7-Opinion
O
ver the last few decades,
climate
change
and
pollution have become an
ever-increasing cause of concern due
to the threats they pose, be it floods,
hurricanes, habitat destruction or
any number of natural disasters. Due
to this increasing concern, there’s
been a huge push for individuals to
cut down on their personal impact.
This can be seen everywhere with
initiatives like Save the Turtles, the
increasing popularity of electric cars
and many advertisements generally
pushing for people to decrease both
their waste and carbon emissions.
This is fantastic; living in a cleaner
and more environmentally friendly
world is something that positively
impacts every aspect of our life. But
the tendency to push the blame for
climate change and pollution onto
individuals is not only wrong but
intentionally malicious on the part
of massive energy and fossil fuel
companies, the entities truly at fault.
This last year has shown many
just how devastating the coming
climate crisis will be, be it the floods
in Louisiana and New York, or the
“hell portal” that came as the result
of a ruptured pipeline. These events
underscore just how dire the fight
against climate change is and sadly
how individuals really can’t do
much to help. This is because the
vast majority of global emissions are
created by just a small handful of
fossil fuel and energy corporations.
To be more exact, around 71%
of global emissions are put out by
just 100 different companies. This
number makes one thing very clear:
it is up to these corporations and the
governments that regulate them, not
individuals, to curb climate change.
The issue is that historically,
strong enough action hasn’t been
taken. Fossil fuel companies always
look after their own interests, and
then they pay politicians to support
them as well. What this means is
that before society can even think
about stopping climate change,
there must be a total shift in how
both governments and businesses
operate. First, companies must be
held fully accountable for every
single bit of carbon emissions and
pollution that they create, and the
only way to do this is to completely
rework how lobbying and corporate
interest are structured, both in
America and around the world. Big
oil has a stranglehold on American
democracy, and this greed will soon
destroy the entire world.
Some
may
argue
that
the
only
reason
these
businesses
are producing emissions is that
individuals create the demand for
it. People drive cars that use fossil
fuels, use lights and devices that
use electricity and wear clothes that
create far more emissions than one
might expect. While this argument
is partially true, many of these
emissions come from attempts to
make production as convenient as
possible for these corporations: A
purposeful lack of research into
renewable energy makes fossil fuels
a much more convenient form of
energy for production. This two-
pronged issue could be solved by
implementing stronger regulations
on energy production and increasing
funding for research into renewable
energy.
While
corporations
are
the
drivers of climate change, this
does not mean that the average
person can’t do anything to combat
it. First, people can try to live as
carbon neutral as possible, either
by using motorized vehicles less
frequently, eating less beef or using
less electricity. But an even greater
way to help is to strongly advocate
for the solutions that will create an
even more significant change. This
can include protesting, directly
contacting public officials or doing
public outreach.
While a massive portion of global
emissions and pollution does not
come from individuals, there is still
a lot of work to be done by those
same individuals to save the world
from a global crisis. People must be
vigilant in changing institutions and
systems that have let the world get
this close to the brink of a complete
climate disaster in order to stop the
corporations that have done it.
While it may already be too late
to completely keep the world from
seeing the damaging effects of
climate change, everyone must be
involved in making sure it doesn’t
get any worse, especially those at the
top.
O
n Sept. 2, the University
of Michigan hosted the
first of a series of meetings
of
the
Michigan
Independent
Citizens Redistricting Commission
(MICRC) held at college campuses
around the state. These meetings
are intended to offer a space for
Michigan residents to voice their
perspectives on the state’s ongoing
nonpartisan redistricting process.
MICRC was first instituted
in 2018 following the approval
of
Proposal
2
by
Michigan
voters. The proposal took the
power
of
redistricting
away
from the state legislature and
placed it in the hands of an
independent commission, which
now has the authority from the
Michigan Constitution to redraw
congressional and state legislative
districts. This redistricting cycle
is the first in Michigan to be led by
an independent commission, and
many other states have already
instituted similar commissions to
lead nonpartisan redistricting.
Proposal
2
was
intended
to
reduce
gerrymandering
in
Michigan,
something
that
historically
prevented
Michiganders
from
being accurately represented in
Congress and the state legislature.
It is commendable that Michigan
voters in 2018 recognized that the
quality of our democracy would
improve if a nonpartisan entity
was in control of redistricting.
But even though Michigan took
this major step toward ending
gerrymandering, many other states
still allow their state legislatures to
control congressional redistricting.
Gerrymandering aims to divide
voters in a way that favors the
party in charge. It does this in two
ways: Legislators either pack the
opposing party’s supporters into as
few districts as possible or divide
them into many districts to prevent
them from gaining a majority in
those districts. While there are
general guidelines for redistricting
—
including
compactness,
preservation
of
communities’
boundaries and contiguity — states
often ignore these guidelines when
redistricting.
This can lead to oddly shaped
districts,
such
as
Maryland’s
third
congressional
district,
which a federal judge said was
“reminiscent of a broken-winged
pterodactyl.”
Some
of
these
obscenely gerrymandered districts
led to lawsuits that forced states to
draw new maps prior to mandatory
redistricting after the 2020 census.
It is understandable why partisan
state
legislatures
gerrymander;
parties want to give themselves the
best possible chance to win seats,
and legislators who draw these
maps want to protect themselves
and their seats as well. But this
partisan practice gravely harms
democracy in the United States.
Any steps taken to intentionally
prevent voters from having their
voices heard in government is an
insult to democracy.
It is important to note that
gerrymandering is not a partisan
issue — both parties do it. Currently,
two of the most gerrymandered
states in the U.S. are Maryland and
North Carolina, whose legislatures
were respectively controlled by
Democrats and Republicans, in
2011. Both states intentionally
gerrymandered for their party’s
gain, causing each party to gain
additional seats in their states
relative to the vote share of each
party. North Carolina was so badly
gerrymandered that in 2017 the
U.S. Supreme Court ordered the
state to draw new districts in 2017.
There are two ways to prevent
partisan bodies from drawing
district lines. One is for the federal
government to ban gerrymandering
through legislation. The For the
People Act, or H.R.1, attempts to
do just that; but, it will likely fail
to pass in the Senate. The Supreme
Court could also act, but recently
“ruled that lawsuits over partisan
gerrymandering raise a political
question that is beyond the reach
of the federal courts,” according to
The Hill.
This leaves the decision to the
states, which is far less promising.
A federal law or Supreme Court
decision would force every state
to comply rather than leaving it to
state lawmakers or asking citizens
to organize ballot initiatives. There
is little incentive for lawmakers to
ban gerrymandering themselves.
But it must be done to ensure
American
elections
accurately
represent the voice of the people.
However,
eliminating
gerrymandering would not solve
the
whole
problem.
Because
Democrats are tightly packed
in cities large and small, and
Republicans tend to be more spread
out, it is difficult to draw districts
that adequately reflect the vote
share in states.
While ending gerrymandering
would not completely eliminate
the problems in our democracy, it
must be done to ensure as equal
representation as possible at the
state and federal levels. The current
system in many states, in which
partisan legislatures draw the maps
of their own districts, encourages
politicians to play dirty. A mandate
to end gerrymandering, either
from the state or federal level,
would allow Americans to be fairly
represented and would allow their
voices to be heard.
T
he United States recently
mourned
the
20th
anniversary of one of
the largest and most destructive
terrorist attacks in history —
the Sept. 11 attacks on the Twin
Towers. Ever since that attack in
2001, 9/11 has remained a fixture
in the American ethos and foreign
policy. Former President George W.
Bush launched the “War on Terror,”
forever changing the geopolitical
landscape of the Middle East.
Carnage followed, with nearly
900,000 civilians in the region
killed, alongside 38 million people
displaced. The terror attacks on
this country were indeed terrible;
I make no pretensions to the
contrary. But the ensuing chaos and
destruction has been incalculable.
When President Bush first declared
the War on Terror, he said “America
and our friends and allies join
with all those who want peace and
security in the world, and we stand
together to win the war against
terrorism.” Despite that rhetoric,
this ‘War on Terror’ brought no
peace or security to the Middle
East.
The first target of America’s
wrath
was
Afghanistan.
The
United States asked the Islamic
Emirate of Afghanistan, operated
by the Taliban (whose existence
can be blamed on the United States
— a topic I wrote about here), to
extradite Osama bin Laden. The
latter denied this request, so the
U.S. invaded.
The Taliban were temporarily
pushed back, and the U.S. propped
up its own administration. The
U.S. wreaked havoc in the country
after failing to find bin Laden and
continued to do so even after finding
him. The most recent example of
this was the failed airstrike on Aug.
29, killing 10 innocent civilians.
Other targets included Yemen,
which the U.S. has been drone-
striking for nearly two decades. The
number of strikes in total is 374,
with civilian deaths numbering up
to 150. While President Joe Biden
hasn’t himself launched a strike
against Yemen, he continues to
support Saudi Arabia’s invasion of
the country despite promising not
to do so.
Another war started by the
United States was the invasion of
Iraq in 2003, in which the U.S. armed
forces and other allies overthrew
Saddam Hussein’s government. This
particular conflict was based on
allegations that the Hussein regime
was developing weapons of mass
destruction, such as chemical or
nuclear weapons.
The evidence for this was
completely
fabricated,
and
the
U.S. entered into a conflict based
on lies. Saddam Hussein did not
have weapons of mass destruction.
After the U.S. severely damaged
the country, it left in 2011. It then
re-entered Iraq in 2014 to combat
the rise of ISIL, which itself formed
as a splinter group of al-Qaida after
the initial U.S. invasion.
Despite these two major invasions
— among many more — one glaring
hypocrisy stands out: U.S. politicians’
refusal to examine the possibility
of the Saudi Arabian government’s
involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
If we really wanted to hold the
perpetrators of 9/11 responsible,
we would’ve taken action against
the Saudi oligarchs who allegedly
funded
the
operation.
Rather
than actually doing that, though,
president after president let the
autocratic regime continue without
punishment due to the U.S.’s
favorable relations based on oil and
their strategic importance in the
Middle East.
Recently,
President
Biden
declassified an FBI report that
details the relationship between
Saudi nationals and the hijackers.
Osama bin Laden himself was
connected to the wealthy Saudi
family, and 15 of the 19 hijackers
were from Saudi Arabia. Saudi
Arabia is also the center of
Wahhabism,
a
fundamentalist
movement in Islam funded by the
House of Saud. Al-Qaida and ISIL
were both founded on the principles
of this extremist ideology.
The United States wreaked havoc
upon the Middle East, whether
through intentional maliciousness
or unintended consequences. We
used the deaths of 2,997 people
on 9/11 to justify the slaughter of
hundreds of thousands more.
The government has abused the
memory of the deceased to justify
their own conflicts, whether it be
for oil, war profiteering or other
imperialist machinations. In the
wake of 9/11, two decades later, the
smoldering ruins of the twin towers
loom large in American memory.
The subsequent 20 years of
destruction ought to as well.
Opinion
BRITTANY BOWMAN
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.
CLAIRE HAO
Editor in Chief
ELIZABETH COOK
AND JOEL WEINER
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
Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Elizabeth Cook
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Andrew Gerace
Shubhum Giroti
Krystal Hur
Jessie Mitchell
Gabrijela Skoko
Evan Stern
Elayna Swift
Jack Tumpowsky
Joel Weiner
E
instein wasn’t a genius.
Neither was Mozart, nor was
Beethoven.
But society’s brilliant masterminds
and superhuman performers share
one thing in common: a spark that
ignited their soul and lit an eternal fire
under their rear.
Let me explain.
Innate genius is not a new concept.
Homer credited the greatness of
composer and singer Demodocus to
divine gifts in the “Odyssey” nearly
three millennia ago: “Call in the
inspired bard Demodocus. God has
given the man the gift of song.” In
1790, philosopher Immanuel Kant
argued in “Critique of Judgement”
that artistic genius was of “nature’s
elect,” a “natural endowment.”
Today’s media continues to reason
that skill is derived from innate
talent, fueling the romanticization
of “genius.” Netflix’s most-watched
limited series, “The Queen’s Gambit”
(which boasted 62 million viewers
within its first 28 days) tells an
alluring story of an orphaned chess
genius conquering a male-dominated
industry while processing the effects
of mental illness and addiction.
Similarly, “The Imitation Game”
featuring
the
legendary
WWII
cryptanalyst Alan Turing grossed
more than $200 million worldwide
and won the Academy Award for best-
adapted screenplay.
Vogue’s piece “Why Are We So
Obsessed With Geniuses on Film?”
entertains the idea that we are averse
to the ordinary. The dichotomy of
wanting to be extraordinary while
simultaneously
maintaining
its
impossibility — the lust for something
we can’t have — ties us to the myth
of genius. Genius entertains and
mystifies us. More dangerously, it has
the potential to limit us.
The summer before I began my
college
applications,
I
pondered
whether to continue studying the
piano (the longest and biggest love
of my life) or to pursue a liberal arts
education and discover an academic
interest (that holds more job security).
Since the age of six, I had dreamed of
holding the stage as an internationally
touring concert pianist and painting
stories and feelings through music,
but I questioned my talents compared
to the sea of child geniuses that
surrounded me. A part of me felt
like I was too normal; I didn’t have
the “something special” that could
make me one in a million. I wondered
if this period of rumination was a
moment where I could reaffirm my
commitment to music or if I was just
delusional to consider the odds.
I signed up for a class called
“Deliberate Practice” that month.
During the first session, my instructor
put up a portrait of violinist and
philosopher Shinichi Suzuki on the
screen. Beside him, a quote that I can’t
fully recall, but that stuck with me. In
Suzuki’s “Nurtured by Love,” though,
he writes, “There is no such thing as
natural ability, no such thing as a child
born without talent. … Talent is not
inherited or inborn, but learned and
trained. ‘Genius’ is an honorific name
given to those who are brought up and
trained to high ability.”
Today, there are mountains of
accumulating
modern
research
falsifying ancient philosophers’ theories
and demystifying the age-old social
construct of genius. One of the greatest
studies is Cambridge University Press’
2006 publication, “The Cambridge
Handbook of Expertise and Expert
Performance.” The 900 plus-page
handbook
includes
contributions
from more than 100 leading scientists
on expertise and top performance
in surgery, acting, chess, writing,
computer programming, ballet, music,
aviation, firefighting and more.
The real magic is not genius; it’s
the marriage of three components:
intrinsic
motivation,
deliberate
practice and expert coaching.
Daniel Coyle’s book “The Talent
Code” explains that results are
tangible in a neural circuit insulator
called myelin, a layer of fatty tissue
that accumulates whenever someone
focuses
intensely
on
a
specific
circuit corresponding to a specific
skill; with more myelin layers, signal
strength becomes stronger, faster and
more accurate — ultimately building
skill.
Some great works I found in my
research were: “The Making of an
Expert,” “The Role of Deliberate
Practice in the Acquisition of Expert
Performance,” The Talent Code,
Talent is Overrated and Deep Work.
Here is what I gathered on three of
history’s mammoth figures:
Golf giant Sam Snead insists
on telling a different narrative of
“naturals” than those assumed by
popular lore: “People always said I
had a natural swing. They thought
I wasn’t a hard worker. But when I
was young, I’d play and practice all
day, then practice more at night by
my car’s headlights. My hands bled.
Nobody worked harder at golf than
I did.” Snead echoes researchers’
findings that deliberate practice is
not inherently enjoyable, though
ultimately rewarding.
Mozart — who began composing
from the young age of five, gave public
piano and violin performances at
eight and produced some of Western
culture’s greatest masterpieces by
35 — is the leading counterargument
to the anti-talent thesis. Here’s my
response: Wolfgang’s father, Leopold
Mozart, was a composer, performer
and widely-acclaimed pedagogue.
The original “tennis father and
tiger mama,” Leopold demanded
intensive training in composition
and performing from 3-year-old
Wolfgang as a way to improve his
family’s fortune, claiming “Wolfgang’s
good fortune and success will be
our sweetest revenge” (written by
Leopold in “The Letters of Mozart
and His Family”). As for young
Wolfgang’s compositions, “Talent is
Overrated” notes that his manuscripts
were suspiciously written in the
hand of his father, and as a teen, his
pieces were often rearrangements of
other composers, including Johann
Sebastian
Bach
(often
regarded
as the father of classical music),
whom Wolfgang studied with in
London. Today, Wolfgang’s first real
masterpiece is said to be his Piano
Concerto No. 9, composed at the age
of 21 — the result of eighteen years
of deliberate practice and intense
coaching.
When teenage Benjamin Franklin, a
primary school dropout, endeavored to
improve his writing, his method did not
depend on passive reading. Rather, he
dissected issues of the popular British
publication The Spectator, and days
later, practiced reconstructing them
from memory, matching subtle hints
in sentiment and expression. Franklin
would then compare his version of The
Spectator with the original and correct
his faults. He sharpened weaknesses
in vocabulary and variety in prose
by translating articles into rhyming
verse then verse back into prose — the
mentally demanding work of deliberate
practice.
Despite modern research and
historical accounts which aim to
loosen the media’s grip on the notion
of the born-genius, we are slow to
change long-held and deep-rooted
beliefs, and it is only hurting society
and its progress.
I urge you not to bow your head
under the ceiling of “genius.” Ask
yourself not, “Am I good enough?”
but, “Am I willing to do the work?”
Ignite your soul with an obsession —
only that can fuel tireless, unending
willpower to learn and become better.
Rage to master.
“Genius” is a myth
How 9/11 changed U.S. foreign policy
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
8 — Wednesday, September 29, 2021
All states should institute
nonpartisan redistricting
LYDIA STORELLA
Opinion Columnist
SAM FOGEL
Opinion Columnist
Individuals are not to blame for
climate change
LILY KWAK
Opinion Columnist
KEONI JONES
Opinion Columnist
Design by Kristina Miesel