Opinion The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 4 — Tuesday, December 10, 2019 Alanna Berger Zack Blumberg Emily Considine Joel Danilewitz Cheryn Hong Krystal Hur Ethan Kessler Magdalena Mihaylova Mary Rolfes Michael Russo Timothy Spurlin Miles Stephenson Joel Weiner Erin White Lola Yang 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 CHLOE PLESCHER | COLUMN Resist diet culture in the new year We should embrace aggressive climate plans A s the new year looms, so do resolutions of weight loss. Dieting to lose weight is the second most popular resolution in the United States for 2019, with exercising to get into shape being the first. Even though only 64 percent stick with their resolutions after January and only 46 percent after June, every year Americans pledge to lose weight. Diet resolutions feed into our fatphobic society, worshipping thinness and degrading fatness. In fact, data from 2010 show that Americans spent over $60 billion on dieting and diet products. Women’s magazines advertise weight loss at every grocery store check-out lane and social media is littered with clean- eating accounts and weight-loss promises. Even television hosts Jenna Hager and Hoda Kotb nervously weighed themselves live on air before starting their intermittent fasting diet. Moreover, Michigan is the only state with a civil rights law prohibiting a workplace to fire someone because of their weight. While some cities have similar protections, the other 49 states have no state-wide laws. All of these contribute to our nation’s diet culture. From intermittent fasting and the keto diet to low-fat diets, you usually have at least one friend trying something new in an attempt to lose weight. Fad diets continually cycle, brainwashing people into believing they will actually work. About 95 percent of people who lose weight from diets will regain the weight (and possibly even more) within one to five years. Additionally, there are more side effects to fad diets than temporary weight loss. Dehydration, weakness, nausea, headaches and general lack of nutrients are some of the side effects from fad diets. I suffered from these same side effects when I was actively in my eating disorder. Unfortunately, dieting does not only affect adults. Teenagers and kids are just as subject to dieting and fatphobia. According to a study by the American Academy of Pediatrics, teenagers aged 14 to 15 who dieted moderately were five times more likely to develop an eating disorder and those who heavily restricted their diets were 18 times more likely to develop an eating disorder. This was coupled with unhealthy weight control behaviors. According to researcher Dianne Neumark- Sztainer, teenage boys and girls engage in skipping meals, smoking, vomiting, laxative use and fasting. Diet culture is an issue that affects every age and gender. And for those already eating-disordered, diet culture perpetuates eating disorders and makes “a full recovery almost impossible.” For me, much of my time in outpatient treatment involved coping with societal triggers and evading diet culture, especially near the holidays. This is not to say never try to lose weight or be ashamed if you have. Everyone has different reasons to lose weight. For some, it is because of compromising health conditions where it is important to work with doctors and dietitians to create a sustaining meal plan to remain healthy. But by doing so, one can still help resist diet culture. There are multiple ways to counteract diet culture. First, use the Health at Every Size logic and guidelines — weight loss or gain is not necessarily a sign of improved health. Excluding extreme cases, people can be healthy or unhealthy at any weight. Personally, I know skinny and fat people who are healthy as well as some who are unhealthy. Weight is not the sole determining factor of health, yet society continually shames fat people even though being extremely underweight is ultimately more dangerous than the counterpart. Furthermore, through fad diets and fatphobia, our culture glorifies eating disorders for fat people, while showing concern for eating disorders in thin people. Society degrades fat people while putting thin (and emaciated) people on pedestals. Therefore, equal access to care is necessary. But equal access cannot happen until society reframes their thinking around fat people. It is important to reflect on your own weight biases and actions. Second, acknowledge your thin privilege, if applicable, and use it to help resist diet culture. Though a newly popular phrase, thin privilege has implications everywhere, especially in seating. Knowing you are able to comfortably sit in movie theaters, doctors’ offices, planes and restaurants means you have thin privilege. This is not a bad thing; people did not ask for it. Thin privilege is merely a result of a fatphobic society. However, people can choose to acknowledge their thin privilege and become involved in activism. From asking how to help, welcoming fat people to sit next to you or participating in Weight Stigma Awareness Week these small actions can help fight the nationwide fatphobia that diet culture encourages. Finally, do not give out unwarranted health advice. Health advice should come from professionals, such as doctors or dietitians. However, make sure your doctor or dietitian is part of the Health at Every Size movement, as even professionals can be fatphobic. There is no one way to cure diet culture. It is a $60 billion industry. However, we can perform small acts of resistance to not only help ourselves but others impacted by diet culture and the fatphobia within the culture. Fat people deserve the same treatment as thin people. Weight is not a measure of worth. It is time our society reflects that. KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN Chloe Plescher can be reached at chloebp@umich.edu. W hile speaking at the Democracy Alliance meeting held in Washington, D.C. this month, former President Barack Obama criticized far- left policies promoted by the current Democratic presidential candidates. He acknowledged that growth as a country is possible without having to change everything about it, stating, “This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement. (Americans) like seeing things improved. But the average American doesn’t think that we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.” By referencing some of the passionate and aggressively liberal presidential candidates such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Obama brings into discussion whether we should have the mentality of creating revolutionary change or implementing gradual change. In other words, he addresses the monumental changes that certainly should be made for this country but questions their effectiveness if executed comprehensively at an immediate rate. Some aspects of Obama’s legacy could certainly serve as an example for institutionalized positive change in our country. However, the aggressive institutional approaches taken by the Democratic presidential candidates are necessary for the amount of attention the climate issue requires for positive change. In the face of looming climate devastation, Sanders has demonstrated his support for the Green New Deal and has catered his climate plan towards addressing the major issues outlined in this nonbinding legislation. Essentially, Sanders’s plan consists of phasing out infrastructure dependent on fossil fuels, implementing planting techniques to sequester carbon and targeting oil, gas and coal companies for prosecution, altogether reducing carbon emissions in the United States 71 percent by 2030. His plan relies heavily on the decisions of members of Congress to pass his proposed legislation, evidently striving to embed the importance of climate care into the law of the land. While this plan is projected to cost $16.3 trillion over the decade during which it is implemented, it is also projected to ultimately save the United States economy $21 trillion over 30 years through averting the costs of infrastructural damage from natural disasters that would occur from intense climate events. Following the departure of Gov. Jay Inslee from the Democratic presidential candidate race, Warren adopted ideas from his campaign that focused heavily on combating climate change. She states in her new climate plan: “While his presidential campaign may be over, his ideas should remain at the center of the agenda.” While she has demonstrated her foundational support for the Green New Deal, Warren also considers public health care, environmental justice and policies that prevent exploitation of tribal and public lands as necessary and major considerations for an all- encompassing agenda. Similar to the plan proposed by Sanders, Warren’s plan would be funded substantially by the reversal of the Trump administration’s tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations. In essence, Sanders, Warren and other Democratic presidential candidates have demonstrated the projected economic feasibility of their climate plans to the public in an effort to amplify the importance of the issue. When attempting the most optimal plan to address the climate issue, we are caught between making a plan that is feasible and considering the likelihood of facing irreversible climate devastation. In the present reality, we truly have no way of knowing how successful one plan could be over another despite the projected outcomes each one has. We are faced with these questions as we address the climate issue: Is trying to implement this radical plan better or worse than not trying? Should we instead adopt a more realistic policy proven to guarantee some progress? Considering the current decline of our environment today, aggressive approaches are the only possible methods for restoring the environment to the extent necessary for living beings to not fall into permanent extinction. Thus, regardless of their feasibility or lack thereof, we should be of the mindset that we need monumental reconstruction to achieve climate restoration. Today, not enough institutions prioritize this mentality in their decision-making for the economy and public policy. As a result, it’s up to us to seek what institutions and society fail to present to us and to understand that no step forward is counterproductive to our existence, despite the costs that it may carry. We must hold each other accountable for the ways we think and the actions we take, knowing that positive outcomes of our actions only occur when we make the moral decision. Here on this campus, we are blessed to even have the choice of how we react to the climate issue. We take for granted the fact that our lives aren’t at stake when we choose to be wasteful. We forget that the impacts are monumental on disadvantaged communities and that they have no choice but to decide to survive. The climate catastrophe is growing more volatile and tainted everyday, something that we are out of touch with because of our privileges in this community. Thus, we should act like our reaction to this issue determines our own survival because the necessary impact we need to fix the state of the environment will only start to begin on the day that everyone chooses to act for it. In light of this, we should all support the people fighting for everyone’s survival through revolutionary climate policy. Most of those who serve are good people — even heroes — but our reverence and respect for them does not preclude us from demanding high standards. In fact, unwillingness to discourage the misconduct of wayward service members cheapens and erodes the respect that virtuous service members have rightfully earned. Kianna Marquez can be reached at kmarquez@umich.edu. 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. NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN The perils of refusing to call out Eddie Gallagher L ast week, in a move that defied the wishes of Pentagon officials, President Donald Trump blocked the removal of Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher — an accused war criminal — from the Navy SEALs. In addition, Trump restored Gallagher’s rank, and the debacle led to the firing of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer who had argued against Gallagher remaining a SEAL. In a final letter to Trump, Spencer acknowledged his termination and stated Trump does not have “the same understanding” of the “rule of law … good order and discipline.” Spencer’s letter is scathing, and for good reason. Gallagher’s retention of his rank and SEAL pin is entirely unwarranted and defies the moral standards we should uphold in our military. To recap Gallagher’s case: In 2017, Gallagher was deployed in Iraq with Navy Seal Team 7. In Iraq, Gallagher allegedly stabbed an unarmed, teenage ISIS prisoner and took trophy pictures with the body. Gallagher was reported by others in his platoon, and after a Navy investigation, Gallagher was charged with premeditated murder, shooting at civilians (in other incidents), threatening his subordinates to not cooperate with the investigation and taking photos with the dead insurgent. He was also charged with obstruction of justice for threatening to kill SEALs who report him. Prior to his trial, Gallagher received considerable support and attention from several conservatives, including 18 House Republicans, Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth and Trump, who intervened to move Gallagher to “less restrictive confinement” in March. Conservative support for Gallagher intensified after the lead prosecutor in his case was removed for misconduct. Still, Navy prosecutors believed their case was solid: Gallagher had posted trophy photos with the corpse, Gallagher appeared to admit responsibility for the killing in text messages and several eyewitnesses testified they saw Gallagher stab the prisoner. However, the legal case fell apart when Corey Scott, another witness who was conveniently granted immunity, changed his story on the stand and claimed to be the one who killed the prisoner by covering his breathing tube. In the aftermath, Gallagher was acquitted of murder but found guilty of taking a trophy photo with the prisoner’s corpse, for which he was demoted. Now to be clear, while Scott’s dramatic reversal torpedoed the Navy prosecutors’ legal case, abundant evidence points to Gallagher’s guilt. When pressed on the stand by prosecutors as to why he changed his story, Scott responded that Gallagher did not have to go to prison. Scott’s dramatic reversal did not spur the other witnesses to change their testimony, nor does it explain Gallagher’s text messages in which he admitted culpability for the killing. Navy prosecutors were so confident Scott’s testimony was a lie they explored the possibility of charging him with perjury, but ultimately concluded there was not a viable legal path to do so. One final key point is that no one, not even Scott, denies that Gallagher stabbed the prisoner in the neck — though Scott claims the stabbing did not appear fatal. Gallagher’s acquittal provided a potential point of closure in the saga. Unfortunately, conservatives doubled-down on their bizarre commitment to defending a clear-cut war criminal, keeping the case in the spotlight. Trump publicly mulled pardoning Gallagher, reinstated his rank and ultimately intervened to allow Gallagher to retire as a SEAL. This creates a mockery of the independence of the military-justice system and strains the separation of military and political affairs. In the wake of Spencer’s ouster, Defense Secretary Mark Esper expressed frustration that the Gallagher case has been so “distracted” and “dragged on for so long,” confirming that Trump made the final decision to block his removal from the SEALs. Esper is correct that the case has been long and distracting, but the larger shame is the self-inflicted black eye for the United States military. Our military rightfully prides itself on being just, precise and professional, but this well-earned reputation is impugned by the commander- in-chief’s vocal support for war criminals – and it is not just Gallagher. Trump, conservative media, Republican members of Congress and everyone who rushed to defend Gallagher and other American war criminals are to blame for this debacle. Gallagher is not a good man, and he clearly does not exhibit the character demanded from those who represent the U.S. in uniform. However, his case offers a lesson on how we react to the wrongdoings of those who serve. Those who serve our country and our communities — whether as soldiers, police officers, firefighters or first responders — make great sacrifices and are deserving of our sincere and solemn respect. However, with their sacrifice comes great responsibility, trust and power. Whether it be a soldier who kills unarmed prisoners or a police officer who racially profiles, we must be willing to call out those who violate the responsibilities they are entrusted with. Most of those who serve are good people — even heroes — but our reverence and respect for them does not preclude us from demanding high standards. In fact, unwillingness to discourage the misconduct of wayward service members cheapens and erodes the respect that virtuous service members have rightfully earned. Republican members of Congress and everyone who rushed to defend Gallagher are to blame for this debacle Noah Harrison can be reached at noahharr@umich.edu.