Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, October 18, 2019

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Timothy Spurlin

Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
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

KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN

It’s time for sustainable agriculture
F

ollowing
the
recent
climate
strike
that
took place on campus
last month, I have
been thinking a lot
about how I show
my
concern
for
the future of our
environment. I was
proud
of
myself
for
participating
in
an
event
that
only
resembled
a microcosm of a
greater
movement
and
a
period
in
our lives that will become
a distinguished part of our
history. Even through that
sense of pride, I realized
that this one event doesn’t
represent my entire lifestyle.
I should be creating more
habits to cultivate my own
consciousness
about
the
quality of our environment.
How can I truly care about
our future when I continue
to practice a lifestyle that is
leading to its destruction?
With that being said, I think
it’s time that all of us — myself
included — begin to uphold an
environmentally-conscious
mindset
that
starts
with
sustainable agriculture.
Among the many aspects
of
our
daily
habits
that
contribute to climate change,
our nutrition and appetite are
major ones. While admittedly
a habitual and unconscious
decision, the simple choice
of consuming meat or not
consuming meat has become
one of the most important
debates influencing the future
of the food industry today. Not
only has the food industry been
where this matter becomes
important, but it has expanded
to the public health sector,
the
environmental
sector
and the agricultural sector.
Donald
Scavia,
University
of
Michigan
professor
emeritus of environment and
sustainability, reflected in a
recent article on the way many
of our current diets contribute
to the gradual destruction of
our surrounding environment.
For instance, it’s logical
to connect the increase in
algal blooms in Michigan and
throughout the country with
the strain our diets put on
agriculture. As we contribute
to climate change through the

emission of greenhouse gases,
we also contribute to these
destructive algal blooms by
allowing
surface
runoff
to
contain
contaminants such
as
fertilizers
and
pesticides.
Surface
runoff
poses
a
threat because an
increase
in
the
amount of nutrients
present in a body
of
water,
coupled
with the increasing
temperatures
of
those waters, festers large
amounts of algal growth. Thus,
it appears that the quality of
our water resources has been
hindered both by our demand
for mass agriculture and by
our other actions heating our
planet, which are aspects of
our lives that we can control.

In an unintentional and
almost
oblivious
way,
our
agricultural
practices
are
leading to the destruction of
the resource that best serves
them and are jeopardizing the
functionality of the industry
as a result. At this point, it’s
imperative to speculate how
we can allow the agriculture
industry to sustain itself and
realize that it’s going to require
drastic measures of change
for self-sustained, deferential
agriculture to be possible.
Despite the challenges that
will surface in this effort, we
should be aiming to continue
our mentality of being able
to
provide
for
ourselves
as
a
civilization
through
agriculture, but only if we
make the alterations necessary
to make it a sustainable and
conscious process.
In an effort to promote
the
action
of
government
and
businesses
to
make
agriculture
sustainable,

Scavia comments on reducing
several components of the
food
industry
system
and
implementing other techniques
that reduce the effects of
contaminants in our natural
settings. For one, reducing
the necessity for industrial-
scale corn production would
eliminate the extent that corn
production
contributes
to
nutrient pollution. In addition,
reducing meat consumption
would reduce the demand for
corn production, again limiting
the effects our actions have on
the environment by controlling
sources of nutrient pollution.
Similarly,
implementing
a
two-stage drainage ditch in
the topography of agricultural
areas would allow for the
shape of the land to naturally
capture
nutrients
without
dispensing
them
into
the
groundwater
during
heavy
rainfall
periods.
Thus,
we
should expect that the quality
of our water resources can be
salvaged in part by altering the
demand for several types of
infrastructure and all aspects
of our lives and our society
that we are able to influence
and control.
As Scavia concludes, it’s
more surprising that little to
no action has taken place to
mitigate industry’s negative
impacts on our environment
than
the
fact
that
our
environment is suffering as
a result. Perhaps we aren’t
able to contribute immediate
change to the policies and
laws we live by, but we have
to realize that our social
lives and habits today have
been sculpted by the reaches
of
corporate
influences
since the beginning of the
Industrial Age. We have the
opportunity to influence the
companies and the products
that serve us. Therefore, to
show them that we are truly
concerned about sustainable
practices, it’s crucial that
we support shifting toward
agricultural
sustainability
by reducing our interest in
degrading
processes
and
demand corporations become
the primary proponents in
creating institutional change.

JONATHAN VAYSMAN | COLUMN

Why pulling out of Syria is a massive mistake

MAX STEINBAUM | COLUMN

The Gettysburg of the Trump presidency
F

our months after the
Union and Confederate
armies
receded
from
Gettysburg,
President Abraham
Lincoln
boarded
a
train
bound
for
the
southern
Pennsylvania
town
that had witnessed
the costliest battle
in American history.
The following day,
He
delivered
a
two-minute speech
that redefined our
nation’s mission and has since
come to be counted among
the greatest speeches of all
time. But the president did
not anticipate his Gettysburg
Address to be as revered as it
has been, or at least, he did
not believe his words could
ever match the sacrifice made
by the Union soldiers four
months prior. “The world will
little note, nor long remember
what we say here,” Lincoln
said. “But it can never forget
what they did here.”
Lincoln,
of
course,
was
only half right. America did
note and does remember what
was said on that Thursday in
November in Gettysburg.
There are few times in
American history when the
words of our leaders have
become
so
entrenched
in
our national consciousness.
Our collective remembrance
of these times is usually
associated
with
significant
moments in American history.
The words of the Declaration
of Independence, for instance,
encapsulate
the
zeitgeist
of
Revolutionary
America.
The
immortal
reassurance
of
FDR’s
first
inaugural
address — “the only thing
we have to fear is fear itself”
— reflects the uncertainty
Americans felt during the
Great Depression. Unlike in
November 1863, America is
not engaged in a Civil War of
cannons and rifles — but we
are most definitely engaged in
a civil war over our national
character.
We are quickly arriving
at one of these momentous
junctures.
As
House
Democrats
promote
impeaching President Donald
Trump — and justly so — two
realities are clear: In the event
of impeachment, all of America

is curious as to what Congress
will say, and posterity will
most definitely applaud or
condemn them for
what they do.
As
much
as
Trump
and
his
loyal
Republican
minions
wish
to
discredit
the
impeachment
inquiry, the drama
is
no
trumped-
up
theater.
Our
president
attempted
to
persuade
a
foreign
government to investigate a
political rival for personal
gain. It was against the law,
and if unpunished, it puts
the integrity of American
democracy in peril.

By no means was Trump’s
solicitation of the Ukrainian
government
to
investigate
former Vice President Joe
Biden and his son appropriate
or
acceptable.
Even
Fox
News’s
Tucker
Carlson,
a
long-time cheerleader for the
president,
recognized
the
severity of Trump’s offense.
“Some
Republicans
are
trying,” Carlson wrote with
Daily Caller co-founder Neil
Patel, “but there’s no way to
spin this as a good idea.”
House
Democrats,
who
launched
an
impeachment
inquiry after news of the
Ukraine
scandal
broke,
certainly agree. Unfortunately
for
the
president,
impeachment
resides
entirely within their control:
Impeaching
the
president
only requires votes from a
majority of the House, which
the Democrats hold 234-197.
After his impeachment on the
House’s charges, the president
would then be tried by the
Senate. To convict Trump
and thereby remove him from

office would require 67 Senate
votes.
Given
the
current
partisan composition of the
Senate, a conviction would
necessitate
20
Republican
defections.
According to an Oct. 3
USA
Today
poll,
only
17
percent of Republicans favor
impeachment.
Let’s pretend, for a moment,
that every Senate Democrat
were to vote to convict the
president; that’s 47 of the
necessary 67 votes. If the
way Senate Republicans vote
roughly
reflects
public
opinion, 17 percent of the
GOP’s 53 Senate seats would
bring in nine more votes for
conviction. The final tally
would be 56 votes in favor
of conviction to 44 against;
the Trump presidency would
survive by the grace of 11
Republican senators.
But that simulation assumes
Republican
voting
would
follow public opinion (it very
well may not), and that public
opinion won’t be different
come a Senate trial (it very
well may). It also ignores the
possibility,
however
slim,
that Republican senators —
however deferential to the
president in the past — may not
defend him from conviction.
As CNN’s Frida Ghitis reports,
“Former Republican Senator
Jeff Flake said if the vote were
private, at least 35 Republican
Senators” would vote to convict
the president — well over the
20 defections necessary for a
two-thirds majority.
Flake’s implication is rather
upsetting: Because America
will
know
how
individual
senators voted, a good deal of
Republicans — perhaps enough
to save Trump — will vote to
acquit despite their better
judgement. A principled stand
against our criminal-in-chief
will fail out of Republican
cowardice.
The Senate would do well
to remember that this could
potentially be the Gettysburg
of the Trump presidency and
perhaps even the era. In the
event of impeachment, the
bitterly judgmental eyes of
history will fall upon them,
and the country will note and
long remember what they did.

Kianna Marquez can be reached

at kmarquez@umich.edu.

Max Steinbaum can be reached at

maxst@umich.edu.

We are quickly
arriving at one of
these momentus
junctures

I

n
early
October,
President Donald Trump
announced his plan to
call back troops from northern
Syria. This was immediately
followed by Turkey invading
Syria. Trump claimed he was
completing
his
campaign
promise of bringing home our
troops and that “great nations
do not fight endless wars.”
While his base will see this
as him fulfilling a campaign
promise — which he is —
I view this as a colossal
mistake.
The Middle East is known
as one of the most unstable
regions in the world. It has
been plagued by war and
chaos for the entirety of the
21st century. By removing
our troops from the area and
allowing the Turkish forces
to invade, the chaos in Syria
would increase immensely.
A nation that has been torn
apart by an ongoing civil
war cannot handle a Turkish
invasion. David Ignatius, a
Washington Post columnist
tweeted that “a bad situation
in Northeast Syria is about
to get much worse...The US
will do nothing.” While I am
typically one to say that the
United States should not have
to be the world’s policeman, in
this case, I believe there is no
choice. By leaving the region,
we are leaving our Kurdish
allies
in
Syria
vulnerable
to the Turkish forces. The
Kurds
were
instrumental
in helping us defeat and
quell the presence of ISIS in
Syria. They were the boots
on the ground that helped
us tackle one of the world’s
most
dangerous
terrorist
organizations. Nikki Haley,
the
former
United
States

ambassador to the United
Nations under Trump, said it
best when she tweeted, “We
must always have the backs of
our allies, if we expect them
to have our back. The Kurds
were instrumental in our
successful fight against ISIS
in Syria. Leaving them to die
is a big mistake.” If we allow
our Kurdish allies to die,
why would any of our other
allies trust us to stand up
for them? Trump is not only
throwing Syria, specifically

Syrian Kurds, into a war with
Turkey, but he is also showing
our allies around the world
that we don’t care about
them. It’s a very dangerous
game to play. In a world as
interconnected as ours has
become, it is vital to make
sure that we keep strong ties
with our allies in the event of
an emergency, or even worse,
a war.
Even
Republicans
are
lashing out at Trump. Senate
Majority
Leader
Mitch
McConnell was critical of the
president’s decision, stating,
“A precipitous withdrawal of
U.S. forces from Syria would
only benefit Russia, Iran, and
the Assad regime. … I urge
the
President
to
exercise
American leadership to keep

together our multinational
coalition
to
defeat
ISIS
and
prevent
significant
conflict between our NATO
ally Turkey and our local
Syrian
counterterrorism
partners.” It is unusual to
see top Republicans, such as
McConnell, criticize Trump.
Despite the many issues I
have with McConnell, he is
completely right. In no way
would pulling out of Syria
benefit the U.S. It would
only help Russia and other
disruptors in the area, like
Iran. Leaving Syria allows for
hostile nations to influence
the region and create more
chaos. Russia knows that a
war with the U.S. would end
in catastrophic loss for both
sides, but with the U.S. out
of Syria, they will be able to
assist the Turks in taking over
the region and killing Kurdish
allies. There is no reason for
Russia to be fearful with the
U.S. gone.
I believe that Trump needs
to reconsider his stance on
pulling out of Syria. This could
be far worse for his campaign
than not bringing home the
troops. The aftermath of what
will happen in Syria will be a
permanent stain, among many
other things, on his foreign
policy resume as president.
Our allies will have less faith
in us, and our word will mean
nothing. The next time we
make a promise to an ally they
will take it with a grain of salt
because of our actions in Syria.
It will result in countless lives
of allies lost and will throw
the Middle East further into a
downward spiral.

Jonathan Vaysman can be reached

at jvaysman@umich.edu.

Our allies will
have less faith in
us, and our word
will mean nothing

I should be creating
more habits to
cultivate my own
consciousness
about the quality of
our environment

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.

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/survivespeak.

MAX
STEINBAUM

KIANNA
MARQUEZ