R

eading Trump’s Twitter 
rants is the best form 
of entertainment. You 

never know what he will say or 
who he will insult 
next. 
No 
one 
is 

safe from his social 
media-based 
shots. 

Not 
Alec 
Baldwin, 

not 
Meryl 
Streep, 

not even his fellow 
Republicans like Paul 
Ryan. Trump takes 
to Twitter to insult 
anyone who doesn’t 
completely agree with 
him, so it is no shock 
he went after congressman and 
civil rights legend John Lewis.

Trump’s timing is impeccable 

because if you’re going to call a 
man who has dedicated his life to 
public service and civil rights “all 
talk” and “no action,” you might 
as well do it on Martin Luther 
King Jr. Day weekend. Many 
people use the long weekend to 
reflect on and celebrate the work 
of King and other civil rights 
protesters. But Trump, always 
looking to shake up the status 
quo, took a unique approach.

If Trump needs to see Lewis do 

something, he can turn on almost 
any documentary about the civil 
rights movement and see Lewis 
marching and organizing to end 
segregation. 
However, 
based 

on Trump’s attitude, I suspect 
that he would call Lewis taking 
part in the Freedom Rides “just 
sitting down in a bus.” When he 
watches Lewis take hit after hit 
from a policeman’s nightstick, 
sees Lewis pushed to the ground 
and look up only to see the stick 
coming toward him again, he 
would say “he just fell down.” 
Though it is not a documentary, 
I 
recommend 
Trump 
watch 

the 2015 film “Selma,” since he 
doubts that Lewis is a man of 
action. Then hopefully he will 
realize that his statements about 
Lewis are completely false.

In 
the 
tweet, 
Trump 

specifically 
attacks 
Lewis’s 

public 
service 
record, 
so 
I 

assume he means to define 
action as vocalizing the concerns 
of constituents and working 
to address issues within the 
district. Lewis’s district faces 
challenges, 
including 
poverty 

and unemployment, but it is also 
considered a tech hub. One of its 
cities, Atlanta, was rated one of 

the “fastest growing metro areas 
from 2013 to 2015.” Trump’s 
tweets overemphasize the issues 
and completely ignore the positive 

characteristics of the 
district. Citing a few 
negative 
statistics 

and using them to 
represent an entire 
district 
does 
not 

provide a complete 
characterization 
of 

the district.

Trump, 
even 

though 
he 
is 
the 

president-elect, is in 
no place to criticize 

Lewis’s political experience and 
work. Besides his presidential 
campaign, 
Trump 
has 
no 

experience in public service. 
While Lewis spoke with his 
constituents and sponsored and 
introduced bills in the House 
of 
Representatives, 
Trump 

made a name for himself in real 
estate and numerous business 
ventures. This, in addition to 
the fact that Trump has no 
experience living in Georgia’s 
fifth district, leaves Trump 
unqualified 
to 
make 
these 

claims. If he wants to tweet 
about someone who’s “all talk” 
and “no action” in the realm 
of politics, I suggest he tweet 
about himself.

Maybe he forgot that he’s 

supposed to be president, but 
in any case, going on Twitter 
rants like these is a waste of 
time and should not be the 
behavior of an elected official. 
It’s fantastic that politicians 
can use social media to interact 
with their constituents; using 
social media makes politicians 
less like political figures or 
images only seen on TV or 
heard in the news, and more like 
relatable people. New Jersey 
Sen. Cory Booker, one of the 
people on Trump’s growing 
list of enemies, embraces social 
media; he Snapchatted while 
he 
campaigned 
for 
Hillary 

Clinton. Social media is a great 
way for politicians to connect 
with constituents, but it should 
not make national news nearly 
every week and should not be 
used to insult others.

Instead of tweeting, Trump 

needs to direct his attention to 
his upcoming job. He needs to 
receive the presidential daily 
briefings every day, not just when 

he feels like it. He needs to figure 
out how to unite the country. On 
Friday, the task of addressing the 
concerns of all Americans will 
pass to his shoulders. He won’t 
be able to effectively complete 
this task if he can’t put his phone 
down. How will he have time to 
“make America great again” if he 
is too distracted by his Twitter?

Trump’s tweet about Lewis is 

another example of how much 
Trump loves to stir up drama 
through social media. He can’t 
help himself — tweeting hurtful 
statements is his favorite pastime. 
But this type of behavior is 
unacceptable for anyone. When 
we see the first signs of it in kids, 
we take them aside and explain 
why it is not OK.

Unfortunately, 
no 
matter 

how many times we tell Trump 
to stop insulting people, to act 
like an adult and not like the 
school bully, the message never 
sticks. For someone who claims 
to be a “smart person,” he can’t 
seem to figure out that insulting 
everyone who doesn’t share 
his ideas and beliefs is wrong. 
Trump cannot effectively work 
with anyone if he constantly 
attacks people who say anything 
against him on Twitter. Before 
his inauguration, he needs to 
realize that people will say 
things he doesn’t like and that 
should not encourage him to 
incite a Twitter war.

Any time I read or hear 

about Trump’s latest tweets, I 
always ask in exasperation “Can 
someone please take Twitter 
away from him?” But part of me 
likes seeing all the ridiculous 
statements 
on 
his 
Twitter 

account. It gives a clear look into 
the mind of the future president. 
His tweets are more honest 
than any speech he will give, 
any statement he will make, any 
action he will do. On Twitter, he 
disregards what few standards 
he sets for his behavior. He can 
give a speech written by writers 
and reviewed by his staff, but 
what he tweets off the top of his 
head without time for anyone to 
check him or tell him to stop is 
where we see the true Trump. 
While I dislike him, I want to 
know what I’ll be stuck dealing 
with for the next four years.

Plastic bags, one of the 

auxiliary 
containers 
the 

Michigan 
bill 
prohibits 

regulating, 
are 
often 
not 

recyclable and can take years to 
decompose. Due to their shape, 
plastic bags snag on conveyer 
belts used to sort recyclable 
materials before repurposing 
and 
hinder 
machines’ 
and 

workers’ progress. They billow 
out of collection trucks and 
into the streets, where they 
become tumbleweeds of the 
city, twisting in the wind and 
eventually ending up in tree 
branches, 
drainage 
systems 

and waterways. From there, 
wildlife can get trapped in or 
consume these plastic bags, 
choking them or filling their 
stomachs 
with 
indigestible 

plastic. Not to mention, as the 
Great Lakes State, we must 
be mindful of our fragile 
freshwater ecosystem and work 
to protect this environment 
and its wildlife at all costs.

This legislation is at odds 

with Michigan’s Bottle Deposit 
Law, which added a 10-cent 
deposit to bottles and cans 
as a means of decreasing the 
number of cans and bottles in 
landfills. This deposit helps 
fund cleanup, development and 
pollution-prevention 
efforts 

across Michigan. Consumers 
can earn the 10-cent deposit 
back by returning the items 
to return centers in grocery 

stores, making this legislation 
friendly for people’s wallets as 
well as the environment.

Michigan is not the first 

state to propose legislation 
surrounding 
the 
regulation 

of 
single 
use 
containers. 

Other states such as Alabama, 
Idaho and Missouri have also 
banned the banning of plastic 
bags. Washington D.C. has 
implemented a plastic bag tax, 
which has generated a large 
amount of revenue allocated 
toward 
environmental 
and 

social issues. California voters 
last year also approved the 
nation’s first statewide ban on 
plastic bags, which is estimated 
to remove 15 billion pieces of 
plastic each year once the ban 
takes effect.

A 
10-cent 
tax 
won’t 

eliminate 
plastic 
bags 
and 

their 
environmental 
impact 

— only a well-enforced ban 

similar to California’s will do 
that. However, the production 
of paper bags has a larger 
carbon footprint than that of 
the production of plastic bags, 
which calls into question the 
degree to which banning plastic 
bags outright would have a 
positive impact. Furthermore, 
a tax would also allow the 
state to allocate more funds 
toward cleanup and pollution 
prevention 
measures; 
a 

statewide ban would eliminate 
this source of revenue.

Though a 10-cent tax may 

seem relatively inconsequential 
to those carrying extra change, 
this universal tax could have 
potentially stressful effects on 
citizens who already struggle 
to 
pay 
for 
groceries 
and 

cannot afford the alternative 
reusable canvas bags. Still, the 
tax would force all citizens, 
regardless of socioeconomic 
status, to be mindful of their 
consumption 
of 
the 
non-

recyclable bags.

Nonetheless, 
the 
bill 

passed by the Michigan state 
Senate will leave containers 
like plastic unregulated and 
therefore more likely to pollute 
the 
environment 
through 

production 
or 
disposal. 
A 

statewide 
tax, 
which 
gets 

people to think twice about 
plastic bag use and promotes 
the recycling of plastic bags, is 
closer to the ideal solution.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Short, but not so sweet

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY | OP-ED

A

s much as I attempt 
to read as many New 
York 
Times 
and 

Atlantic articles as I possibly 
can, I confess: It just isn’t 
feasible. Given my school work, 
extracurriculars and attempt to 
get what’s considered a healthy 
amount of sleep, I just don’t have 
the time I’d like to sit down for 
hours and pore over every news 
outlet, read every breaking story 
and debate the findings. That’s 
why I’ve recently begun to swear 
by The New York Times’ morning 
briefings, essentially one- to 
two-sentence summaries of what 
the brief writers considered 
some of the most important news 
stories that day. This way, I feel 
as though I am staying up to date 
with the latest news.

About a week ago, The New 

York Times added a section 
called 
“Smarter 
Living: 

Morning Edition.” While the 
contents of the first edition of 
this new section were off to a 
positive, seemingly encouraging 
start — including reminders to 
stay positive and giving me a few 
tips to relieve my stress — the 
second Smarter Living edition 
struck a different cord. Scrolling 
past the section title, a plug for 
one of the stories caught my eye: 
“Miss your morning meal? Don’t 
sweat it — the science around the 
importance of breakfast is still 
basically unproven.” In it was a 
link to a piece on how breakfast 
may not be as important as we 
thought, because according to 
the article’s writer, many of the 
studies that corroborate this 
stance are weak at best.

While I don’t have too much of 

a problem with the fact that the 
author sets about to debunk the 
myth of breakfast being the most 

important meal of the day, the 
intentionally short plug — meant 
to hook the reader and recap the 
piece — was worded in such a 
way that its writer appeared 
oblivious to the harmful ways 
in which our society discusses 
eating. If I hadn’t clicked on the 
accompanying article, I might 
read the takeaway as one that 
deemphasizes the importance 
of eating more generally. The 
plug implies people should 
focus on eating less, but the 
piece focuses on debunking the 
theory that breakfast is the most 
important meal.

What’s even more jarring to 

me is the fact that if I suffered 
from an eating disorder, I might 
have read this short sentence and 
seen it as another affirmation 
of our society’s values. Instead 
of taking a flippant attitude 
toward 
skipping 
meals, 
we 

should be re-examining the way 
we talk about food. Even though 
this short sentence to draw in 
a reader may be misleading, 
what if this is how you get your 
news? We are a society that puts 
thinness on a pedestal; from the 
dimensions of Barbie to the style 
tips that tell us what colors will 
make us look thinner, we are 
constantly made self-conscious 
of our bodies. And though 
many eating disorders are about 
control, not so much food itself, 
there is no doubt that American 
society often emphasizes one 
ideal size.

As 
a 
young 
college-aged 

woman, 
fitting 
within 
the 

demographics most at risk for 
eating disorders and body image 
issues, this anecdote is especially 
alarming to me. According to 
the National Eating Disorders 
Association website, in 2011, 20 
million women and 10 million 
men in the United States suffered 
from 
some 
type 
of 
eating 

disorder. In fact, girls as young 

as 6 are concerned with their 
weight or figure.

Instead 
of 
encouraging 

people to eat, short statements 
such as these tell a society 
(and 
anyone 
else 
reading 

this) where many are already 
hyperconscious of their body 
that eating isn’t very important. 
(That said, I acknowledge that 
there is a significant number of 
people who are not a huge fan of 
all meals, and if they want to skip 
a meal, that is their prerogative.) 

But it is the job of journalists 

to be careful of every word 
they put out there — every 
phrase they shorten to make it 
fit into a briefing, every word 
they decide to use to pack more 
of a punch — because words 
matter. For the most part, I 
firmly believe that the fewer 
words you use to say things, the 
better. We need to think twice 
if we are attempting to boil 
something down that actually 
requires a more fleshed-out 
explanation, or we risk it being 
misinterpreted. For the young 
woman who, simply judging 
by her demographic as a young 
woman, already has a high 
risk of possibly developing an 
eating disorder, how does this 
seemingly inconsequential (yet 
attention-grabbing) 
sentence 

about how harmless it is to skip 
breakfast affect her? Something 
so stark published by a well-
regarded publication like the 
Times has the power to help or 
harm in significant ways.

It is the job of the Times 

and all publications — in fact, 
all journalists, friends, family, 
authors 
and 
government 

officials — to think: If I condense 
something complex down into 
so few words, am I doing more 
harm than good?

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY 

and REBECCA TARNOPOL 

Editorial Page Editors

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.

Carolyn Ayaub

Samantha Goldstein

Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Max Lubell

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Ali Safawi

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Anna Polumbo-Levy is a 

co-editorial page editor.

#Unpresidential

COREY DULIN | COLUMN

Corey Dulin can be reached at 

cydulin@umich.edu.

COREY 
DULIN

FROM THE DAILY

State should reconsider bag ban
L

ast month, Michigan’s Lt. Gov. Brian Calley signed a law that will 
prevent local governments from taxing or restricting the use of 
“auxiliary containers,” defined as single or multi-use bags, cups, 

bottles or other packaging. This comes after Washtenaw County passed an 
ordinance last June to charge a 10-cent fee for paper and plastic grocery bags 
that would have gone into effect this April. With this statewide ban, we will 
continue to see the harmful effects of plastic bags and other non-recyclable 
containers on the environment and deny the state a possible source of revenue 
that could be used to counter those effects. While legislators cited a desire to 
not force a patchwork of laws regarding these containers on state businesses, 
The Michigan Daily’s editorial board believes the best course of action 
should be to pass a statewide tax on plastic bags, thereby enforcing one law 
across the state and discouraging the use of harmful disposable containers.

ANNA 

POLUMBO-LEVY

JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU

As the Great 

Lakes State, we 
must be mindful 

of our fragile 
freshwater 
ecosystem.

