Author: Sara Blair Matthews

Justin Marinelli
Writer

Men are no longer what they once were. The convenience of our modern lives, while being an overall blessing, has come with hidden consequences that are only just now starting to be revealed.

Recently, anthropologist Peter McAllister set out to write a book on how modern man is the epitome of evolution; he is stronger, smarter, faster and better than his ancestors.  However, almost every single bit of evidence he uncovered acted against this argument. His book, “Manthropology: The Science of Why the Modern Male is Not the Man He Used to Be,” details the results of his research.

McAllister reveals that men living in industrial, Western nations are some of the weakest, slowest and most cowardly men who have ever lived. Even our Olympic athletes can’t replicate some of the athletic feats that took place just a few thousand years ago, like matching the speed of Greek trireme rowers.

Does it really matter if some caveman could run faster than Usain Bolt? Those who react in such a fashion miss the point. The real value of books like “Manthropology” isn’t in their accounts of the hard-core things our ancestors did, but in the inspiration they can provide to those of us alive now. It can mean a lot to be reminded that if we push ourselves to our limits, we can accomplish things that could be considered almost superhuman.

We are no longer as strong or tough because we don’t have to be. Our lives aren’t as physically demanding as they once were, so we don’t have to be like 73-year-old Kenyan farmer Daniel M’Mburugu who killed a leopard with his bare hands after it attacked him.  That said, modern men have their own challenges they have to grapple with.

Men are earning a smaller proportion of college degrees than women, are being thrown in jail at far higher rates and are suffering far more layoffs in the past few years. Boys are more likely than girls to be diagnosed with conditions like attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and scientists have recorded a shocking drop in average testosterone levels in men over the past 30 years. The dangers we face may not be as physically threatening as a hungry leopard, but we do face our own distinct challenges nonetheless.

While it may be men that are directly affected by these problems, women are also affected. They pay the tax dollars to keep men in prison, they have to be more competitive students to get into the same colleges and are forced to provide a larger proportion of family income. The decline of man is making life harder for everyone.

It’s to this end that I call for a men’s movement. I believe one of the core essentials to being a great person (of any gender) is to always be pushing yourself to overcome new challenges and to try to become a better person today then you were yesterday. If this generation of men took that heart and truly pushed themselves beyond their limits, then I firmly believe the decline of man can be halted, to the benefit of everyone.

Elaine Lac
Writer

When did oatmeal become a menu item in fast-food joints? In an effort to promote a healthier lifestyle, fast-food chains like Subway, Starbucks and the ubiquitous McDonald’s franchises are putting calorie counters and healthier options on their menus. What happened to the days when we could super size for an extra 50 cents or when french fries were our only side option? A new health consciousness has emerged, one that America desperately needs.

America is known as one of the most obese countries in the world, and the number of overweight people has steadily increased since the 90s. On campus there are few signs of this due to the wonderful rolling hills keeping us in shape. But what happens after college? For some of us, there will be no more easy gym access, sports teams or hills to keep us moving. If we don’t learn about the importance of eating healthy now, there could be serious consequences later, so this is where the benefit of having healthy fast food comes in.

The fast food industry’s movement to healthy food is a blessing. We get cheap food, but are given a number of healthy options. As college students, we don’t have much money to spend on food, so these healthier options could help us out. McDonald’s has apple and milk options for kids’ meals. Subway promotes healthy five-dollar footlong subs. Starbucks has skinny and nonfat options. Along with these healthy alternatives, there are calorie counters to help make healthy decisions. Most people generally have to guess which options are healthy, but looks can be deceiving. Something like a grilled chicken salad sounds healthy, but with certain dressings, it could be worse than a burger. With this surge of better information and increased choices, people can make more informed decisions about their food.

You may lament the loss of indulgence to this health movement, but there is still room for that. Most fast-food places still have their signature menu items like the Big Mac from McDonald’s and Caramel Macchiatos from Starbucks. There are simply more alternatives and substitutions, so you can become more aware of what you’re consuming. If you really want your kicks, then choose some fast-food places that still allow you to have the unadulterated junk food experience.

What we put into our bodies affects how we feel for the rest of the day. Eating healthy foods can make us feel energized, while consuming unhealthy fast food can slow us down. It’s important to indulge too, but make sure you know your limits. The healthy options and calorie counters are there to help you. Don’t fight it; embrace a healthy lifestyle.

Caroline Schaeffer
Contributing Writer 

Who hasn’t seen a tabloid in the last four years featuring a child star gone wild? Is anyone really surprised to see Lindsay Lohan’s mug shot gracing the cover of Us Weekly? And was anyone really surprised that Lohan eventually fell down this path? Child stars have gotten a bad rep as of late for misbehaving and getting caught. From Michael Jackson to Amanda Bynes, it seems as if no one is safe from public scrutiny. At the same time, it seems as if many child stars are under this public scrutiny because of their own doing. Why is it that formerly beloved child stars are only able to hold on to their fame through DUI’s, arrests and crotch shots? Why can’t they hold on to their fame by doing something respectable … like acting?

The problem for child stars is they made their fame and fortune when they were young, cute and easily influenced. Pouring billions of dollars on a 10-year-old and enforcing little rule over their day-to-day activities is just the perfect mix of mayhem that creates the Miley Cyruses of the world. Kids need structure and discipline in their lives, or they’ll spin out of control. If no one is teaching the young Lindsay Lohans that they can’t get anything they want whenever they want it, what’s going to stop them from having this same mindset in their adulthood? Hollywood is a world of excess wealth and power, as well as a lack of control and discipline; really, it should be no surprise the children who grow up in this world don’t grow up well.

Child stars often suffer from a sort of identity crisis when they can no longer perform in the roles that brought them fame and fortune. When Macaulay Culkin was too old to be left “Home Alone,” his career flat lined. Child stars have to struggle with the fact that many of the reasons they got jobs in the first place had more to do with their look and less to do with their actual ability to act. When the money they became accustomed to raking in suddenly disappears and their agents stop calling them with new gigs, it’s almost understandable that many turn to drugs, alcohol and partying to cope with their lack of identity. Child stars can’t remain children forever, and unfortunately for them, the odds of their mug shot adorning Us Weekly are much higher than their odds of tastefully gracing the cover of Vanity Fair.

Unfortunately, it seems as if most people who become famous early on in their lives are doomed to walk down a rocky road once puberty hits; whether they emerge to the other side relatively unscathed or not is a different story. Being exposed to a world of freedom and loose morals is bad for any person, especially easily influenced children. Put all that freedom into the eyes of a public just waiting for them to fall, and it’s no surprise that most child stars meet the general public’s expectations.

El McCabe
Contributing Writer

If you’ve checked Facebook recently it’s likely that friends, political pages and advertisements have bombarded you with campaign propaganda. With November quickly approaching, candidates and their supporters are trying to impact the election as much as possible and gain the support of the younger generation. I believe social network campaigning is the most politically savvy idea in a long time, and will prove to be a serious determinant in the upcoming election.

Over the last few years, social networks have revolutionized the way people interact, speak and, most importantly, express their views. Since the dawn of Friendster and other social networking websites, teenagers have learned to connect with the outside world in an extremely different form than all prior generations. Kids of all ages can access news from the Internet and absorb the commercials/propaganda posted by their friends on Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr. Due to the fact that kids and young adults are tremendously impressionable, these social networking posts have huge potential to permanently develop and influence the social, economic and political beliefs of voters to come.

This year’s presidential election will be unlike any election America has ever seen. The 2012 presidential election will not only be crucial in deciding the direction of our country, but also in determining the effect that social networking has had on our younger voters. As a first-year, this is my first opportunity to vote along-side eight million young adults ages 18-21 in the presidential election. Those eight million voters are the first generation to be so deeply immersed in social networking and will most likely vote along the lines of the information provided for them online.

Social networking advertisements this past year have been overwhelming in support of Barack Obama. Obama captured 66 percent of the “young vote” from ages 18-29 in 2008, so imagine how much more support he will receive after campaigning heavily online. Obama realizes that his supporters are heavily based in the young liberal population, therefore social networking is the clear answer to maintaining this support. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has campaigned primarily to older generations and basically avoided social network campaigning all together. I have a strong feeling that his lack of effort in persuading the young vote will cost Romney in the end. Regardless of the winner, it will certainly be an unprecedented election due to social network campaigning, and will most likely change the strategies of presidents to come.

Andrew Isola
Writer

On the morning of Sept. 12, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney appeared on national television to issue a statement regarding the recent attacks on U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya. He criticized President Obama’s handling of the situation as “disgraceful,” slamming the Obama administration for “sympathiz[ing] with those who waged the attacks,” and issuing what Romney called an “apology for America’s values.” These accusations refer to a statement made by the U.S. embassy in Cairo responding to outrage over rumors of an anti-Islamic film scheduled for release in the United States and circulated on the Internet.

“When our grounds are being attacked and being breached, the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation,” Romney said. “It’s never too early for the US government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.”

Romney added that the White House later “distanced itself” from the statement, saying it hadn’t been cleared by senior officials in Washington. “That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world,” he said.

Unfortunately for Romney, his timeline differs from reality. The statement from Cairo, which he referred to as akin to an apology, was issued Sept. 11 at midday, at a time when embassy staff were aware of peaceful demonstrations occurring nearby. The mob attack on the compound occurred about five hours after the statement was issued. In an interview for “60 Minutes,” Obama supported embassy staff, saying the embassy was simply trying to “cool the situation down” and it was released “from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger.”

“My tendency is to cut folks a little bit of slack when they’re in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office,” Obama said. Several Republicans commented on the issue as well, but no other major figures were willing to criticize the president’s actions so strongly.

It is hard not to see Romney’s move as calculated; after all, accusing Obama of apologizing for America’s actions abroad has been a major theme of Romney’s campaign ever since he published “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness in 2010.” His attempt to capitalize on a possible Obama failure at any cost revealed several things about how Romney intends to conduct himself if elected president. First, he is willing to make public, accusatory statements without having full information on the subject at hand. Second, he has no problem making an opportunistic jab at the expense of those who lost their lives in the service of the country.

To be an effective president, one must also be an effective diplomat–something Romney has not proven himself adept at. Though the Iranian hostage crisis occurred during the breadth of the 1980 presidential election, GOP nominee Ronald Reagan avoided criticizing President Carter for his handling of the situation, citing that he was afraid he “might say something that was presently underway or in negotiations, and thus expose it and endanger the hostages” during a 1980 debate. Romney would do well to echo Reagan’s subtlety.

Riley Schwengel
Contributing Writer

It seems that communication through text, e-mail, Twitter, Facebook and online chat has taken over our culture and become the primary mode of communication, decreasing face-to-face conversation. People seem to be interacting more via keyboard via speech. While it may be easier to send a Facebook message than to interact with someone in person, it’s dehumanizing. We are social beings, meant to share information and emotions through tone, hand gestures and facial expressions. Instead, we are limiting our correspondences to messages flying through the air and landing on someone’s computer screen or phone.

Yet, it is important to note that the technology we have provides wonderful tools that have made things we never dreamt of possible. We can now reach loved ones and friends that live thousands of miles away with a simple click and can share pictures, videos and audio with them. The problem is not the technology, but instead, how we use it. These tools are meant to enrich relationships, be they familial, friendly or romantic, but are horrible for creating these bonds. True friendships and romances are based around shared experiences and personable encounters, two things that cannot be duplicated on the Internet.

We have been using such resources as a crutch, instead of the pillows they were meant to be, because they’re easier. Take the example of asking someone out on a date. You have to walk up to them, with a big ball of anxiousness building up in your stomach, and then look them in the eye and blurt out the question, all the while wondering how they are going to react.

It’s miserable, and it’s a huge load off one’s mind to simply send a message across some sort of medium asking the same question. However, the personal encounter is so much more memorable than a simple text message. If you go up to someone and ask them out, it’s a unforgettable experience for them and they are probably going to respond positively to it. A message, on the other hand, is easily dismissed as unimportant and probably will be deleted by the receiver. Although media is more convenient, verbal contact is much more rewarding.

With all the technology available to us, we have increased the number of acquaintances we have, but decreased the number of meaningful relationships. We need to stop relying on instant messages and chat rooms to talk with people. There is no alternative to meeting them in person and sharing experiences with them. We need to start communicating like humans again and not like machines shooting text and information into the world and hoping someone reads it.