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.