The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
Wednesday, February 2, 2022 — 9
I
f you’re like me, you’ll agree
that winter semester did not
begin Jan. 5, at least not in
spirit. With both students and
professors adjusting to hybrid and
in-person classes as well as spend-
ing a majority of the first two lec-
tures going over syllabi and basic
course structure, the semester
started off slow. When did things
really begin? Jan. 18, the day after
the Martin Luther King Jr. long
weekend. My start was similarly
sluggish. For instance, I decid-
ed to spend that long weekend
rewatching my favorite TV show
from 2021, “Ted Lasso.” During
my two-day long binge, I came
across what is probably one of my
favorite quotes ever:
“You just listen to your gut, okay?
And on your way down to your gut,
check in with your heart. Between
those two things, they’ll let you know
what’s what.”
For as long as I can remember, be
it the biggest Bollywood stars from
back home, the cream of the Holly-
wood crop, or the most awe-inspiring
storybook heroes, all of their portray-
als had one trait in common: brav-
ery. From Hermione and Frodo to
Jack Traven from “Speed,” I idolized
characters who were able to defy the
odds and do what they thought was
right, even when everyone was tell-
ing them not to. I looked up to them
because they had the uncanny ability
to, time and again, do as Ted Lasso so
eloquently said: trust their guts and
follow their hearts. As I grew older,
however, and was confronted by the
prospect of making life-changing
decisions, I realized that it is easier
said than done. Case in point: my
decision to attend the University of
Michigan.
With this year’s early action deci-
sions right around the corner, I can’t
help but be reminded about how
stressful April 2020 was for me.
With the Indian government send-
ing everybody into a total lockdown
on March 23 following the outbreak
of COVID-19, I decided to try and
make the best of my circumstances.
I resolved to finalize which college I
would be attending and made quick
and early progress by narrowing
down to two choices at the begin-
ning of the month. Thirty days later,
after multiple spreadsheets with
rubrics that considered everything
from weather to alumni network and
phone calls with every distant cousin
that had any connection to either uni-
versity, I had made no progress. Yes,
it was frustrating, but a part of me
saw it coming, because I knew inde-
cisiveness ran in my family. It wasn’t
the first time I had second guessed
myself, and it wasn’t the first time I
had lacked conviction. Feeling lost
and disappointed, I remember calling
my best friend and telling her about
my dilemma. All she had to say was,
“
After a point you have to stop
making lists and just go with your
gut.”
The next day I paid my deposit for
the University of Michigan and have
not looked back since.
To all those currently contemplat-
ing their next steps in life, be it your
college decision, asking someone out
to the homecoming dance or pick-
ing between two ice cream flavors at
Ben and Jerry’s, I only have one thing
to say: have faith in yourself. Lists,
rubrics and spreadsheets are good
and I will always affirm that the solu-
tions to many of our problems can be
found through simple and logical
reasoning. In truth, deciding which
criteria I was going to consider for my
university rubric and what weight I
would assign to them gave me a clear
idea of what I wanted from my college
experience and helped me immense-
ly. Nevertheless, once I realized that,
even after a month, I was no closer
to knowing where I would be in Fall
2020, I learned that even reason has
its limitations. Only intuition could
fill the gap.
I am hardly an expert, but when-
ever I’ve found myself stuck without
any apparent rational next step, I did
what I felt was right. That, I think,
makes all the difference in the world.
It doesn’t always work. In fact, it
blew up in my face on a couple of
occasions. After all, even Frodo, the
usually unshakeable hero, hesitated
at the end of the “Lord of the Rings”
movie and was consequently subject
to some bodily harm. But there is no
better way to prove to yourself that
you are in control of your life than
to follow your instincts, because
they’re one of the only things that
are 100% you. They are the purest,
most organic choices that you can
make, and as Ted Lasso so brilliantly
recalled,
“It is our choices that make us who
we truly are, far more than our abili-
ties.”
PAIGE HODDER
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.
JASMIN LEE
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD
AND SHUBHUM GIROTI
Editorial Page Editors
ficial 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
Emily Considine
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Andrew Gerace
Shubhum Giroti
Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Nikhil Sharma
Jack Tumpowsky
Joel Weiner
Erin White
F
or more than 150 years, DTE
Energy has generated energy
for the state of Michigan, and
now serves 3.5 million customers.
DTE Energy, a private company,
supplies energy to the people of Ann
Arbor as well as the University of
Michigan. However, recently DTE
has been leaving their customers
“in the dark,” with over 158,000
customers left without power in
August 2021. Michigan is the fourth-
worst state in the United States when
it comes to average time to restore
power to a customer after an outage.
These paying customers are tired
of this monopoly company with a
lack of reliability and clean energy
generation. While DTE has made
promises to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, there is no competition
holding them accountable. DTE has
promised to reach net zero carbon
emissions by 2050, but this will
also increase rates for customers
by $3.18 per month. Michigan also
performs below average compared
to the rest of the United States when
it comes to reliability, affordability
and environmental impacts. Due to
these issues, many have proposed
a
municipalization
of
energy
production in Ann Arbor to create a
community-owned utility.
Municipalization is the transfer
of all the assets of a privately owned
company to a public institution. One
of the most pivotal benefits of such
a change would be reliability. Such
a switch to public ownership might
lead to quicker response time during
emergencies as the utility is in local
hands. Furthermore, publicly owned
institutions are not profit driven,
their central focus is instead on
catering to the citizens of Ann Arbor
by making the utility more affordable.
Public power also involves citizens in
the decision making process, which
would represent a significant step
towards helping the people of Ann
Arbor reach their goal of clean power
— one that they have been crying out
for. A switch to public power might
also prompt long-term thinking
regarding more sustainable forms of
generating energy; this is something
a private firm — under pressure to
deliver short-term profits and keep
shareholders happy — might not find
the time and resources to do.
In light of this push, as well as the
issues with DTE that precipitated it,
the Ann Arbor City Council voted
on Jan. 18 to begin a study into
the effectiveness and feasibility of
a municipal electricity program.
Although
the
aforementioned
benefits of public power would
seem to suggest that such a study
would simply be a delay — if public
power is such an unalloyed good
and so necessary to fight climate
change, we should be willing to
spend large sums of money on it —
there is not a consensus on whether
or not it would actually be the
right thing to do. While DTE has
unsurprisingly come out against
the proposal, opposition, or at least
apprehensiveness, is not limited to
those with a direct interest in seeing
the project fail. The City Council
resolution to create this study had
been debated since last September,
with some members pushing for a
more extensive survey given their
concerns.
Why
do
some
people
still
doubt the proposal? The truth is,
municipalization is hard, with the
last
successful
municipalization
project in Michigan dating back
to 1912. Creating a public utility is
an extensive, difficult process that
requires support and commitment
from the community. Not all
municipalities are successful, for
reasons ranging from political
battles to a lack of momentum
required to complete such a long
and arduous process. In the case of
Ann Arbor, there is also the issue
of having to buy out DTE’s existing
infrastructure,
an
expensive
purchase, considering the breadth
of infrastructure and investment
present, that will be an early
and significant roadblock if the
municipalization were to go ahead.
But Ann Arbor is different. The
large public university that lies
within it can facilitate the steps that
need to be taken. Someone must
“spearhead” the development of this
utility by promoting the concept to
the community, discussing with
the local government and handling
legal aspects, and the University
of Michigan is an institution large
enough to do so if they wished. Not
only does the University have a
considerable influence on the Ann
Arbor community, they are also the
largest consumers of power in the
city, which would make any public
backing of the municipalization
on their end a game-changer.
Over and above providing some
much-needed resources for the
process, they might also be able to
play a key role in helping build the
aforementioned sustainable power
system. There is precedent for such
a concept. A glance at East Lansing
yields a prime example — Michigan
State University’s T.B. Simon Power
Plant. Moreover, the University of
Michigan has already shown signs
that it is willing to move away from
carbon-based energy sources.In
2019, the U-M campus consumed
a total of 6,924,524 MMbtu, which
was primarily generated through
cogenerated steam and natural
gas combustion. The University
has switched a portion of its own
energy usage away from DTE into
its own production because of the
unsustainable practices of DTE.
Supporting a transition away from
purchasing DTE Energy would
illustrate to the public that the
University views sustainability as a
priority to combat climate change.
In the past, the University has been
unable to take a larger step due
to lack of funding and incentives,
but a partnership between Ann
Arbor citizens and the University
could prevent this. The University
is a consistent and organized
presence in the city, as opposed to
the student body, which undergoes
massive turnover every four years.
They should take an active role in
energy production and distribution
in Ann Arbor, as that is key to the
environmental goals it claims to
back.
From The Daily: The potential of public power
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
RUSHABH SHAH
Opinion Columnist
Trust your heart; it knows the way
N
o
one
likes
to
feel
abandoned.
This
is
especially true as the
dead
of
winter
approaches,
with seasonal affective disorder
and the current omicron surge
combining to leave many people
feeling increasingly isolated and
lonely. Jan 2., or Dating Sunday,
an unofficial holiday that sees the
busiest activity across multiple
dating app platforms, falls right in
the middle of this. The explanation
for the intense surge in dating
app usage at this time is that the
day falls right after holiday blues,
when people have set New Year’s
resolutions and are counting
down the days until Valentine’s
Day. This also coincides with the
end of cuffing season, another
impetus of online dating activity.
Amid all of this, digital daters
need to remember the basics of
dating etiquette. This means to
communicate with honesty and
clarity with potential matches.
Above all, commit to not ghosting
someone if you have decided to no
longer pursue them romantically.
Even if you may have found
another person or want to avoid
the awkwardness of breaking it
off, ghosting is something that
should be avoided out of respect
for the other person’s time and
emotions.
Ghosting, while a newly-coined
term, has been a mainstay of the
dating scene for decades. Tropes
of people escaping a date by
crawling out a bathroom window
or disappearing without warning
are well established. The act has
worryingly become normalized.
Fifty percent of people in the
dating scene have been ghosted
and almost the same amount
have been the one to ghost. This
behavior once was reserved for
the
disrespectful.
Nowadays,
ghosting is common practice.
This is alarming. What does it say
about current dating culture when
abrupt abandonment of one’s date
is accepted practice? Ghosting
is now one of those things that
comes along with finding a
romantic partner.
There needs to be a recalibration
of dating culture. It’s not healthy
for sudden loss of contact to be the
status quo.
Ghosting may seem innocuous.
However,
it
has
serious
consequences for the ghosted.
Ghosting hurts because it’s a
whiplash
in
assumptions
of
how a person feels about you.
To the ghosted, someone, who
they thought cared for them,
abandoned them. A person who
they were building trust with
all of a sudden disengaging from
contact can feel like nothing
short of betrayal. Being on the
receiving end of ghosting can
be painful. Studies have shown
that social rejection activates
the same neurological pathways
as physical pain. Ghosting can
trigger the grief cycle as the
ghosted experiences an emotional
concoction
of
embarrassment,
anger, sadness and loneliness.
While ghosting may be an easy
way out of the relationship for
the ghoster, it can be immensely
hurtful to the ghosted.
Taking the courage to break
off contact by sending a simple
“I’ve decided to take a break on
meeting new people” text does
the potential ghoster good as well.
It promotes character growth.
Admitting that you no longer
want to connect with someone
means you are being honest
with yourself and strengthening
your communication skills and
empathy. By not ghosting, it is a
clear signal that you understand
how your actions affect others.
You’re acknowledging that you at
least care enough about the person
to not want to hurt their feelings
more than just spurring a tad of
disappointment.
Yes, ghosting is the easy way out.
In theory, all bad feelings can be
avoided by ignoring the situation
all together. It’s not unreasonable
to feel guilty for wasting the
time of the other person now
that the match is going nowhere.
But you’re not a bad person for
honestly
communicating
your
feelings to others. A bad person,
though, would ghost and leave the
other person hurt and confused.
By giving the other person some
sort of closure, it can help them
process their feelings and move
on to other people. Not ghosting
indicates your respect for the
other person, and it is a moment of
character growth that will benefit
you in future romantic ventures.
I have been in both positions.
Unfortunately, I ghosted someone
in my past. Looking back on it,
now also having inhabited the
position of the ghosted, I am not
proud of ghosting someone. It
might have alleviated my shame or
nervousness, but thinking of how
my actions may have negatively
affected the person I was talking
with does not feel great. I now
realize that it is better to have
the courage to respectfully end
communication with a potential
romantic
interest
by
clearly
voicing your thoughts and feelings
rather than running away from
the situation all together. Being
ghosted is not a great thing to go
through, and therefore, I’ve made
a pledge to never ghost someone
across a dating app again.
It’s rude to abruptly walk out
of an in-person date with no
warning, so why would it be any
different over text? Netiquette
must be maintained when we
connect with each other across
dating apps. This is for the
benefit of both parties. Direct
communication will always be
superior to ghosting. Though
it can be uneasy to break off
connection
with
someone
through text, it is better than
the fallout that accompanies
ghosting. Ghosting can cause
the ghosted to feel lonely, hurt
and confused. I, for one, would
not want the fact that I caused
someone to feel that way on my
conscience. Vowing to not ghost
future romantic interests forces
one to be honest with oneself
and to not hurt others through
abandonment.
Let’s
make
ghosting uncool again. It never
was cool in the first place.
Let’s stop ghosting each other
BENJAMIN DAVIS
Opinion Columnist
O
n September 23, 2021, the
University of Michigan
hosted the English band
Glass Animals for a concert. The
indie rock band, which has existed
since 2010, combines synth-pop,
indie, R&B and hip hop. While
they have seen minor successes as a
band in the last decade, nothing has
taken mainstream media by storm
quite like their song “Heat Waves.”
“Heat
Waves”
was
originally
released in June 2020, and it
subsequently experienced a slow
rise to mainstream popularity. This
slow rise was so slow that the song
broke the record for the longest
ascent to the top on Billboard’s Hot
Rock and Alternative Songs.
The popularity built up as “Heat
Waves” played in the second season
of Netflix’s popular original series,
“Never Have I Ever,” during the kiss
between the two main characters,
and from this a TikTok trend was
born. The trend was TikTokers
putting videos of important figures
in their life to the song. The original
sound by sevier.edits has been used
in over 1.4 million videos, and the
original version of the song has
526.5k uses. Many U-M students
who attended the concert did not
know much about Glass Animals
other than this singular viral song.
Despite lasting over two hours,
the entirety of the concert set,
hosted at Crisler Center, was filled
with the entire audience chanting
“PLAY ‘HEAT WAVES,” ignoring
the other songs. Once the song
played, few people sang other than
the 30 seconds featured on social
media and the Netflix series. Once
“Heat Waves” ended, droves of
people left. Most people didn’t care
about the concert outside of what
was seen as “viral.” It led me to
question: why didn’t they bother
to look into this band further?
Everyone
knew
they
would
be attending the band’s entire
performance, so why did no one
listen to any other songs or even the
entirety of “Heat Waves”? Did they
lose the capacity to listen to the
Glass Animals with all the other
digital media they consume?
Media involves constant, rapid
information
being
exchanged.
There is always an opportunity
to discover something new. In
2021, we took in five times more
information than we did in 1986. So
how does this constant exposure to
new information and media impact
how we function? According to
Microsoft’s Attention Span Research
Report, what was an average human
attention span of 12 seconds in the
year 2000 dropped to eight seconds
by 2013. In comparison, the average
attention span of a goldfish is nine
seconds. This decrease in attention
span relates to everything from
concentrating
in
conversations
to focusing on schoolwork to
engaging with content. This is due
to the information overload of social
media, which 73% of Americans
report feeling. Specifically, with
regard to the music industry, there
are an overwhelming number of
artists, genres, albums and songs
that are now accessible with the
touch of a button. With so many
competing interests, it’s impossible
to absorb every artist fully.
Yet, living among a digital
landscape, we are becoming better
at being more alert and efficient
with the shorter bursts of attention.
These changes in our consumption
explain today’s concept of “going
viral.” The media obsesses over
a specific trend, song or public
figure, which they then promptly
forget.
Everyone
is
constantly
craving something new. This is
called novelty seeking, or a “strong
interest in having new experiences.”
Musicians Institute explains that
the ability to debut songs through
posting makes it easier to discover
artists by eliminating the necessity
of a label. However, there is an
increased amount of content by
increasing accessibility, which is
why these viral songs often don’t
stick.
The extensive process of “getting
the song out there” that many
musicians experienced in the past
doesn’t exist in the same capacity
today, making these viral songs pop
up right in front of us. On a silver
platter, new content appeals to our
new attention patterns. We either like
or scroll, causing the content to pop up
on more devices or not. There’s always
an audience on the internet waiting
for that next best thing. According
to the Pew Research Center, 31% of
American adults are online almost
constantly and 48% go online several
times a day. Overall, more than eight
in 10 adults go online at least daily.
Considering this study included adults
from ages 18 to 64, our reliance on
technology knows no age limits.
Before the widespread use of online
music platforms, we mainly absorbed
concept albums used by artists to
produce a narrative for the listener.
When all the songs are listened to
together in the full album, there’s a
storytelling experience that cannot
be replicated. For this reason, album
connoisseurs instruct us to sit down
and take in the whole experience. But
this is not a reality that today’s society
often partakes in. Today’s lifestyle
rarely allows us to listen for the
meaning in music; we’ve introduced
habits that put the soundtrack on
the back burner. There is often a
secondary task such as walking to
class, getting ready or doing work.
The quick development of social
media is changing the way audiences,
especially
younger
generations,
consume
digital
and
physical
products. Producers must adapt to
these preference changes to develop
more accurate consumption models.
There will be no advancement of
music if we continue producing for
the past – we need to appeal to the
future. So, should there be a switch
in the music industry to cater to this?
If a two-minute song is completely
ignored, with the exception of the
15-second section that goes viral on
social media, why are we still focusing
on producing longer content? Should
the music industry shift to create
shorter content presenting a message
or emotion more efficiently? Or
continue the way we always have?
Should we adapt or hold onto these
traditions of the past?
Music has been a mode of
movement for centuries, a strong
force of social development tackling
issues such as racial injustice or
gender roles. So focusing on the
best way to intertwine this medium
into our lives to benefit consumers
emotionally, socially and politically
is a key concept to analyze. Whether
it is creating another industry solely
focused on this shorter content
production or releasing shorter
versions of soundtracks for those
who want to lightly listen, this
shift in consumption habits must
be recognized to keep music as a
relevant medium for all types of
listeners. There is still a significant
industry for the kinds of listeners
album creators desire, so by
manufacturing a separate industry
just for this “viral” content, the
music for trends and deep listeners
can be separate.
What music can tell us about our attention span
GABBY RIVAS
Opinion Columnist