I
t was 2:30 a.m. on a
Thursday.
I
had
just
finished working a shift
in my lab and needed to start
fixing my newspaper column
because it was ripped apart
by the editor. As I was getting
ready
to
write,
I
opened
Spotify and was greeted by
an advertisement of Taylor
Swift’s new single. Because
I hadn’t heard this song all
the way through, I decided to
give it a listen.
I attempted to work but
couldn’t think straight while
the chorus of seemingly never-
ending “look what you made
me do’s” reverberated through
my head from Swift’s cleverly
titled single “Look What You
Made Me Do.” As much as
I would like to say, “No one
cares what you did, Taylor,” I
would be wrong considering
her single broke streaming and
viewing records on Spotify and
YouTube. People idolize Taylor
Swift and often seem to be
more invested in her life than
their own. This is a problem.
In modern society, social
media and even television have
evolved in a way that favors
making the famous even more
famous.
Celebrities
thrive
off
publicity,
and
through
platforms such as Instagram,
Snapchat
and
Twitter,
providing
them
with
this
notoriety has become a part of
our everyday lives.
But
what
makes
us
interested in celebrities in
the first place? Well, most
of the time they have lives
that are more interesting and
extravagant than our own.
They have lifestyles that most
of us regard as fantasy, and
social media has allowed us to
admire these lifestyles 24/7.
In the amount of time it takes
to unlock a phone and open
Instagram, you can see where
Leonardo DiCaprio decided to
go after winning his Oscar or
what color Lamborghini Justin
Bieber decided to drive to the
MTV Video Music Awards. By
commenting on and reacting
to photos and videos, we’re
provided with the illusion
that we’re having an impact or
taking part in celebrities’ lives
— but we’re not.
The truth is that we’ve all
become pawns in their personal
marketing campaigns. No one
seems to take a step back and
ask themselves, “Why do I care
about these people? Why am
I one of 500,000 commenting
on Kylie Jenner’s selfie? Aren’t
there more important things I
should be focusing on?”
The
average
U.S.
adult
spends more than six hours
per week on social media,
and I bet that a good chunk
of this time is spent viewing
celebrities.
If
you
don’t
believe me, just look at Kim
Kardashian — one of the
most popular individuals on
Instagram with 103 million
followers. That’s roughly a
third of the United States’s
population.
Imagine
what
people
would
be
able
to
accomplish
if
the
total
time spent on Kardashian’s
Instagram page were spent on
something useful.
Even television has shifted
its focus to endorsing the
famous and making them
viral sensations. “Celebrity
Family Feud,” “Hollywood
Game Night” and “Running
Wild with Bear Grylls,” for
example, are shows that never
shift their spotlight from
the rich and famous because
featuring
celebrities
can
boost ratings and entertain.
As a result of this trend,
reality
competition
shows
are no longer about finding a
star. Unlike “American Idol,”
which did an extremely good
job of placing emphasis on the
individuality and development
of its contestants, shows like
“The Voice” and “America’s Got
Talent” are about marketing
the judges and serving as a
platform to further perpetuate
their
celebrity
status.
A
contestant’s
performance
is merely background noise
while the camera forces you
to examine every change in
a judge’s facial expression as
they ponder whether they like
what they’re seeing.
Though these competitions
have
each
produced
11
winners, none of them have
had mainstream commercial
success.
But
for
celebrity
judges
like
Adam
Levine
and
Blake
Shelton,
these
shows have allowed for the
advertisement
of
comeback
albums, live performances and
creation of fashion lines while
simultaneously
establishing
relationships with a large,
diverse audience.
I’m not saying that the over-
marketization of celebrities
is always a bad thing. Some
of them are great role models
who
are
truly
inspiring.
But when you find yourself
scrutinizing every detail of
Taylor Swift’s feuds, listening
to “Look What You Made Me
Do” on repeat to decipher the
lyrics and choosing sides in
her celebrity row, it might be
time for a reality check. People
need to spend more time
focusing on their own lives
and aspirations, because they
can make far more important
contributions to society than
a poorly written diss track or a
viral selfie.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Monday, September 18, 2017
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
W
hen I was younger,
I had an imaginary
friend
named
Raleigh. Together, we played
on an imaginary soccer team
called the Wild-Winds. We
went to school together and
had playdates after class. Just
as I awaited Santa’s arrival by
placing cookies and milk on the
fireplace mantel on Christmas
Eve or delicately put my freshly
pulled teeth under my pillow at
night expecting the tooth fairy,
Raleigh sprung from the depths
of my imagination — a false
reality which others around
me validated. My mother had
a soccer jersey for the Wild-
Winds team made for me.
She
intricately
gift-wrapped
and placed “Santa’s” presents
around our Christmas tree. She
slid dollar bills under my pillow
in exchange for my teeth.
Having grown out of our
childhood
fantasies,
as
a
society it is safe to say that
we
don’t
think
like
this
anymore. There is no make-
believe
or
magic.
Parents
won’t
contextualize
or
qualify the abstractions of
our imagination. Instead of
creating an imaginary soccer
team to play on, we now say
things like “I can’t imagine
that Cristiano Ronaldo won’t
be considered one of the best
soccer
players
ever.”
It’s
fair to say there’s a societal
normalcy in this concreteness
— the improbable remains
intangible. At least this was
what I thought until recently.
My reflections regarding
Raleigh are not meant to
bombard you with memories
of my childhood. Instead, I use
him to draw a parallel to my
“imagination” today. I would
never
have
imagined
my
identity as a Black American
woman
would
become
as
threatened as it has within
the past few months. I would
never
have
imagined
that
others like myself who belong
to
minority
communities
would have to fear losing their
homes or families. I would
never have imagined that the
process of “making America
great
again”
included
the
blatant resurgence of racism
and racially charged violence.
Most significantly, I would
never have imagined that fear,
hate and violence touching the
very core of our lives — once
figments of my imagination —
would become validated by the
government and society, just like
how Raleigh was legitimized
by
my
mother.
Maybe
my
thoughts were incorrect. Has
the improbable, or outrageous
or absurd — the unimaginable —
become tangible?
Last
week,
the
seventh
season of “American Horror
Story”
premiered.
Spoiler
alert: This season’s storyline
centers on an American woman
named Ally who experiences
extreme
emotional
turmoil
and
excessive
paranoia
following President Donald
Trump’s election. Her phobias
actualize, and she seemingly
hallucinates
terrifying
interactions
with
clowns,
which others view as a figment
of her imagination or as her
“going crazy.”
In other words, Trump’s
election reached the depth
of her imagination. Her story
mirrors
my
reflections
of
Raleigh
and
the
political
and social climate of today’s
society (minus the clowns).
The 2016 presidential election
and subsequent policies and
events
under
the
Trump
administration serve as the
tipping point for Ally at the
same time the unimaginable
(killer
clowns)
becomes
tangible, haunting each aspect
of her everyday life.
I do want to make sure
everyone
understands
that
this is a dramatization. We
hopefully aren’t hallucinating
killer clowns or being consumed
by our phobias because of
President Trump’s election.
However, I aim to draw
your
attention
to
the
connection. What we thought
was impossible or outlandish
or discriminatory has become
very real, very quickly. I
use the word “we” here to
describe we as human beings,
regardless of race, gender,
religion, sexual orientation or
political affiliation.
We must recognize some
faults
or
tensions
in
the
decisions of our executive,
legislative
and
judicial
branches
of
government,
which, in turn, trickle down
into
our
society
through
violence and use of hateful
rhetoric. We as human beings
must
see
and
feel
these
divisions emerging, whether
they’re in our own lives or in
what we view through media
outlets. We as human beings
must
observe
the
Trump
administration’s
progressive
action to marginalize certain
communities or those who
embody certain identities. For
it would be rather impossible
not to witness this unfolding
before our eyes.
Now, whether you find these
developments “unimaginable”
or “imaginable” may be the
source of our agreement or
disagreement. However, I hope
we can all recognize a shift in
our political and social climate
as of late in light of events like
the
Trump
administration’s
rescinding of DACA, banning
of transgender individuals in
the military and “travel ban,”
the violence in Charlottesville,
Va., and Betsy Devos’s recent
criticism of Title IX.
I no longer play make-
believe soccer games with
Raleigh or wait for visits from
Santa and the tooth fairy.
Instead, I imagine what will
come of this country in the
next four years.
How about you?
Don’t feed celebrity feeds
EVAN SIRLS | COLUMN
My friend, Raleigh
STEPHANIE MULLINGS | COLUMN
Stephanie Mullings can be reached
at srmulli@umich.edu.
Evan Sirls can be reached at
esirls@umich.edu.
— Tony Choi, DACA recipient who moved to the United States
from South Korea when he was nine years old.
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
I want to get up on the biggest
microphone ever and say
immigration is an issue that affects
more than just Latinos... We come in
all genders, all shapes and sizes.
”
WANT TO JOIN OUR TEAM?
Come to The Michigan Daily’s mass meetings!
Mass meetings will be located in the newsroom at 420
Maynard on Sept. 18 and 19 at 7 p.m. Hope to see you there!
T
his academic year, we
have already witnessed
two
record-breaking
hurricanes, a massive fire in
California and devastating floods
in South Asia. “Climate change”
is
the
word
on
everyone’s
lips. Here at the University of
Michigan, we go to great efforts
to ensure that we’re doing our
part to combat climate change
and promote a healthy earth. We
are, after all, the Leaders and
the Best. But why is it that when
it comes to addressing some
of the largest causes of global
climate change, the University
is just following the crowd?
One of the largest causes of
global climate change is, by the
way, the animal food industry.
As a progressive, forward-
thinking institution that prides
itself on its environment and
sustainability
efforts,
the
University should be a societal
leader
when
it
comes
to
acknowledging and responding
to the devastating relationship
between
animal
foods
and
climate change. Instead, the
University decidedly ignores
the huge role animal food plays
in perpetuating climate change.
Studies after studies point
to animal agriculture not only
as “bad for the environment,”
but as the single biggest factor
hurting
the
environment.
Georgetown
J.D.
candidate
Christopher Hyner wrote an
excellent article, entitled “A
Leading Cause of Everything,”
for
the
Georgetown
Environmental Law Review. He
states that “animal agriculture
is a leading cause of many major
environmental
problems
we
face globally and domestically—
most
importantly,
climate
change. … This means that
animal agriculture must be a
central element of our efforts to
mitigate climate change.”
I encourage all of you to
read Hyner’s article. But for
those of you who will inevitably
form your opinions without
doing
sufficient
research,
I will briefly touch on the
grave implications of animal
agriculture. In South America,
cattle ranching is responsible
for 75 percent of deforestation
in the Brazilian Amazon. At
least one-third of public lands in
the contiguous United States is
devoted to animal agriculture.
Animal agriculture is also the
number one consumer of fresh
water in the U.S, according to
Hyner’s research.
Fifty-one
percent
of
worldwide
greenhouse
gas
emissions come from livestock
and
their
byproducts,
and
replacing livestock products
with
more
sustainable
alternatives would have more
rapid effects on greenhouse gas
emissions than replacing fossil
fuels with renewable energy.
According to calculations made
from Worldwatch Institute’s
research, even if we were to
eliminate fossil fuels entirely,
we would still reach our 565
gigaton CO2 emissions limit
by 2030, just from the animal
agriculture industry.
On a more positive note,
cutting animal foods out of
your diet would decrease your
contribution
to
greenhouse
gas emissions to one-seventh
of what they were while eating
meat. Even the United Nations
has stated that “a global shift
toward a vegan diet is vital to
save the world from the worst
impacts of climate change.”
Veganism is one of the most
powerful tools we have for
combatting
climate
change.
Yet,
from
the
University’s
standpoint, it’s nothing but a
personal dietary choice.
The U.S. government ignores
the danger of animal foods
because it has incomprehensible
vested
interest
in
the
animal agriculture industry.
Subsidies,
legislation
and
regulation play a major role
in our access to animal foods
and are the only reason we
can purchase them at such
low prices, as is outlined by
David Robinson Simon in his
book “Meatonomics.”
It hurts my heart to believe
that the University would turn
a blind eye to the disastrous
implications of the animal food
industry for those same reasons.
To
the
environment’s
detriment,
the
University’s
sustainability
and
climate
change efforts don’t mention
veganism at all. For example,
the University expresses a desire
to “pursue energy efficiency
and fiscally-responsible energy
sourcing strategies to reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions
toward
long-term
carbon
neutrality.” To do this, it focuses
on things like decreasing vehicle
carbon output, even though
a larger percentage of global
greenhouse gas emissions is
directly attributable to livestock
production than is attributable
to the entire transportation
industry (according to United
Nation’s Food and Agriculture
Organization).
In another case, Planet Blue
expresses a goal of purchasing
more food from “local and
sustainable sources,” but it fails
to provide a comprehensive
definition
of
“sustainable”
other than stating the farming
practices that it considers to
be such. It would be helpful to
understand how it determines
if meat, eggs and dairy are
sustainable; The New York
Times notes that meat labeled
as “sustainable” is often even
worse for the environment.
The word “vegan” is only
mentioned in passing on the
Planet Blue website and is
never
once
mentioned
on
the website for the Graham
Sustainability Institute.
The University has a unique
position of power. If “reduced
consumption of animal foods”
was one of the school’s climate
change goals, other institutions
would likely follow suit. It
could start a precedent of
reducing climate change in the
most effective way possible.
The University truly has the
opportunity to be the “Leader
and the Best,” and yet, in what
is arguably one of the most
critical issues ever, it is settling
for mediocrity.
HANNAH HARSHE | OP-ED
U must address animal agriculture
Hannah Harshe is an LSA
sophomore.
Why am I one
of 500,000
commenting on
Kylie Jenner’s
selfie?