Author: Eric Soble

By Eric Soble

Opinions Editor

A picture is worth a thousand words, so a 30-second campaign ad should be worth at least 500. In the limited space The Bucknellian supplies me, I hope to take Christine O’Donnell’s infamous television advertisement and translate it into something educated Americans can understand.

O’Donnell begins with the pronouncement, “I am not a witch.” This opening is in response to a statement O’Donnell made on “Politically Incorrect” with Bill Maher. In this clip, O’Donnell explains that she “dabbled in witchcraft” when she was younger, culminating in a date on a “satanic altar.” It is odd that she would begin an ad in this way, suggesting that the ultimate thing on her mind is the restoration of her own reputation.

She then asserts, “I’m nothing you’ve heard.” This assumes two things: that I’ve previously been informed about O’Donnell, and that my informer was indubitably wrong. This clears up a lot of problems I had with O’Donnell. She must then: believe in the theory of evolution, treat homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality, understand the secularism of our constitution and realize the importance of comprehensive sexual education.

… oh, she doesn’t? Nevermind.

Next, O’Donnell puts forward an interesting argument by simply saying, “I’m you.” To the untrained ear, this kind of identity hex would only be possible if her previous denouncement of witchcraft were false. Instead, O’Donnell is alluding to an argument often made by conservatives “outside the beltway”—that she, as a candidate, is exactly like any other hard-working American.

This is the problem: I don’t want myself in public office. In fact, I know I would be terrible at politics. I don’t have the ego to think I could run this country; I can barely finish my 15-page international relations midterm.

Employing this underdog rhetoric has helped many politicians achieve widespread success. Americans tend to vote for candidates they could have a beer with instead of candidates who could be able to navigate complex negotiations in the Middle East. O’Donnell is just the latest of candidates appealing to populism to achieve electoral success.

O’Donnell levels several accusations against the “backroom deals” and “spending” in Washington. These are legitimate claims in our current political system. One cannot understand Washington without looking at nepotism and the vast web of interconnected success that permeates our capital.

It is telling that O’Donnell could only produce cliché, interchangeable themes for being such an outsider. Her advertisement does not put forth any substantial policy changes, nor does it advance any agenda of any kind.

But this doesn’t matter for her listeners, so long as she rallies against big government and taxes. As long as our current civic paradigm continues, tea partiers and conservatives alike have no reason to fight for a cause rather than against one.

One has to wonder how much longer Americans will buy the rhetoric advanced by O’Donnell and people like her. The faster we see the working class image politicians adopt to win elections as it is—a contrived veneer—the better.

By Leah Rogers

Contributing Writer

As Sam Adams would say, “I hate college but love all the parties.” We all know college is full of hard work during the week and, for many, hard partying on the weekends. But is the culture at the University too party-oriented?

The academic workload here at can get very heavy, so it is completely understandable that students want to kick back and relax on the weekends. Every weekend, at least one fraternity is having a party, and it is relatively easy for students to get in. There, students can choose to drink or just dance and have a good time.

Many people may think that fraternities and sororities just have out-of-control parties all the time where the main event is drinking, but this is not entirely true.

“The school is very Greek-dominated, but fraternities host non-alcoholic events too,” Mike Kehrli ’13 said.

His fraternity, Sigma Phi Epsilon, has events such as tackle football games and golf outings.

“We’re not just a drinking club, there’s a lot more that goes into it,” Kehrli said.

Although many students at the University do choose to get involved in Greek life, there are lots of alternative activities for those who prefer not to. Every week, Activities and Campus Events (ACE) shows a different movie for just $1 for University students. They typically show pretty current movies, such as “Toy Story 3” or “Iron Man 2.” The movies give students a way to relax and spend time with their friends. Students also get together and play popular videogames, like DDR or Rockband.

There are also other clubs on campus, such as C.A.L.V.I.N. & H.O.B.B.E.S., which provides students with free alternative activities on the weekends.

“Last weekend they went rollerblading, they’ve gone bowling and camping,” Rachel Celniker ’14 said.

Clubs like C.A.L.V.I.N. & H.O.B.B.E.S. give students a chance to avoid the party scene and still have fun with their friends.

But there shouldn’t be a huge social barrier between those who choose Greek life and those who do not. Students should be able to be in fraternities or attend parties as well as do other activities.

“I think many people don’t go to things like this [C.A.L.V.I.N. & H.O.B.B.E.S.] because they don’t know they exist or they think they are lame, but they’re really not,” Celniker said.

Students can check out both ends of the spectrum and get the best of both worlds.

Greek life does play a big role in many people’s social lives, but the University offers students a wide range of alternative activities. Students shouldn’t feel like they have to pick one or the other—don’t be afraid to mix it up, you never know who you’ll meet!

By Lizzie Kirshenbaum

Contributing Writer

Gun control is a major issue that has divided liberals and conservatives for years. As the world we live in becomes increasingly threatening, the desire to arm authorities becomes progressively more justifiable. When generations before us say “things were different when I was younger,” the classic example cited is the inability for people today to walk safely in their neighborhood.

But students at the University live in a microcosm of this world. Our campus may be without gates and relatively open to the public, but that is not to say we are unprotected. At any hour of the day, Public Safety cars are patrolling campus. On the weekends in particular, when the night becomes rowdier, the presence of Public Safety and the Lewisburg Police Department becomes even more apparent.

This week in New York City a 24-year-old man, Emmanuel Paulino was shot and killed by the police. Paulino had threatened the police with his knife and the police say they acted in self-defense. Several witnesses later attested to the fact that this man’s knife was barely capable of causing serious harm. Had the police not been armed with guns, perhaps such an extreme reaction could have been avoided.

While New York City police face many serious crimes, which justify their carrying of arms, Public Safety does not. In examining recent Public Safety logs in The Bucknellian, the majority of infringements concern illegal alcohol and drug use, which hardly warrant the use of arms. While one may argue that an intoxicated individual poses a potential threat to the campus community, in most situations the officers of Public Safety have the knowledge and training to deal with these people with minimal physical contact.

The recent homicide at Seton Hall University struck college students over the country with trepidation. Perhaps the key point to this unfortunate incident is that the shooting occurred at an off-campus party. Seton Hall’s Public Safety department was not held accountable for intervening at this party; instead, it was the responsibility of the local police to respond.

The University’s Public Safety department takes preemptive steps to minimize the presence of dangerous weapons on campus. Although one can never be confident that these rules are being followed, students’ criminal records demonstrate negligible physical hostility. Perhaps the better question is not whether or not Public Safety officers should carry guns, but rather what type of weaponry Public Safety officers should be equipped with in case of emergency.

By Maja Ostojic

Contributing Writer

This past Saturday, I attended one of the best information sessions for my future plans of pursuing a career as a doctor. Lately, I have been feeling overwhelmed with the task and the long road that I have chosen for myself, but the session reawakened my motivation and opened my eyes to the actuality of it all.

The session was led by David H. Janda ’80 and his daughter Allison Janda ’10 currently in her first year at the University of Michigan Medical School.

Allison and her father discussed the step-by-step process for applying to a medical school in a very clear and concise manner. They also provided tips for the MCAT preparation process, approximate timeline of meeting application deadlines and suggestions for interview etiquette. I learned that a score of 29 on the MCAT and a grade point average of 3.6 here at theUniversity will pretty much guarantee acceptance into a medical school.

Janda spoke in a very encouraging manner. He shared with us a past experience from one of his first pre-health information sessions.

He had been told to look to his left and then to his right, and that only one of the three people would make it to a medical school. He told us to do the same but he said that all three of us would make it to medical school and succeed, if we simply worked hard.

And I see that he’s right. If we want it enough, and if we are willing to put in the time and effort, doors will open before us.

Those of us who have chosen the path of medicine receive much support, but we also hear many negative comments about whether we are “smart enough” for the medical school and the hospital environment.

Our dreams seem to be questioned quite often, and even though we still push forth and proclaim that this is it, that we’ve wanted to be doctors since we were little, we can’t help but begin questioning ourselves.

Janda remained positive about this topic and told us to never let anyone tell us that we aren’t capable of doing something. We could all see the love and passion he had for being a doctor.

He also applauded all of us in the room for wanting to follow in his footsteps, even in the current economic status of our country. He admitted that the salary just two decades ago was not the same as it is now, but that that isn’t what being a doctor is all about.

So many find out too late that the job means more than the money people receive from it. Choosing to become a doctor means choosing to dedicate ourselves to prolonging and saving lives, to putting others needs ahead of our own, to trusting in medicine and health care and being the ones that so many people put their trust in.

By Chris Giglio

Opinions Edtor

My first year at the University, I received a call from a high school friend informing me that one of our peers had hung himself in his dorm room at the University of Pennsylvania.  Alex was smarter, more social and just an overall better person than I will ever be.  He was also gay.  Growing up in a conservative family, the pressure of hiding who he really was pushed him to the point of suicide.  It makes me sick to think of the little things I could have done to ease the pain he was feeling.  It also makes me sick to think we are currently exposing gay men and women in our military to the same type of pressure.

Since 1992 the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy has barred anyone who “demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” from serving in the military because “it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” This is one of the most backwards statements I have ever heard.  Cohesion is indeed an essential part of the military, but forcing gay military personnel to hide who they are only isolates them from their comrades and impedes cohesion.

Being a soldier is probably the most stressful line of work anyone can be in.  In times of combat you fear for your life, deal with the stress of being away from your loved ones and the moral qualm between doing what is right and doing what is necessary to survive. It is unjustifiable to add even more stress to the estimated 65,000 gay servicemen and women who must worry every day about being exposed. And as this stress builds up they have nowhere to turn—they cannot talk to their comrades nor can they turn to the psychological services offered by the military.

The University of California Blue Ribbon Commission estimated that over 10 years we have spent $363.8 million discharging gays from the military.  It would be much cheaper to discharge the few soldiers who have a problem with fighting alongside competent gay soldiers. A Gallup Poll shows 79 percent of people within the 18-29 age range (the typical age of soldiers) are in favor of repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” Continuing this policy only serves to propagate homophobic behavior.

In an article you should strive to present the counter-argument of your position in the best of light.  But I can’t bring myself to support an argument which has killed a friend of mine and which puts thousands of others in a similar position.

By Jessica Rafalko

Writer

At Saturday’s Fall Fest, a woman approached me after Na Palm’s opening performance to ask what paper I wrote for. Looking official, press tag and all, I held up my consummate notepad and told her I was writing for the school paper. She then told me with obvious distaste that it was a waste of money for the University to bring in performers like Na Palm: guys who asked the crowd if they liked to party, if they liked to smoke. The woman then pointed to the students surging toward the stage and said, “And they’re just stupid enough to buy into it.”

I shook my head, as if to say, “I know what you mean.”

But my indignation was mostly for show. It’s true that Na Palm, G. Curtis and Sam Adams incorporate that unholy trinity of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll into their acts, but the content of their acts shouldn’t bar them from performing on our campus—especially when their music in many ways offers an accurate portrayal of certain aspects of college life.

I think the outraged woman was responding less to the content of the music and more to the students’ reaction to it. By accepting Na Palm’s suggestion that all they do is party–drink, smoke, get laid—with enthusiasm of the hoot-and-holler variety, students confirmed all those awful but knowing suspicions society has about life on a college campus.

College students are seen as self-indulgent, irresponsible and reckless. This university, like most with rural campuses, has a reputation as a party school. Beer pong may or may not have originated here. We have an active Greek life, which makes the “Animal House” comparisons unavoidable. When I first visited this campus as a high school senior, it reminded me of the colleges you see on TV and in movies. We ooze that distinctly collegiate blend of quality academia and killer parties.

So what right do people have to be offended when musicians point out the obvious? We’re not naïve enough to think these things don’t happen on campus. There is alcohol; there is pot; there is, of course, sex. Sam Adams and company weren’t wrong in assuming we like to party—really, they were just stating the obvious.

It’s hard to determine where the problem lies. Are students at fault for partying? Is the University at fault for inviting certain performers to campus? Or is society at fault for simultaneously condoning and denying what goes on in college?

Before I left for school, my parents told me, “Look, we know you’re going to drink. It’s college.” Still, if I called them one night and said, “Hey, guess what? You were right about that drinking thing,” chances are they would respond with heavy sighs and veiled disappointment. Society employs a reverse psychology; it’s as if acknowledging the partying that goes on in college will render it a non-threat.

“Don’t party,” they tell us, but at the same time they say, “Partying is a part of college.”

If you want to believe Sam Adams’s music is a threat to society’s sensibilities, that’s your prerogative. But then how can you justify perpetuating an equally damaging mixed message?

By Eric Soble

Opinions Editor

The “Unity Jam: Stop the Hate Rally” held this Monday publicly made a stand against hatred and intolerance in the wider Lewisburg community. This event is increasingly necessary, given the numerous hate crimes against immigrants in rural Pennsylvania.

There are several points that could be made concerning the overall message of this rally. What does it mean to “stop the hate”? Is this a good way to show community and solidarity? How do we reconcile our love of free speech with our commitment to providing a safe atmosphere for all?

For me, the main problem with the “Stop the Hate” rally is that it contradicts its very title by hating those deemed hateful. This obvious paradox is one that is difficult to get past, because transcending the cycle of hate would mean tolerating intolerance.

One way to solve this problem is by separating action from belief and speech. I think we all can agree criminal actions against persons of any color or shape deserve punishment and chastisement.

However, belief and speech are fundamentally different from action. No matter how absurd or offensive speech or a belief may be, they are peaceful expressions, so long as they do not threaten or imply force. We must remember freedom of speech becomes meaningless if it only applies to speech considered “acceptable” to a wide margin of society. This is not a matter of agreeing with such speech, but rather allowing it so the same censorship cannot be applied to any other group.

This freedom presents a difficult problem for those of us who wish to be part of an accepting, tolerant community: we cannot criminalize ideas, yet we wish to discourage hateful expressions of bigotry and prejudice. The solution to this does not come from “stopping hate,” but by encouraging a more open dialogue. If these hateful people were allowed to speak publicly about their beliefs, their positions would automatically be discredited. Everyone should have the right to make him or herself look like an idiot.

“Stop the Hate” starts us in the right direction but fails to make several critical distinctions concerning how to go about this process. It is not enough to proclaim our opposition to hate; we must understand hate as a sentiment to be exposed, not silenced. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis has said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” We cannot solve hate by automatically dismissing it. Like any other learned ideology, hate must be intellectually challenged and discussed.

By Leah Rogers

Contributing Writer

In today’s fast–paced world, people are increasingly taking the time to be environmentally friendly. Whether it is through reusing grocery bags, driving a hybrid car or eating organic food, many are trying to do their part. The University is also hopping on the green bandwagon, but there are plenty of other things we could be doing.

One of the biggest environmental problems for schools is paper waste. Printing out multiple-page handouts for each student uses a lot of paper, which is why almost every class offers materials online. Still, students must play their part: don’t print readings or papers unless it is completely necessary. Paper towel use is also a concern. According to Environmental Resource Management, using paper towels has doubled the global warming impact compared to electric hand dryers. Switching to electric dryers would solve some of the University’s paper waste problems.

Campus shuttles could also do more to conserve fossil fuels. The shuttle provides transport to downtown Lewisburg and Wal–Mart. These shuttles often sit idly with no students on board, yet continue to run their engines. Leaving engines off until students are onboard could save a bit of gas.

The University does do a great job of recycling. Without the recycling areas in each residence hall, the amount of water bottles and aluminum cans wasted each week would take its toll on the environment.

Students can still improve some of their living habits to be more environmentally friendly. Many students leave the room with their lights and laptops still on and their cell phone chargers plugged in with nothing to charge. What they don’t realize is how much energy this wastes. It just takes a few seconds to flip a switch off, put a computer into sleep mode and unplug a charger. Students who do this save a lot of electricity and make campus a bit greener.

Although there are a few small things that could be improved, the University is generally doing a good job of being environmentally conscious. Campus is orange, blue and most importantly, green.