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