R
ecently, I pursued a very
exciting
opportunity,
one
that
afforded
me
the chance to work in an industry
I’ve loved since I can remember:
sports. Of all the extracurricular
opportunities I’ve involved myself in
this year — professional fraternities,
sports business groups, writing for
this awesome paper, etc. — this felt
different. This was the chance of a
lifetime, one that could define my
college career.
One thing you should know about
me is that when I go after something,
I go all-in. I’m sure many of you do
as well. It’s one of the traits which
defines the student population here:
when we want something, we go
after it with a vengeance. So, that’s
exactly what I did. Networking calls,
emails, talking to people who held
the position formerly — everything
you’re supposed to do, by the book,
to position yourself in the best way
possible.
Yet, as I stubbornly pursued this
opportunity, I found myself growing
more doubtful. This doesn’t feel
right, I told myself. What the heck
is wrong here? As I asked more and
more questions, I received answers
which didn’t necessarily excite me. I
kept scrambling for the right inquiry,
one that would unlock my lost
enthusiasm (my original motivation
for the position). Unfortunately, it
never came. I realized, throughout
the process, that more is not always
better. I chose to affiliate myself with a
couple of select student organizations
already; I liked the people I met, the
objectives of the organizations and
believed in their respective potentials.
Quite honestly, I thought I had struck
gold when, in reality, this should be
the standard across the board.
No one should have to feel like they
are settling. This exact sentiment
made my emotions all the more
troublesome. On the surface, this
athletic opportunity should be my
dream. However, I turned it down
because it wasn’t the right fit for me.
Now, a few days after, I still feel in
shock. I question whether it will turn
out to be the right decision. Right
now, in my gut, I think it is.
Frictional
unemployment,
as
defined by Professor Ed Cho, is
“workers taking the time to search
for jobs that match their skills or
tastes.” Granted, at first, this seems
like an overwhelming, intimidating
concept. No one should want to
turn down employment if they need
it, right? True, although I propose
that frictional unemployment may
actually be a positive idea.
Quite simply, we should pursue
opportunities that are not only
engaging, but those that achieve
this quality without forcing us to
compromise our well-being. Our
desire to be involved is one thing;
seeking commitments which are
enriching, re-energizing and leave
us fulfilled after putting in work is
another. Scott Dust, professor of
management at Miami University,
notes that “person-organization fit
is a strong predictor of whether or
not someone will be committed to
an organization in the long-term.”
Additionally,
individuals
who
experience “higher levels of this type
of fit typically enjoy being at work
and connecting with colleagues.”
In my short two years here, I have
been told to take informal, informative
interviews seriously as “you are
interviewing them for as much as they
are interviewing you.” For the longest
time, I never understood this advice or
how to determine whether a position
is a healthy fit. To do so, I started to
break down what a responsibility
entails into comprehensible questions.
How does this obligation agree
with my personality and morals?
Will it allow me to balance my other
competing
interests?
Does
this
opportunity provide adequate benefit
for the time I will put in?
These may seem like basic inquiries
at first glance, but I discovered that
answering them truthfully requires
intricate, complex rationalization. I
don’t always like my answers, but at
the very least I know they are sincere.
Therefore, I believe there is power in
introspection and, more importantly,
self-honesty. While the demands of
our ‘dream job’ may at first seem too
glorious to pass up, it is important to
understand who we are as evolving
individuals; we need not jump at
our first offer, our second, but rather
the one which speaks best to our
personality and lifestyle.
The sooner we learn to prioritize
our well-being over what we believe
to be ‘professionally outstanding,’
the better off we will be in the long
run. Granted, when Fortune 500
companies are offering six figures
upon graduation, I understand this
might be easier said than done. In
my anecdote, it is not like I would be
unhappy working within sports. In
fact, I’d be over-the-moon ecstatic.
In this role, however, I just would not
be as excited as I could be, and that,
personally, is a red flag. If I can’t be
fair to myself, how can I be fair to the
organization?
Thus, I encourage you to keep
digging, keep soul-searching for
the ‘perfect’ opportunity. Refuse to
compromise the first few years of
your professional career for a better
one later on. Ideally, you should not
have to accept mortgaging your
future. Trust yourself now, in the
moment, and know that everything
is going to be alright.
L
ooking
back
on
my
childhood, it’s exceedingly
apparent that Big Dairy
propaganda was omnipresent in
my daily life. My parents always
reminded me that drinking milk
makes for stronger bones. Both
chocolate and regular milk in cute
cartons with cartoon cows filled
my school lunches, “Got Milk?”
campaigns filled the newspapers I’d
flip through while waiting in line
at Safeway and my school cafeteria
decorated its walls with colorful
USDA dietary guideline posters that
encouraged students to consume at
least 3 cups of dairy every day.
According to these guidelines, our
government maintains that regular
consumption of dairy is “associated
with positive health outcomes” and
is an excellent source of protein and
nutrients. While this widely accepted
“truth” appears to hold merit, there’s
a concerning amount of information
being withheld from this argument.
So, let’s break it down.
Within
this
half-truthful
argument,
the
government
conveniently forgets to mention that
the dairy industry is incontestably
one of the most abusive and
exploitative toward animals in the
United States. The image that Big
Dairy has fed the American public
of a quaint farmer milking a cow
while sitting on a pail is intentional
disinformation, to say the least.
When female cows are just two
years old and newly able to give
birth, they are forcibly inseminated
by machines. They carry their calves
for nine months, living in pens with
concrete floors and hundreds of
other dairy cows and sleeping in
piles of manure. Hours after delivery,
the calf is robbed from the mother;
if it’s male, it’s sent to a beef farm to
be raised for meat products, and if
it’s female, it’s sent to another dairy
farm to be raised for dairy products.
The mother would typically produce
just enough milk for her calf, but with
the help of hormones pumped into
her body, she unnaturally produces
a surplus for market consumption.
She is connected to a machine with
suction tubes on her udders and
milked for weeks until her body stops
producing. When she can give birth
again, she is similarly artificially
inseminated,
and
the
process
continues until she cannot breed
anymore. Now, useless to the dairy
farmers, she is killed and sold for beef
products.
Because 99% of U.S. livestock are
raised in disease-ridden feedlots,
factory
farms
or
concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
as previously mentioned, cattle must
be injected with high amounts of
antibiotics to fight rampant infection
within
these
heavily
confined,
germ ridden spaces. Consequently,
numerous
studies
have
found
antibiotic “residue” from dairy cattle
in a majority of our dairy products.
The human impact of this practice
cannot be understated. Antibiotics
in our day-to-day dairy products
can lead to antibiotic resistance in
the general public, resulting in more
costly and prolonged treatment
of infections, allergic reactions
(especially if the antibiotic contains
penicillin), carcinogenic impacts,
mutagenic effects on female fertility
and destruction of microflora in
the intestines — which help to fight
infection. Inarguably, the inorganic
practices within Big Dairy that
translate into its products are
incredibly costly to human health.
After being presented with this
information, the alarming lack of
transparency within our pro-dairy
government health organizations
becomes staunchly evident.
And even still, the American
public is urged to consume dairy by
government health organizations,
even though all of dairy’s speculative
positive impacts can be debunked
by opposing studies. For example,
though
government
health
organizations like the USDA claim
that dairy makes your bones more
resilient, a study conducted by
New Zealand scientists found that
there was no association between
calcium intake from dairy products
and a reduction in bone fractures.
Moreover, the perceived nutritional
benefits of consuming dairy, like
fulfilling our daily recommendations
for phosphorus, calcium and protein
intake can be satisfied through
increasing our intake of certain
green vegetables. According to a
2020 nutrition review published
by scholars at Oxford Academic,
“focusing on more nutrient-dense,
plant-based foods would allow
greater latitude in food choices
to meet mineral requirements by
allowing a greater number of choices
from a variety of plant foods while
reducing
kilocalories
consumed
(from dairy products).”
This brings us to the ultimate
question of why our government
pushes pro-dairy rhetoric to the
American public despite its obvious
lack of merit. As it turns out, this
entire system was constructed
during the first World War, when
the U.S. government began sending
milk products overseas to nourish
impoverished European soldiers.
This created a booming market for
newly specialized dairy farmers
who invested heavily in raising dairy
cattle. When the war ended, dairy
farmers ended up with a plenitude
of milk products and little demand,
leading the U.S. government to
sponsor
milk
campaigns
that
encouraged consumers to buy dairy
products. This, lined up with the
creation of the National School
Lunch Program, which required
public schools to serve milk as a part
of complete meals for students.
After Reagan cut U.S. spending,
which included buying excess dairy
products, Big Dairy discovered its
ability to exert market influence
through lobbying efforts in Congress,
which incentivized congresspeople
to continue including dairy in
national
health
organization
guidelines. These lobbied members
of Congress also assist Big Dairy
by involving dairy corporations in
partnerships with restaurant chains,
like Domino’s and Starbucks, where
they can help to create dairy-heavy
menu items for consumer use.
The dairy industry — made up of
companies such as Land O’Lakes and
Dairy Farmers of America — spent a
total of $6.7 million on lobbying in
2021 alone. Essentially, in order to
serve the personal interests of some
of our government officials, pockets
get fuller with Big Dairy money for
the sake of their personal interest
and they sacrifice the health of their
nation.
There are numerous concrete
actions that people can take to
combat the corruption of our
government’s
department
of
agriculture. While veganism and
vegetarianism can be far-fetched
goals, a simple reduction of dairy
use on a day-to-day basis can help to
sizably decrease the dairy industry’s
impact on our country’s people,
animals and environment. Dairy
alternatives, such as oat milk and soy
milk, are just as delicious and far less
saturated with unhealthy fats and
excessive calories than traditional
dairy. Oat milk pairs harmoniously
with cereal, coffee and even baked
goods — I personally recommend
Chobani Vanilla Oat Milk for a
dulcet, thick milk alternative, and
Planet Oat Original Oat Milk for a
light, mellow milk alternative.
Shopping local for dairy products
is another great alternative to
buying from Big Dairy corporations
because
it
supports
small
businesses, bypasses the excessive
processing of dairy products and
allows the consumer to know
where their dairy is coming from.
On a political level, it is crucial to
support policies that take a stand
against special interest lobbying in
Congress and that fight to expand
lobbying disclosure so that our
constituency can be informed about
what representatives are selling
themselves to corporations.
It is time that the American public
stop COWering at the investment
into healthier dairy alternatives,
for the sake of our public health,
environment and trust within our
democratic system.
A
s the fate of Ukraine teeters
on the brink, President
Biden has been tasked with
a grave decision that has tremendous
international consequences: cave
into Russia’s demands or threaten
to fight to defend Ukraine. The
first option would preclude Russia
from any attack, destroying their
diplomatic
reputation
if
they
advanced their troops. The second,
though it heightens the risk of a
confrontation between the United
States and Russia, two nuclear-
armed nations, would likely scare
President Vladimir Putin away
from invading in the near future.
This would ultimately show that the
United States means business when
it comes to defending freedom.
Unfortunately, Biden has chosen
a third, murkier option that neither
ends the conflict nor stands up to
Russia. By continuing to support
diplomatic channels with Russia
while explicitly stating that his
administration would never agree
to Putin’s demands or send troops
into Ukraine, Biden has made the
United States look geopolitically
weak, a nation uncommitted to its
allies and unable to foster productive
diplomatic discussions. Though it
still remains unclear when Russia
will choose to attack, Biden’s choices
have permanently diminished the
United States’s negotiating power and
might prove catastrophic when Putin
inevitably forwards his expansionist
agenda.
Though Putin has been angling
for a mainland invasion of Ukraine
since his 2014 takeover of Crimea,
the current conflict was instigated
when he demanded that Ukraine be
prohibited from ever joining NATO.
While a drastic demand, the request is
understandable and could even serve
to reduce future provocations. Having
NATO on Russia’s doorstep would be
tantamount to having Russian troops
permanently stationed across the
Ambassador Bridge. Realistically, it
would serve neither the interest of
the U.S. nor Russia to have Ukraine
join NATO, as it would dramatically
increase the tension of an otherwise
relatively stable relationship.
Beyond
international
security
implications, Ukraine is unlikely to
even be a strong fit for the NATO
alliance. With a sizable sect of the
population supporting the Russian
separatist movement, Ukrainians
would likely be wary of taking actions
against Russia. The ongoing conflict
in the Donbas region, which has
been decimated by trench warfare
between over 75,000 separatists
and government forces since 2014,
is evidence of just how unstable
Ukraine’s national security was even
before the recent spike in tensions.
Attaching NATO backing to a region
with tremendous turmoil could lead
to the unnecessary involvement of
Western troops in civil warfare and
bloody internal conflicts.
While meeting Putin’s demands of
curbing NATO’s eastward expansion
would temporarily weaken our
standing, in the long-run, it could
serve to ease international tensions
and increase our goodwill amongst
European nations currently reluctant
to sever their economic ties with
Russia or risk sending in troops to an
unstable region.
The other path that Biden could
have taken was to hang the threat of
war or harsh sanctions over Putin to
deter him from engaging. Though
Biden has threatened sanctions if
Putin were to attack, the prospect
of future sanctions might do little to
dissuade a Russian administration
that has erred on the side of
recklessness with regards to long-
term threats. If Biden had instead
preemptively imposed sanctions on
the Russians, he could have forced
Putin back to the negotiating table on
American terms and coaxed Russia
into pulling its troops back from the
border.
Another misstep came in Biden’s
declaration that the U.S. would not
engage militarily in Ukraine. Though
the nation would clearly never send
in American troops, the past century
of U.S. foreign policy has shown our
willingness to support proxy wars,
with the U.S. training and backing
forces throughout the Middle East
and Africa. With three decades of
built-up tension between the U.S. and
Russia since the collapse of the Soviet
Union, Putin would be wise not to
risk any military action. By giving
up this option, Biden has made clear
that while the U.S. opposes Russia’s
actions, it would never go to war
with them, tacitly approving Putin’s
decision to move forward with little
U.S. military opposition.
Unfortunately, Biden is likely too
late to fully avert a Ukrainian crisis.
Whether Russia attacks now or waits
until a later date, Putin is clearly set
on expanding Russian influence
in the region. While diplomacy is a
viable negotiating tactic with other
nations, as an ex-KGB officer, Putin
seems far more likely to respect
threats of force. With China rising
as a global power, the U.S. can’t
afford to stay distracted by Russia,
so going forward, Biden would be
wise to negotiate from a position of
power to ensure that Russia doesn’t
pose a future threat. If he is serious
about
reestablishing
America’s
commitment to its allies, it’s time for
Biden to stop reacting to Putin and
start proactively asserting American
interests.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
10 — Wednesday, February 23, 2022
War and peace: an administration
that has chosen neither
NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist
SOPHIA LEHRBAUM
Opinion Columnist
The downside of Big Dairy’s big influence
February 15th
Expectations vs reality: prioritizing
ourselves over profession
SAM WOITESHEK
Opinion Columnist
Design by Ambika Tripathi