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