W
ith Valentine’s Day
less than a month
away and the heart-
shaped
boxes
of
chocolate
appearing on the shelves of
Walgreens,
I
find
myself
reminded
of the time when
I
would
spend
countless
hours
perusing
aisle
upon aisle for the
perfect box for my
then-girlfriend.
As a bachelor who
experiences
the
common
fear
of
finding
himself
dateless for Feb. 14, I take
solace in the fact that I no
longer bear the weight of my
previous relationship upon
my shoulders.
In
the
several
months
since the breakup, I have
discovered
many
positive
aspects to being unattached.
Singles
have
the
freedom
and flexibility to not have to
say good night or look after a
certain somebody or feel the
need to ask permission for a
night out with friends sans their
significant other, to name a few.
Most
importantly
however,
being single grants you the
right to freely indulge your
own time and self-investment
to the nth degree; you get to
be “unapologetically selfish.”
Finding the right partner
is one of the most challenging
endeavors that many of us
partake in, though we persist
with it because successfully
doing
so
can
be
very
rewarding.
Some,
however,
believe differently. Courtney
Porf from HerCampus offers
a
particularly
interesting
perspective to gain insight
from: “I think that college is
the best time to be single. It’s
where we’re supposed to be
exploring and diving into our
personal pool of interests, and
it’s really the last time we have
no serious financial obligations
or commitments and can be
unapologetically selfish.”
Let’s delve into this notion
of
being
“unapologetically
selfish.” The concept speaks to
the idea that you don’t have to
feel guilty for doing nice things
for yourself, such as eating
out or impulse buying that
cardigan from your favorite
brand. Being “unapologetically
selfish”
occurs
when
you
decide to splurge on yourself
in some capacity, whether it
is financially or simply doing
something that benefits you
exclusively.
When
you
are
“unapologetically
selfish,”
you don’t have to apologize
to your significant other for
treating yourself, because he
or she is out of the
picture. You don’t
have to buy someone
food because you
want
to
do
so
for yourself. The
only
person
you
have to answer to
for your actions is
yourself.
Did
you
want
No
Thai?
Yes, so you bought
some for yourself.
Unapologetic
selfishness
is
best experienced when single,
when you can serve yourself
to endless delight.
The concept of unapologetic
selfishness
transcends
the
mere material. It also speaks
to your ability to have the
freedom to choose how you
spend your time. While single,
you have no obligation to spend
any amount of time with any
given person, freeing you of
responsibilities for anything
not pertaining to your own
personal matters. Instead of
having to go on vacation with
that girlfriend or boyfriend,
you can study abroad, or take a
day trip to a city you’ve never
been to before, or simply read
a
book.
Such
indulgences
sometimes contribute to long-
term self-growth and maturity.
Beyond
the
liberty
to
choose to be uninhibitedly
self-serving,
being
single
also
provides
you
with
the opportunity to pursue
intrapersonal
growth.
You
only really know yourself when
you spend time alone. College,
for many, is a time of tremendous
growth: intellectually, socially,
emotionally
and
physically
(hello,
freshman
15).
This
growth occurs in a rather small
time frame: four years. When
you spend every Saturday with
your sweetheart instead of
doing homework or spending
time
trying
to
build
new
friendships,
you
limit
the
opportunities
you
have
to
grow in those areas. Strong
friendships often last forever,
whereas even the strongest
of romantic relationships in
college typically fail to last
for reasons that range from
differences in career trajectory
to the distinct development of
your social circles.
While being single provides
a college student tremendous
freedom, collegiate romance is
not without benefits. You never
have to open Tinder to find a
“cuddle buddy,” or think about
who you’re going to ask to
semi-formal because everyone
you would ask either is busy or
going with someone else. Most
importantly, however, you get
the opportunity to develop
your emotional capacity, which
will serve you well later in life.
You get to look at your darling
in the eyes and say “I love you”
and learn what it means to care
about someone in this capacity.
Those of you who haven’t
yet had a serious relationship
needn’t worry; you will have
plenty of time to live out that
experience long after your
college days are behind you
(or perhaps you may still meet
someone who you seriously date
in college!). When pursuing
a
romantic
relationship,
it
is important that a) both
parties are prepared for the
commitment and b) both parties
are in the same emotional place
so there isn’t a disconnect in
the emotional give and take
that occurs between couples.
Because this isn’t often the
case for those in college, being
single in college may allow you
to get more out of your four
years in the aforementioned
areas than if you spend them
attached to another person.
Moreover,
remaining
uncuffed
gives
you
the
chance to find yourself and
develop who you are so when
you meet your Mr. or Mrs.
Wonderful, you can handle that
responsibility with grace and
you are each two whole parts
individually rather than two
halves making yourself whole.
When you reach that point,
you will have had your chance
to be unapologetically selfish,
and will thus have the capacity
to accept the responsibilities
and
privileges
of
being
romantically
attached
to
another person. So as you sit at
your table with a glass of wine
and Nat King Cole’s “L-O-V-E”
plays overhead while doe-eyed
couples hold hands, saying “I
love you” and waltzing around
you, remember to enjoy your
unapologetic selfishness in this
moment, and know that you
will eventually meet someone
who knows all your dance
moves, inside and out. And
they won’t make you pay for the
wedding champagne.
O
ver the past eight years,
frustration with partisan
gridlock has reached an
all-time high. The U.S. Congress’s
overall approval rating
has plummeted from
a peak of 84 percent
in 2001 to a dismal 19
percent in 2017.
While Republicans
and
Democrats
bickered, the average
American’s
life
expectancy fell for
the first time in over
two
decades
and
deaths
by
opioid
overdose rose by more than 72
percent. In many parts of the
country, economic conditions
worsened after the recession,
even as the country as a whole
recovered.
The
dearth
of
opportunities in some rural
areas has ignited severe — and
warranted — anxieties about
the future of cultures and
communities in these locales.
While the media heralded
our return to pre-recession
unemployment
rates,
rising
inequality
sparked
feelings
of desperation in parts of the
country where former President
Barack Obama’s “Hope and
Change” seemed like unfulfilled
promises.
In
this
environment,
President Donald Trump — the
blusterous outsider promising
to “Make America Great Again”
— managed to convince enough
voters in electorally-important
states that he could finally
deliver change on their behalf.
To these voters, Trump was a
rock through the window in
the shiny, inaccessible halls of
government, a wake-up call to
the arrogant elite who had left
them behind.
The majority of voters didn’t
buy into Trump’s promises.
He lost the popular vote by
nearly 3 million and he entered
the White House as the least
popular incoming president in
at least 40 years.
Trump’s proposed mandate
—to the extent that he has one
at all — is a mandate for change.
Many of Trump’s supporters
expressed justified anger at
the lack of government action
in addressing the social and
economic
issues
that
face
distressed regions.
Yet
the
policy
proposals
Trump promoted as solutions
to these problems — notably
trade
protectionism
and
stricter immigration laws and
enforcement — are likely to hurt
the economy as a whole without
meaningfully
improving
the
lives of the average
American worker.
By
instituting
a
border tax or other
trade-limiting
proposals
he
has
proposed,
Trump
could
in
practice
hurt
the
U.S.
manufacturing sector.
Every dollar’s worth
of Mexican exports
sent to the United
States is manufactured using 40
cents worth of inputs from the
United States taxing Mexican
goods at the border. This would
pay for Trump’s infamous wall
as he proposed, but it could
actually cost United States jobs
at the firms that produce the
inputs used in Mexican goods,
should
Mexico
predictably
retaliate with a similar tax.
Limiting trade is unlikely to
significantly cap job losses in
manufacturing. The majority
of these job losses occurred
because
of
automation
and
technology, which will continue
to pose a greater risk to the
American working class in the
coming years by threatening to
replace a predicted 45 percent of
tasks currently done by humans.
A greater emphasis on — and
more funding for — training
for displaced workers, as well
as better math and science
education in public schools,
can do more to help employees
compete and thrive in the
changing economy.
Thus
far,
Trump
has
misdirected his attention to
bringing back jobs that have
already left or been automated.
Instead, he should focus on
creating new jobs. By increasing
funding
for
basic
science
research and expanding tax
incentives for innovation, the
government
could
spur
the
creation of new jobs, even if they
can’t bring back old ones.
Additionally, both tax and
health care reform could help
struggling workers take home
more of the money they do
earn.
Yet, in order to be effective,
these policies must be carefully
designed
and
implemented.
In
a
political
environment
demanding immediate change
and a 24/7 news cycle that
scrutinizes
each
political
action
(or
lack
thereof),
the
patience
that
quality
policymaking requires will be
hard to come by.
Already,
the
Senate
has
taken action toward repealing
Obama’s
health
care
law
without
introducing
a
replacement bill. This kind
of rash decision-making may
appease supporters who, after
years of gridlock, want to see
swift
congressional
action,
but it is unlikely to produce
the meaningful change that
struggling Americans need.
If
Republicans
want
to
maintain the inroads they made
into traditionally blue states
in the 2016 election, they need
to institute policies that will
produce tangible improvements
in the lives of those voters. Hasty
lawmaking may score political
points in the short term, but
it is unlikely to deliver the
change that voters demanded by
electing an outsider promising
to shake up the status quo.
Trump entered the White
House with both a Republican
House
and
Senate.
Instead
of
ram-rodding
through
a
conservative
agenda
in
his
first 90 days, Trump would be
wise to work with Congress
to pass thoughtful, innovative
policies to help working-class
Americans. While this may take
longer than headline-grabbing
actions
like
an
immediate
“Obamacare” repeal, taking the
time to enact policies likely to
make meaningful change would
help both Trump’s approval
numbers and the country as a
whole.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, January 24, 2017
When age is just a number
MICHELLE PHILLIPS | COLUMN
A
ge does not mean much
in regard to who you
are as a person. Sure,
it means a lot for your physical
development as a human being
in the early stages of your life,
but it should not hinder one’s
credibility. There comes a certain
point when physical experience
in a certain trade trumps your
biological age.
Recently, I went skiing for the
first time with two of my friends.
As we were inching down the
bunny hill on our stomachs
watching seven-year-olds glide
past us, we thought, “If they
can do it, so can we!” We were
wrong. Just because we were
older than many of the other
skiers on the hill did not mean
we were entitled to being better
than them. Though we have had
more experience living life, that
did not mean we had a right to
know how to ski.
Just because you are older
than someone does not mean
you
have
an
unexplained
advantage over younger people
in any ability. It can be argued
that in any stage of life, we
should not be defined by our age.
Too many times, we define
ourselves
by
numbers.
We
categorize ourselves by our age,
weight, test scores and wealth.
While plenty of these numbers
have been shown to correlate
with certain outcomes, we do not
have to let those outcomes define
our own personal desires and
our perceptions of our abilities
to achieve goals.
It is a common discussion in
today’s world that we cannot let
labels define us. We live our lives
trying to fit a socially constructed
model that potentially changes
our perspectives and morals
as a result. Most people do not
recognize age as a harmful label.
I think that many times, it’s
not; it shows how long you have
been on this earth, and backs
up an argument about what you
have done with your time here.
However, there are instances
when we characterize ourselves
by our age, ultimately restricting
us from opportunities.
If we limit ourselves to a
perception that is constructed
by someone else’s image of us,
we will live a life of comparison
and unhappiness. More often
than not, external perceptions
based on age cloud our own self-
perceptions.
There is a shocking feeling
when you realize the guy you
have been hitting on at the bar
is four years younger than you
and a sense of comfort when
meeting someone who is the
same age as you. When we learn
someone’s age, something that
cannot always be determined
by appearance, we have an
automatic instinct that changes
our perceptions.
We should be more vigilant
in
these
interactions
and
judgments
surrounding
our
age and question those who
are judgmental of such an
insignificant number. We have
put a societal value on numbers
because
of
the
traditional
beliefs and judgments that
have been present throughout
our society for years and it
is up to us to change how we
represent them.
There is a famous saying
that goes, “with age comes
wisdom.” However, I disagree.
In order to gain wisdom, we
must immerse ourselves in
a
stimulating
culture
that
pushes us to dig deeper into our
thoughts and questions. True
passion sparks from a genuine
interest in something and that
flame should never die out
simply because someone is “too
young” or “not as experienced.”
To
echo
another
famous
saying, “age is just a label.” It
represents how long we have
been living, but has no relation
to all we can accomplish and
learn on this planet.
Patient policymaking needed
VICTORIA NOBLE | COLUMN
The case for being single in college
ZACHARY COX | COLUMN
Victoria Noble can be reached at
vjnoble@umich.edu.
Michelle Phillips can be reached at
mphi@umich.edu.
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.
ZACHARY
COX
Zachary Cox can be reached at
coxz@umich.edu.
— Actress America Ferrera speaking at the Women’s March on
Washington on Saturday.
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
[Trump] would like us to forget the
words ‘Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to
breathe free’ and instead take up a
credo of hate, fear and suspicion of one
another. But we are gathered here and
across the country and around the world
today to say, Mr. Trump, we refuse.”
VICTORIA
NOBLE
Hasty lawmaking
may score
political points in
the short term,
but it is unlikely
to deliver the
change that voters
demanded.
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
MICHELLE PHILLIPS