Author: Sara Blair Matthews

Tom Bonan

Contributing Writer

Anniversaries are continually coming and going. They often invoke memories, either nostalgic or negative, and make us reflect on our current state of being. Each one acts as a reminder that significant events are an invariable part of life.

Sept. 15 marked the fifth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, one of the most devastating moments of the Great Recession. This crisis resulted in millions of newly unemployed workers, deprivation of trillions of dollars of wealth and housing equity, and over $2 trillion of lost economic output since 2008. The most overwhelming consequence of the meltdown is the lack of change in the culture that led to the crisis.

The movement of deregulation began with the conservative ascendancy in the late 1980s, reaching its apotheosis with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (a law separating commercial and investment banks dating back to the Great Depression) under President Bill Clinton in 1999.

As the country entered the second millennium, the contemporaneous surge of reckless government spending on the part of the states and the federal government, along with artificially low interest rates and minimal borrowing prerequisites, helped inflate the sense of economic exceptionalism-irrational exuberance as Alan Greenspan noted during a similar financial bubble in the tech industry just years before.

After the collapse of the housing market in 2006 and the subsequent financial meltdown in 2008, President Barack Obama ran for office on the platform of change and the revitalization of the American economy. The rhetoric of his campaign and the physical policy changes could not be more disparate. Obama has even kept two prominent Bush-era advisors–Larry Summers and Tim Geithner–and even considered appointing Summers to the post of Federal Reserve Chairman in 2014 until he withdrew his name on Sept. 15 due to liberal opposition.

Last month, federal regulators also repealed a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring stricter reserve requirements for risky securities holdings. This was preceded by the “London Whale” incident, in which JPMorgan Chase lost $7 billion as a part of their “hedging” strategy. This method of business-characteristic of large investment firms such as AIG, Goldman Sachs, and CitiGroup-was one of the principle causes of the financial panic, and it’s notable for its inherent risk.

The intrinsic nature of this Wall Street culture in politics is the source of its longevity. Republicans courted large donors in the 80s and 90s, helping to perpetuate their already prominent rise, causing Democrats to have to cater to the same league of donors. This is especially true after the Citizens United ruling in 2010. Since there is no lobby organization or Super PAC arguing on behalf of financial stability, the preponderance of the banking culture within the government survives uncontested.

Briefly, in 2009 and 2010, there were calls to dramatically alter the financial regulatory system and economic practices of the country. The media and the general public have since moved on, but this Administration–led by the vestigial flicker of the Bush Administration–has a fundamental obligation to change the direction the country is headed. Given the passive legislation and continuation of deregulatory-era policies, I believe the efficacy of any sort of future response will be limited.

Justin Marilee

Writer 

Although the presence of some unifying ideology, involving principles such as equality, justice, security, nationalism, may seem noble and sufficient, at the end of the day, consent of the governed comes from providing value to your citizens. If you cannot provide for those you govern, the governed will find someone who can.

In recent years, and in many western European countries, far-right movements such as Golden Dawn have slowly been growing in popularity. Given that European countries have tended to lean more towards the liberal side, this might come as a surprise. A quick analysis of some of these groups reveals that their level of support is not so surprising after all.

Take, for example, the Greek Nationalist organization Golden Dawn, which is frequently accused of facism and neo-Nazism. Members of Golden Dawn are often found providing low-cost food programs for the poor. Golden Dawn also offers protection for victims of crimes committed by immigrants, and, in doing so, has forged unofficial alliances with certain police precincts in Greece. In fact, Golden Dawn’s most loyal demographic happens to be Greek police officers.

The lesson to be learned here is that any political party that seeks legitimacy in the eyes of the people does not need to craft a message that resonates with the populace. It merely needs to provide the citizenry with services that meet their needs.

Golden Dawn’s support does not come from people who are fascist themselves, but from people who are looking for someone that will provide for them and offer services that are needed. It also helps that Golden Dawn provides an easy scapegoat for the problems facing native Greeks, or non-Greek immigrants. It gives people an excuse and offers them a way out. It’s not hard to see how this is appealing to many people.

Given the relative lack of power such groups have, many might consider it a rational response to simply ignore them and thus deny them any sort of recognition. I tend to be skeptical of this view. The last time that major European countries had to deal with a protracted economic slump, concurrent with a minority undercurrent of nationalism and xenophobia, Fascist parties gained control of Germany and Italy. There are still people alive today who experienced, firsthand, how that turned out.

This is why I keep an eye on such groups. Movements that start in Europe often make it across the Atlantic sometime between five to 30 years later. It is highly likely that within our lifetimes, the United States will have an extreme far-right group of its own that rapidly wins the support of certain sections of the populace. A wise person would prepare for this scenario and plan accordingly.

The best way to prevent the formation of such organizations would be for the government to engage in policies that benefit voters and to avoid taking actions that are popularly opposed. Even if you simply adopt the “bread and circuses” strategy prevalent in Ancient Rome, you will still keep enough people content and complacent enough to head off such reactionary sentiment. Ignoring the warning signs that lead to the formation of such groups, though, is a mistake that should be avoided at all costs.

Caroline Schaeffer

Writer

After a long and heated debate over the controversial Proposition 8, America finally rounded the corner and overturned the proposition this past summer. The California proposition opposing same-sex marriage caused much debate over the years and many felt its eradication would be a step forward in achieving equal rights for same-sex couples.  With the proposition’s overturn, same-sex marriage in California was declared legitimate, a right that had been previously denied to many couples in the past. Essentially, this is a step forward for the new age of American civil rights. In a country of freedom and equality, everyone should be allowed to make their own decision about their life without legal discrimination. Unfortunately, what is considered “the right thing to do” is not always easily achieved, and we still have a long way to go before we achieve true equality.

Personally, I believe that everyone has the right to love whomever he or she chooses, no matter the person’s gender. Same-sex marriage and homosexuality are a part of the world we live in, and I don’t believe that any one person has the right to tell another who he or she can and cannot marry. If it doesn’t severely affect the way you live your life, I don’t believe you have the right to be bothered by it. That being said, many Americans continue to hold on to the belief that same-sex marriage is illegitimate and wrong. Regrettably, this mentality is an obstacle in achieving complete equality in the United States.

Laws are easier to change than minds because people by nature are stubborn. Many Americans that supported Prop 8 are unlikely to change their minds on the matter just because the law tells them to do so. In order to create equal rights, it’s not the laws that need to change so much as it is the mentality of the people. For this reason, I believe we still have a ways to go in regard to achieving true social equality in the United States.

That being said–I believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. As I said previously, people hold fast to their belief system. Many people opposed to same-sex marriage feel that way because that’s how they were raised. With continued legal progression and eradication of discriminatory laws, I believe the America of the future will be more tolerant and understanding of what was once considered “socially unacceptable.” What was once abnormal will gradually be integrated into the normal. I strongly believe this day will come, but I also believe that it will take time, patience, and a commitment to change on everyone’s part.

Sara Blair Matthews

Opinions Editor

It’s no secret that we live in an impatient society. Many of us want our news now, get frustrated when our favorite bloggers don’t update daily, and would rather scan a lengthy article than take the time to read it carefully. I recently found out about a website called theSkimm that encompasses all these things, as it embraces our society’s short attention span rather than criticizes it. Even though this site is clever and useful, it’s clearly marketed to women, and presents news to them in a somewhat patronizing way.

According to its website, theSkimm is “a daily newsletter that simplifies the headlines for the educated professional who knows enough to know she needs more.” Basically, this is an operation that does all the heavy lifting for you. The two women who started the company peruse the news headlines during the weekdays and take shifts sleeping in an effort to stay up-to-date on the latest stories.

While I find this newsletter helpful, convenient, and easy to read, I can’t help but think that it’s a little patronizing. Although it is operated by and geared toward women, it seems like they are discounting women’s ability to check facts and read articles from multiple sources to get the full story.

At times, it also feels like theSkimm is contributing topics that they believe best relate to women (i.e. briefs on fashion, relationships, and picking a husband). For instance, one of the recent news briefs stated, “When your date has performance issues: if you’re stressed about your small testicles, don’t be … men with smaller testicles tend to be more nurturing fathers.” I understand why they want a mix of serious and light-hearted news, but I don’t like how they choose predictable, stereotyped topics for their target audience.

Also, I understand that there are a lot of women who do not enjoy talking about politics and have little inclination to peruse multiple news sites for breaking stories. What I take issue with is that this site is seen as cute and clever for women, but I’m sure if a man read it, he would be deemed ignorant and lazy.

When women are ignorant about important political issues, society seems to find it endearing and also somewhat expected. We live in a culture where women are often led to seek education from others on political topics and current events, rather than teach themselves these facts. When a woman does not know about the specifics of say, the war in Iraq or the debate about Syria, oftentimes it is assumed that she can ask her husband or father, and he will tell her a watered-down version of the events.

Clearly, men and women are not held to the same standards for being informed about public matters, and newsletters like theSkimm, although convenient, are not helping. With informal news headings like “why are chemical weapons such a big deal” and “what to say at a buffet,” the site replaces the serious tone of these stories with “savvy girl” vernacular. In an effort to appeal to current, busy women, theSkimm is changing the tone of the stories and lightening them, both emotionally and quantitatively, for an audience that they believe does not want to read more than 50 words per story. The women who run this site are likely unaware that they are perpetuating gender stereotypes because lightening stories for women is a tried and true standby. As women, we should be urging each other to push gender barriers and show up to discussions well-informed. Then we will start to see a change.

Justin Marinelli

Writer

(Warning: Spoilers ahead)

Deep down, we all want to be able to do whatever we want without having to worry about the consequences. Daenerys Targaryen, of “Game of Thrones,” is a symbol of this. For this reason, liking her is essentially an escapist fantasy. She herself may be a poorly-written and obnoxious individual, but at a subconscious level we all desire the ideal that she stands for.

The thing I admire most about this show is that it has a rigid, unyielding logic, in that you simply have to be the most cunning, treacherous, amoral individual possible to get ahead. It is survival of the fittest on a brutally Nietzschean level, and any deviation from this path results in harsh punishment, usually in ironic ways.

Daenerys seems to be exempt from these rules. She is somehow one of the more popular figures on the show, and I think I’ve finally figured out why. No matter how many tactical errors or outright missteps she makes on her path to the throne, she rarely gets punished for them the way another character would. Whenever she trusts the wrong person, she lives, whereas for others, this mistake is usually fatal.

She is unique in the show because she fundamentally doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of her actions. She skates by on the fact that she has both competent advisers (whom she rarely listens to) and dragons, the former of which do their best to clean up after her, and the latter of which are a complete Get Out of Jail Free card. In addition, several plot twists seem engineered just to keep her around, such as when an assassin sent to kill her decides to fight for her instead because he thinks she’s cute.

Some would say Daenerys is an important character in the show because she gives people hope. She lets those who know they can never be a Tywin Lannister or a Roose Bolton feel that they too can be special in their own way. I personally think that such fantasies are childish, but I suppose that I’m willing to let all the untermenschen out there have their fun.

I look forward to the next season, in the hope that balance will be restored and Daenerys will finally get her comeuppance at the hands of a more competent commander. Given how necessary her character is to keep the hopeful, escapist dreamers watching the series though, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Caroline Schaeffer

Writer

For many University students, the first few weeks of sophomore year are characterized by high anxiety, no free time, and overall exhaustion. These are the symptoms of sorority/fraternity rush, and with bid day finally behind us, everyone can begin to relax a little more. Since rush is delayed until sophomore year, many students who may be on the fence about the whole recruitment experience have plenty of time to think about it.  If you’re like me, you will continue to debate between “yes” and “no” until you drive yourself insane. Is it really worth it if you’re not completely sold on the Greek system? My answer in the end (having just rushed myself) is a definite yes, but with a note of caution.

Recruitment is hard on everyone. It’s tiring, long, and—at some points—emotionally taxing. That’s reason enough for some people to just avoid the recruitment situation entirely. But if you’re on the fence about it, even if you have a marginal interest in Greek life, I say go for it. What’s the harm in trying? Although my recruitment experience wasn’t all sunshine and laughs, it taught me important lessons about dealing with rejection and keeping a positive attitude. It’s really just about having an open mind—toward rushing in the first place and to the different Greek organizations on campus. It’s easier to start recruitment, decide it’s not for you, and then drop out of the process than it is to realize (as you’re watching hundreds of ecstatic girls run screaming through Smith Quad) that you should have at least given it a shot.

In my opinion, the positives of the experience outweigh the negatives. Even just going through the process, I met so many people who previously I hadn’t even known went to this school. The stress and anxiety of the experience actually helps everyone bond, and it gave me the chance to meet amazing people who I might have never had the chance to meet otherwise. You also get the chance to test out your “small talk skills” which, though painful, can definitely be helpful in future situations like job interviews.

Most importantly, going through recruitment taught me that you can’t judge a book by its cover. Going into recruitment, certain sororities definitely had concrete reputations in my mind, so I was surprised to find that every sorority has different types of people. Without rushing, I think I would have remained ignorant to this fact.

There is really no harm in trying—you might even find the perfect place for you! Give it a shot, even if halfway through the process you decide that it’s not for you. If you never try, you’ll never know.

Tom Bonan

Contributing Writer

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is one of the most striking achievements of the Obama Administration. It ensures that everyone will receive some form of health insurance coverage and helps prevent discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.

Obviously this law signals significant reform in the convoluted area of health care in the United States, but other than the aspects of the law that are championed by progressives, and the erroneous constitutional arguments against the law levied by conservatives, many consequences of the act have not entered the mainstream discussion in the country.

The ACA really does not address the rising cost of insurance, which is the core of the health care issue in the United States. Costs were rising between 6.5 percent and 9 percent per year between 2000 and 2010, while inflation was somewhere between 2-4 percent per year over the same time period. The United States also spends the most amount of money on healthcare compared to other industrialized countries, reaching 17.9 percent of GDP in 2011.

As a part of health care costs, the ACA patients will still have to go to doctors that are “in network,” risking their coverage if they do not go to an accepted hospital. Health insurance will still be managed by for-profit companies, which is another uniquely American approach compared to other industrialized countries. Finally, the law doesn’t address the issue of how health insurance is meant to treat patients after they get sick, and how it is not meant to be preventative for illnesses such as Type II diabetes, heart disease, or obesity.

In most instances of ineffective legislation, it is symbolic because it represents a step in the right direction. This is true with the ACA for the few points I mentioned earlier, but ultimately the law adds to already prominent issues in the health care industry. Conditionality is a significant part of the law, resulting in an even more complicated system.

Currently, doctor’s offices have 25-35 minutes of paperwork for every hour of patient visits. After the ACA is fully implemented in 2014, the amount of bureaucratic work could increase by 10-15 minutes for each hour of patient visits. This seemingly small increase will result in millions of hours of extra paperwork, making the already lethargic health care process even worse.

Allowing people with pre-existing conditions and allowing dependents to stay on their parents’ plan until age 26 are great steps in the direction of health care reform, but this bill is ultimately change for change’s sake. The achievements attained by this law are overshadowed by the insidious reinforcement of structural issues in the current healthcare system. To really change the system, a dramatic overhaul of the entire industry needs to occur, either through a public option or single-payer system, both of which were barely discussed when drafting this bill. The drafters of the ACA mean well, but for all intents and purposes it is a Band-Aid covering a wound that requires stitches.

El McCabe

Writer

Now that recruitment is over and all sororities and fraternities are welcoming their new sisters and brothers, independents may be feeling like they are “missing out” on part of the college experience. Watching your friends go through the recruitment process and coming out with bids is without a doubt difficult, even though you are excited for them as well. What many students fail to realize is that there are indeed perks to the God Damn Independent (GDI) lifestyle.

On the surface, sorority and fraternity life appears to be the be-all and end-all of sophomore year and your entire college career, but there are so many fantastic things about not being part of a Panhellenic organization. First off, you have so much more free time to try new things, catch up on sleep, hang out with non-Greek friends, and get your work done. Time not spent at recruitment events, chapter meetings, and other Greek duties adds up in the end, and will leave you less stressed out. Another bonus to being independent is not worrying about what the outside world thinks about Greek organizations and their members. Fraternities and sororities are often stigmatized in the media and consequently not as well-respected in the outside world. When I was considering going through recruitment, I was certainly judged by my outside friends because they had heard of all the negative stereotypes. Though these stereotypes often do not apply to most Greek organizations, they are still prevalent and I appreciate not having to worry about them as an independent.

Being independent makes you eligible to be the perfect date for your single friends at date parties and formals! Not having an affiliation with a particular fraternity or sorority makes it much easier to attend any date party you are invited to. Finally and most obviously, the amount of money you save by remaining independent is incredible. First-time members of a sorority must pay a fee of approximately $400-600 and then about $250 each semester after that. In the least expensive sorority, dues come to about $1,650 for your college career. That is a lot of money that can be spent or saved somewhere else.

While being a GDI can be hard at times, there are many covert and overt benefits to not identifying with a Greek organization. Once students realize that Greek life is only a small portion of the huge array of activities, events, and clubs our school has to offer, these benefits will become clearer. The University relies on independents to bring diversity to the social scene and to balance out the Panhellenic influence on campus. Remember that not being Greek does not make your college experience any lesser. You can be happy on either side of the spectrum, and what is most important is finding the right place for you.