Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
Erin White

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

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

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
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

MARISA WRIGHT | COLUMN

I

t is hard to recall any 

generally well-liked public 

figure who has so deeply 

or quickly damaged their own 

reputation as former Starbucks 

CEO Howard Schultz. It only 

took him a week, but he managed 

to piss off almost the entirety of 

the Democratic Party.

During an appearance on 

CBS’s “60 Minutes” to promote 

his new book, Schultz disclosed 

he is considering running for 

president in the 2020 election. 

He is just another in a long list 

of 
people 
announcing 
their 

intentions 
to 
run, 
including 

Sen. 
Elizabeth 
Warren, 

D-Mass., Julián Castro, former 

Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development, 
Sen. 
Kirsten 

Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Sen. Kamala 

Harris, D-Calif., Mayor Pete 

Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., 

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Former 

Congressman 
John 
Delaney, 

D-Md. and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, 

D-Minn. 
Despite 
an 
already 

loaded field, it is likely that even 

more candidates will join the 

race, especially given some of the 

prominent potential candidates, 

such as former Vice President 

Joe 
Biden 
and 
Sen. 
Bernie 

Sanders, I-Vt., have yet to declare 

their own decisions.

Unlike the rest of these 

candidates, Schultz does not 

intend to vie for the Democratic 

nomination for president, despite 

being a lifelong Democrat. He 

said, “I am seriously thinking 

of running for president. I will 

run as a centrist independent, 

outside of the two-party system.”

In deciding to run as an 

independent, Schultz has decided 

to skip the fight. The point of a 

party primary is for candidates 

to present their ideas to the party 

and convince voters that their 

plan for the country is the best 

one. A primary allows a group 

of people with similar values to 

debate and vote on policies that 

best fulfill those values.

“The way I’ve come to this 

decision is, I believe that if I 

ran as a Democrat, I would have 

to say things that I know in my 

heart I do not believe, and I 

would have to be disingenuous,” 

Schultz said.

He has decided that his 

policies are so unattractive that 

he will refuse to do the hard 

work of persuasion, and instead, 

risk the re-election of President 

Donald Trump. Unlike the other 

candidates who have declared 

their candidacy, Schultz can 

use his billions to get his name 

on the ballot in every state 

and hire the best pollsters 

and strategists. These billions 

allow him to skip the debate 

exactly when the electability of 

candidates is so crucial.

In doing so, Schultz poses 

a problem for the country. If he 

runs as an independent, he could 

shave off enough votes, even if 

it is just 3 to 4 percent of votes, 

from the Democratic candidate 

to deliver a fatal blow. As a 

fiscally conservative and socially 

liberal centrist, Schultz does 

not have a big enough coalition 

to win. He does, however, have 

a big enough coalition to ensure 

a Trump victory. See Ross Perot 

and Ralph Nader.

This is the Howard Schultz 

problem, but there is also a 

problem with Howard Schultz. 

In the time since he has mused 

about running for president, 

he has not actually presented 

a substantive plan for the 

future of the country. He has 

not offered one single positive 

policy to solve the myriad of 

problems the country faces. He 

has also not explained why he 

wants to be president or why he 

thinks he should be president.

Instead, 
Schultz 
has 

attacked 
Democrats. 
He 

called 
Elizabeth 
Warren’s 

new wealth tax “ridiculous” 

and said Kamala Harris’ plan 

to eliminate private health 

insurance was “not American.” 

All of these attacks do little 

to help the Democratic Party 

but do a lot to fuel Republican 

vitriol and talking points.

He has demonstrated the 

same egotism — the same “I 

alone can fix it” — attitude as 

Donald Trump in 2016. So far, he 

has predicated his presidential 

run on his business success. To 

be fair, he did implement several 

progressive 
policies 
while 

running Starbucks he could 

potentially base his candidacy 

on, such as intentionally hiring 

both refugees and veterans, 

as well as giving employees 

paid parental and sick leave. 

However, he has not cited these 

reasons for his announcement. 

And if one thing is clear from the 

past two years, it is that being 

the CEO of a company does not 

qualify you to be president of the 

United States.

Marisa Wright can be reached at 

marisadw@umich.edu

 TIMOTHY SPURLIN | COLUMN

Understanding the Polar Vortex

T

he recent polar vortex 
that swept through the 
Midwest trapped many 
inside as temperatures 
dropped 
dangerously 
low, resulting in the 
University 
canceling 
classes for just the third 
time in the past 40 years 
due to weather. Indeed, 
everyone bundled up 
and watched as the 
whole state seemed to 
shut down for a few 
days — stores closed 
early 
or 
altogether, 
schools canceled classes and only 
the bravest among us dared spend 
more than a few minutes outside at 
a time.
Now that we are safely on the 
other side of the winter storm, as 
we thaw ourselves and our frozen 
pipes, it is important to take a 
closer look at exactly what the 
polar vortex is, and what it means 
for us in the Midwest in the future. 
Unfortunately, as is customary by 
this point, some politicians took 
to Twitter and attempted to use 
the cold weather to attack the 
science of climate change among 
other environmental ideas. Apart 
from being wildly scientifically 
inaccurate, this kind of rhetoric 
is careless and dangerous to 
public interests.
Before delving into the different 
examples, we ought to establish the 
baseline in definitions. According 
to the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric 
Administration, 
“(W)eather refers to short-term 
changes in the atmosphere, climate 
describes what the weather is 
like over a long period of time in 
a specific area.” To put it simply, 
weather refers to the everyday 
fluctuations of the atmosphere 
— 
temperature, 
precipitation, 
humidity, etc. — and climate is the 
general average in an area over a 
long period of time. A great analogy 
is that weather is your mood, 
whereas climate is your personality.
Climate 
change 
is 
the 
scientific phenomenon of rising 
global temperatures on average 
over time due primarily to the 
addition of greenhouse gases to 
our atmosphere. While the data 
surrounding climate change is 
rather undeniable, it remains 
a political issue. Regardless of 
political views, however, climate 
change is happening and is already 
affecting the United States.
This 
doesn’t 
stop 
some 
politicians 
from 
taking 
every 
opportunity available to express 
disbelief. President Donald Trump 

tweeted out his thoughts about 
the polar vortex, suggesting it was 
connected to global warming. 
“In 
the 
beautiful 
Midwest, 
windchill 
temperatures 
are 
reaching minus 60 
degrees, the coldest 
ever 
recorded,” 
President 
Trump 
wrote. “People can’t 
last outside even for 
minutes. What the 
hell is going on with 
Global [sic] Waming? 
Please come back fast, 
we need you!”
This is not the first time the 
president used cold temperatures 
to try and sow doubt about climate 
change, nor is he the only politician 
to use this tactic. Famously in 
2015, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., 
brought a snowball onto the Senate 
floor in an attempt to prove global 
warming is a hoax.

In an even more bizarre move, 
political pundit Jim Hoft tried 
using the cold temperatures against 
renewable energy, tweeting, “It’s 
a bit cold outside this morning in 
middle America... Aren’t you glad 
you aren’t heating your home with 
a solar panel like nitwit Socialist 
@AOC is demanding?” What I 
believe was supposed to be an 
attack on U.S. Rep. Alexandria 
Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal 
backfired on Hoft as many were 
quick to point out that the sun does 
indeed still shine when it is cold 
(in fact, solar panels can be more 
efficient in colder temperatures). 
It is clear that there is a severe 
misunderstanding of the climate 
science surrounding the polar 
vortex. Despite the dramatic name, 
the polar vortex isn’t anything out 
of the ordinary or all that unique. 
Moreover, 
our 
conversations 
surrounding it ought to reflect our 
scientific understanding.
As Simon Clark, an Oxford alum 
who has a doctorate in theoretical 
atmosphere and physics, points 
out in a recent YouTube video, the 
vortex is something that always 

exists and is constantly moving. 
“The polar vortex is a big, zonal 
circulation in the stratosphere 
that forms every year,” Clark says. 
“Usually, the circulation stays 
in a tight circulation around the 
poles, but every seven years or 
so the vortex weakens, causing it 
to dip further south, resulting in 
the arctic temperatures felt in the 
Midwest last week.”
Interestingly, climate scientists 
are studying the cycle of the 
vortex to see if there are any long-
run effects of global warming 
on the phenomenon. As global 
temperatures 
rise, 
extreme 
weather events are predicted to 
increase in frequency and volatility. 
While there is evidence to show 
changes in atmospheric jet streams 
due to rapid Arctic warming, 
there is inconclusive data thus far 
to prove a concrete connection 
between 
climate 
change 
and 
increased frequency of the polar 
vortex cycle.
While there is no conclusive 
evidence yet showing if or how 
the polar vortex cycle will be 
affected by climate change, it 
should absolutely not be used by 
politicians to try and contradict it. 
If anything, future observations 
and scientific study could prove 
the two to be linked — and that 
is 
something 
Midwesterners 
should pay close attention to. 
Reports show that during the 
three coldest days, the vortex cost 
the U.S. economy up to $5 billion 
due to closed businesses, schools 
and transportation. Additionally, 
effects 
of 
the 
dangerous 
temperatures claimed the lives 
of at least eight people, including 
a University of Iowa student. If 
there is a possibility that this is to 
happen more frequently as some 
researchers suggest, it could be 
very bad news for the Midwest.
It would be inaccurate to 
claim the polar vortex this year 
is directly a result of a changing 
climate. However, it does highlight 
that the Earth has an extremely 
complex 
climatic 
system 
and 
we ought to study it as closely as 
possible. Reducing it as something 
totally 
unique 
is 
a 
careless 
misrepresentation 
that 
could 
cost us in the future. By paying 
attention to climate scientists and 
the data, we can better prepare 
ourselves should this become a 
more commonplace occurrence 
and adapt accordingly if needed.

Timothy Spurlin can be reached at 

timrspur@umich.edu

 CAROLINE LLANES | COLUMN

I 

will 
be 
the 
first 
to 

admit that I’m not the 

most 
knowledgeable 
or 

indeed, 
the 
most 

enthusiastic 
about 

the NFL. Growing up 

in San Diego, Calif., 

I was peripherally 

aware of the drama 

with Dean Spanos 

and 
the 
Chargers 

culminating 
in 

their 
controversial 

(at 
least 
in 
my 

community) 
move 

to 
Los 
Angeles, 

and I have friends who go to 

church with Philip Rivers 

and 
his 
enormous 
family. 

I’ve managed to obtain, by 

osmosis, a paltry collection 

of facts about the Detroit 

Lions thanks to many of my 

Michigan 
born-and-raised 

friends. 
Whether 
it’s 
the 

head trauma, the seemingly 

arbitrary scoring system or my 

lack of exposure to a winning 

team, I’ve just never been able 

to truly get into the world 

of professional football. My 

interest, however, was piqued 

when my boyfriend told me 

about Amazon Prime’s female 

broadcasting team of Hannah 

Storm and Andrea Kremer. I 

had never really thought about 

football 
commentating 
as 

something that women could, 

or even should, be involved in.

My 
view 
of 
football 

commentators 
and 
play-by-

play analysts is that they are 

meant to be a sort of default 

persona: They both explain the 

game to the viewer and are the 

viewer. They’re watching the 

game right along with you, 

they’re just as surprised as 

you are when someone runs 

30 million yards for a double 

touchdown or whatever, but 

also they have to show you the 

replay and explain how this 

man who probably has head 

trauma was able to exploit the 

weaknesses in the defense to 

score six points. Even so, this 

doesn’t seem like a difficult 

job, but it definitely seems like 

a man’s job: They have to be 

a default and have a normal, 

unassuming 
male 
voice 

because straight white men are 

seen as the default in American 

society. No woman is going 

to be seen as an everyman, a 

default in the eyes of the red-

blooded, 
male-dominated, 

football-watching public.

In September 2017, Beth 

Mowins called ESPN’s Monday 

Night Football game between 

the Los Angeles Chargers and 

the Denver Broncos, and she did 

it again this past year for the 

New York Jets and the Detroit 

Lions. I decided to meander on 

over to YouTube to listen to her 

commentate, just to get a feel 

for what that might have been 

like. In an interview 

with NPR, Hannah 

Storm 
describes 

NFL broadcasts as 

being 
“extremely 

technical, 
and 
to 

some … it kind of 

sounds like they’re 

speaking a different 

language.” I found 

elements of this to 

be true as I listened 

to Mowins; I had no 

idea what a “two-tight end set” 

was, but I felt the energy and 

excitement as she exclaimed, 

“Touchdown, Denver!” Though 

this 
may 
be 
subjective, 
I 

thought that Mowins was a 

really excellent commentator. 

She 
was 
knowledgeable, 

quick on the draw, and had 

a clear, audible voice that cut 

through the noise of the game. 

Though male is the default, her 

female voice did not feel out 

of place whatsoever. I found it 

refreshing and even assuring.

Sometimes when I watch 

football with other people, I feel 

stupid for not knowing what’s 

going on. Listening to Mowins, 

I didn’t. It was as though there 

was another woman in the room 

who made me feel less like an 

outsider, like I understood what 

it was like to be the default for 

once. I then made the mistake of 

scrolling down to the comments 

section of the video. “How to 

ruin a football game 101,” one 

said. “Made my ears bleed,” 

another 
complained. 
The 

comments continued in that 

manner, all of which seemed 

to be people complaining about 

her voice, an obvious code for 

“I hate that a woman is doing 

this.” One viewer even said, 

“wow... Between letting players 

disrespect our flag, including 

(f*ggy) 
male 
cheerleaders 

dancing like women and this 

abomination of an announcer, 

the NFL seems to really want to 

make sure people aren’t tuning 

into football anymore.” 

Beth 
Mowins 
is 
a 

consummate professional. She 

spends months preparing for 

each 
game. 
She 
researches 

not just the teams, but their 

divisions and their conferences, 

in order to paint a larger 

portrait of what’s happening 

in football. She handwrites 

and color-codes index cards 

and creates a game board of 

potential information she can 

use. She meets with her partner 

months ahead of time, and they 

watch old games and practice 

calling 
them 
together. 
She 

meets with players and coaches 

before games to get quotes and 

information she can use in a 

broadcast. She cares about her 

job, and it shows in the quality 

of her work and her commitment 

to detail. Furthermore, she 

has been lauded by industry 

professionals for her excellent 

work. The malicious comments 

on Twitter and YouTube come 

from a group so used to being 

the default, so used to football 

being 
“a 
bastion 
of 
male 

superiority” that they could 

not even begin to comprehend a 

woman being good at her job, let 

alone better than a man. Many 

criticized 
her 
broadcasting 

partner, 
former 
NFL 
coach 

Rex Ryan, for not being quite 

up to scratch. Though our dear 

friend from YouTube, who was 

so concerned about the NFL 

not wanting people to watch 

football, should be worried 

about a number of issues when 

it comes to the league, a woman 

broadcasting is not one of them. 

Accessibility 
and 
expanding 

to a wider audience is a huge 

focus for the NFL, and networks 

having female broadcasters on 

their teams have the potential to 

be that expanding factor.

My only gripe about Amazon 

Prime offering the option of 

Storm and Kremer commentating 

NFL games is that it is an option. 

Obviously, 
there 
is 
nothing 

Amazon can do about the Fox 

Sports and ESPN broadcasting 

crew when they offer those 

as 
well. 
However, 
it 
seems 

reductive to only make them a 

part of the company’s effort to 

“enable customers around the 

world to customize their viewing 

experience,” just as it feels 

reductive to relegate Mowins 

to a couple pre-season games 

and a single Monday Night 

Football doubleheader each 

season. All three of these 

women are seasoned sports 

journalists with more than 

enough credentials to call an 

NFL game. Though I, for one, 

will be tuning in to Amazon 

Prime to hear Storm and 

Kremer come autumn, I know 

many 
viewers, 
especially 

male viewers, will not. By 

giving 
these 
women 
the 

opportunity to do these jobs 

and do them well, we provide 

millions of other women the 

opportunity to truly feel a part 

of a national phenomenon, to 

hear themselves on a national 

stage, to know that there are 

opportunities for them in these 

fields. 
Male 
viewers, 
quite 

frankly, need to sit down and 

let these women do their jobs.

How the NFL fumbles with female broadcasters

Caroline Llanes can be reached at 

cmllanes@umich.edu

TIMOTHY 
SPURLIN

Regardless of 
political views, 
however, climate 
change is 
happening

The audacity of Howard Schultz

In deciding 
to run as an 
independent, 
Schultz has 
decided to skip 
the fight

CAROLINE 
LLANES

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.

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD

Our open Editorial Board meets Wednesdays 7:00-8:30 PM at our 
newsroom at 420 Maynard St. All are welcome to come discuss 
national, state and campus affairs.

