrats on legislation
wasn’t taboo. I find it appalling
that Marco Rubio is consistently
attacked by his fellow candidates
for being a member of the biparti-
san coalition dubbed the “Gang of
Eight” that tried to pass compre-
hensive immigration reform just
a few years ago. Granted, many
of these arguments are focused
on the bill’s actual substance, but
what irks me is the reality that
Republicans charge at Rubio simply
because he attempted to formulate
policy in tandem with Democrats.
There are times when I ponder
the idiom “you are your own worst
enemy.” Well, my fellow Republi-
cans, this may be a time to discuss
that idea amongst ourselves.
If Trump or Cruz becomes the
nominee, I’m not sure who I will
vote for, if anyone at all. Just like
Wehner, I believe this could be a
watershed moment for the GOP — a
point at which center-right individ-
uals devoted to bettering the world
along with our Democratic coun-
terparts split with angry, mob-like
“Republicans” who would rather
see Muslims banned from the
greatest nation on Earth than solv-
ing, as a united citizenry, the issues
that grip our country.
Nobody can predict the future, but
we can look to the past for possible
answers. We now know one thing
for certain: We, the GOP, created the
mess we are in. Now it’s up to us to
either fix it or let the party run its
inevitable course toward failure.
What we created
I am now a proud
member of the College
Republicans here at
the University — but
of my party at large,
I cannot express the
same degree of pride.
BEN KELLER | OP-ED
The mantra that the
lottery is good for
education is nothing
more than a fraudulent
explanation to plug
holes in a state budget
with decreased debate.
People have
maintained
successful and happy
relationships in the
past, so why does
divorce seem like such
an issue now?
—Ben Keller is a
senior editorial page editor.