O
ne day, I may forget my
name. I will wake up
in a stranger’s house
and see a person I’ve never
met before in the mirror. Her
eyes will stare blankly back at
me, face muscles sagging with
fatigue and confusion. One
day, I will forget how to hug
someone. I will have to ask
where the bathroom is in my
own home, and I will need help
getting there.
One day, my brain may
simply forget how to breathe.
Every 66 seconds, someone
in the United States develops
Alzheimer’s disease. It is the
sixth leading cause of death in
the nation, and the only one in
the top 10 that cannot be cured,
prevented or slowed. If there
is no cure in my lifetime, I may
become one of its victims — if not
me, then a loved one. Everyone
with a brain is at risk; no matter
how healthy your lifestyle or
how active your brain, your
own home may one day become
a maze of once-familiar objects
and hallways. Your loved ones
will helplessly watch from the
other side of the glass, your face
unrecognizable as you slowly
walk into the unknown.
I’ve
worked
at
the
Alzheimer’s Association for
eight months now and have
already
heard
a
lifetime’s
worth of stories from people
affected by the disease. I’ve
spoken with a woman who left
school to become a full-time
caregiver for her grandmother,
who recently passed away
after fighting Alzheimer’s for
15 years. I’ve heard stories of
husbands who have forgotten
their
wives’
names
after
50 years of marriage and
countless families who have
sacrificed
their
retirement
savings to preserve the last
few years they had with their
loved one. Children have told
me stories of how their parents
have already forgotten them
and I’ve read about brides
who have rescheduled their
weddings so that their parents
could attend before it could be
erased from their memories.
What gives me hope is
knowing that as more people
are affected by the disease, the
world gains more advocates
to fight against it. Right now,
thousands of people across the
country are participating in
the Walk to End Alzheimer’s,
“the world’s largest event to
raise awareness and funds
for Alzheimer’s care, support
and research.” I urge you to
join me on Sunday as I walk
alongside them at Washtenaw
Community College, bringing
us steps closer to a world
without Alzheimer’s.
Though
I
know
I
may
eventually
become
another
victim of the disease, I may
also be its first survivor.
One day, the unfamiliar may
become familiar once more,
and the glass of my eyes may
be cleared. I may be reunited
with my loved ones without
ever having to leave them.
I know that I am lucky to
have not yet been touched by
Alzheimer’s disease, though
in a way I already have. In just
eight months, the fear that I
may lose myself within my own
body has ignited a new passion.
The stories I’ve heard have lit
a purple flame within me that
grows each day, lighting the
way into the unknown, the
future, where I know the first
survivor will be waiting.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, October 6, 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
HANNAH BRAUER | OP-ED
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
Hannah Brauer is an LSA
sophomore.
NATALIE BROWN | CONTACT NATALIE AT NGBROWN@UMICH.EDU
Walking to end Alzheimer’s
Federal Level Policy
In the wake of the largest
mass
shooting
in
recent
U.S. history, Speaker of the
House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and
Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., will not talk
about gun violence this week.
Over at the White House, press
secretary
Sarah
Huckabee-
Sanders has said, “It would be
premature for us to discuss
policy when we don’t fully
know all the facts or what took
place (Sunday night).” I have
one question for our federal
government: If not now, when?
This “thoughts and prayers”
discourse followed by inaction
is nothing new. In fact, since
the shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary School in December
2012, Congress has failed to do
anything significant to stem
the tide of gun violence in the
United
States.
While
other
Western nations have taken
bold steps in the wake of tragic
shootings, the U.S. government
continues to do nothing.
While
it
is
difficult
to
understand
or
change
the
motives of domestic terrorists,
the federal government can
change their access to guns
— especially to assault rifles
and large magazines. Anti-gun
control sentiment is too common
in
our
federal
government,
which failed to reauthorize an
assault weapons ban (found
constitutional in court) when
the ban expired in 2004.
In a 2016 Gallup poll, 55
percent of Americans surveyed
said that laws regarding firearm
sales should be stricter. Though
the majority of the United
States is in favor of greater gun
control policies, our lawmakers
continuously fail to act. One of
the largest barriers to federal
common-sense gun reform is the
financial hold the National Rifle
Association has on Congress.
A
large
number
of
House
representatives and senators — a
majority of whom are members
of the GOP — receive monetary
incentives from the NRA. The
supposed “freedoms” granted by
the Second Amendment are not
worth the mass murders that are
becoming all too common. While
the NRA and White House
recently announced that they are
“open” to discussing regulating
bump stocks — a device one
can attach to a weapon that
allows it to fire multiple rounds
of ammunition in a row — they
have yet to make any concrete
plans and the timeline of any
such legislation is unclear and
promise of any follow-through is
hypothetical at best.
While there is a place for local
and state gun control, it does
very little if someone can drive
to Ohio to buy an assault weapon
banned in Michigan. The federal
government’s
mandate
over
interstate commerce is needed in
this matter to ensure the safety
of those who live in all corners of
our country.
Where
are
our
elected
representatives in the face of
such bloodshed? Will we finally
see Congress put people over
party, stand up to the NRA and
get something done after what
happened in Las Vegas? Federal
involvement is needed to combat
staggering rates of gun violence,
the highest in the developed world,
in the United States. It is high time
that Congress acts. Should they
fail, it is up to concerned citizens
to elect people who will.
Action against gun violence
M
onday’s Las Vegas shooting, which left at least 59 dead
and 500 injured, adds another tally to the United States’
dark history of gun violence. Action must be taken in
order to end these incredibly avoidable catastrophes. The Michigan
Daily Editorial Board believes issues surrounding gun violence
should be politicized in order to enact much-needed change. In
the following roundtable discussion, Opinion contributors suggest
three different ways to help eliminate gun violence in the U.S.
—The Michigan Daily Editorial Board
Local
and
State
Level
Policy
If you are 25 or older,
you have lived through six
of the 10 deadliest mass
shootings in United States
history. Despite our nation’s
collective
nausea,
the
shooting in Las Vegas is yet
another example that disgust
has failed to beget legislative
changes. After all, the last
time our Congress passed
any gun control legislation
was 2013. With NRA-backed
Republicans controlling both
the executive and legislative
branches, prospects in the
near future are grim. Because
of their inaction, we clearly
cannot wait any longer to
consider alternative means
of progress. We must start
demanding change in our
states, counties and cities.
“Local” change is almost a
pejorative; everybody knows
nationwide
change
has
a
greater impact and a wider
reach. But, if politics is the
art of the possible, then we
cannot
keep
counting
on
Congress to pass the kind
of laws many of us can see
are so desperately needed.
The consequences of stalled
reform become more and more
fatal with every homicide and
mass shooting.
While gun violence may
look slightly different state
by state, the violence doesn’t
vary so much that policy
proposals
for
individual
states must differ greatly
from the kind of policies
proposed nationally. Plenty
of organizations, lobbyists
and
policy
writers
can
make
local
legislation
a
reality.
Requiring
stricter
background checks, limiting
the amount and kinds of guns
per household, closing gun
loopholes and barring felons
and
members
of
federal
watchlists from purchasing
guns are all viable options
on the local level. Though
these are frequently referred
to as “common sense” gun
control laws, their individual
impact
is
unknown
until
implementation.
Some
of
these laws might prove to
do more harm than good,
especially if the punishment
for
breaking
these
laws
falls disproportionately on
certain populations.
There are many potential
issues
with
attempting
change on a more local level.
It’s putting a bandage on a
national wound, and there are
still no mechanisms to stop
the movement of guns across
state borders, let alone from
city to city. In addition to
these policy issues, there are
structural issues with a local
attempt, too — people simply
care less about state and local
issues, especially in off-year
elections. But, if gun control
is truly about limiting access
to guns, then a local attempt
is a necessary start.
With
a
Congress
that
actually enacted the will of
the people, we would have
already taken steps to address
gun violence. After all, polling
indicates that more than eight
out of 10 people in the United
States support some form of
gun control. In light of this,
the legislative paralysis we
are desensitized to is even
more morally repugnant. And
yet, the real tragedy would
be to wait in the hope that
things will change without a
different approach.
Funding for Research
Las Vegas; Orlando, Fla.; San
Bernardino, Calif.; Newtown,
Conn.;
Fort
Hood,
Texas;
Blacksburg, Va. All have at
one point been synonymous
with the gun violence that has
become almost epidemic in
our country. Yet somehow, the
notion of finding solutions to
this crisis is scoffed at by many.
But why exactly is this
level of violence unique to
our version of freedom? A
2016 study by The American
Journal of Medicine found that,
compared to 22 other high-
income nations, “Americans are
10 times more likely to be killed
by guns” as “the United States’
gun-related murder rate is 25
times higher.” Unfortunately,
the bulk of available research
on gun violence stops there.
Gun
legislation
in
this
country
is
not
drafted
through
careful,
pragmatic
consideration of public interest,
but is instead pushed by those
with the loudest voices and the
deepest pockets. It doesn’t take
much research to grasp this
fact, and any American who
truly cares about our citizens’
safety should acknowledge this
system as flawed.
It could not be clearer that
the NRA and the “logic” it
peddles should not be what
dictates our laws. It should
instead be based on common
sense and empirical realities.
The availability of such data,
however, is shockingly scarce
and
underfunded.
A
1997
spending
bill
amendment,
dubbed
the
“Dickey
Amendment,” has prevented
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control and Prevention from
conducting
comprehensive
gun violence research in the
two decades since. The NRA’s
rationale for pushing this bill:
The CDC is a biased, anti-
gun organization. The reality:
The CDC is an organization
formed with the purpose of
safeguarding the public health
by identifying threats to it
and lobbying for and applying
solutions to these threats.
Among
the
many
problems with the discourse
surrounding gun violence in
our country is the subjectivity
of logic. For instance, the
debate
over
open-carry
laws in numerous states is
a clash between two lines
of reasoning. On one end,
opponents argue the danger
of open-carry is that no law
is broken until shots have
been fired. On the other end,
many would argue the “only
way to stop a bad guy with a
gun is a good guy with a gun.”
Nevertheless,
there
is
no
doubt that in any discussion
of gun control both sides will
assert a logic they believe to
be unassailable.
There are merits to a law-
abiding citizen wanting to own a
gun, whether it’s for security or
sport. There are far fewer merits,
however, to a law-abiding citizen
easily
accruing
an
arsenal
of
military-grade
weapons,
ammunition and modifications.
The idea that many of our
lawmakers would rather take
the word of a corporate lobby
defending its own financial
interests over that of a federally-
funded public health institute
is asinine, and it’s clearer than
ever that this type of research
needs to be the backbone of our
legislation once again.
Maybe then we would live in
a country where those suffering
from mental illness couldn’t
swiftly obtain guns, those on
a terror watchlist couldn’t arm
themselves with assault rifles
and a deranged, law-abiding
citizen couldn’t stockpile 23
rifles and fire on 22,000 of his
fellow citizens.
“I may be its first
survivor.”
SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan Daily
for first-person accounts of sexual assault and its corresponding
personal, academic and legal implications. Submission
information can be found at https://tinyurl.com/y7vyteja.
David Donnantuono can be reached
at ddwdonn@umich.edu.
Ali Safawi is an Editorial Board
member and can be reached at
asafawi@umich.edu.
Andrew Mekhail can be reached at
mekhail@umich.edu.