Category: Opinion

Nicole Della Cava
Contributing Writer

The day of the spring concert, many students were still posting attempts to sell their Nelly tickets on the Message Center. Truth be told, the tickets never sold out.

Is Nelly outdated or are students more interested in going to fraternities on a Friday night? While not even half of Sojka Pavilion was filled, the students who did attend demonstrated their utmost devotion and idolization. It cannot be that Nelly is no longer appealing to college students because the energy and excitement that lasted from the first song to the last was extremely forceful and passionate.

Right when the music sounded, initiating Nelly’s first number, five men conquered the stage from right to left. Nelly, in the center of the four other singers, really knew how to get the audience electrified. The sudden entrance and assertive opening set the tone for the rest of the performance. Nelly and the rest of the singers never lost the audience’s attention or motivation.

Nelly began with the song “Party People” and continued with his most popular songs such as “Air Force Ones,” “Hot In Herre,” “Country Grammar,” “Ride Wit Me” and “Grillz.” The only time he stopped singing was to give the audience a test on how well they knew his songs. The audience definitely proved that the University loves old-school music and that we really are “Party People.”

The crowd sang along and waved their hands to the song “Move That Body.” One girl was even was called on stage because she had a huge poster asking Nelly to sorority formals.

Obviously the students who showed up to the concert represented the University in a very positive light. I definitely think Nelly was worth it and I could tell that the audience thought so, too. However, the problem lies in the students who did not bother to consider going to the concert. Everyone who did not come missed out on an incredible performance. It is true that the majority of students does not have a lot of school spirit or respect for some events that do not involve Greek life. Seeing Nelly perform live was just as good if not better than hearing his songs on the radio. His songs are classic but the truth is students just find downtown parties with their fraternity brothers and sorority sisters more exciting than a legendary artist.

Justin Marinelli
Contributing WRiter

Movie stars just aren’t as cool as they used to be. Consider for a moment how Hollywood used to be. Guys like Steve McQueen, Clark Gable and Cary Grant roamed the street, equipped with supreme confidence, charisma and swag. I’ll admit that a fair number of leading men nowadays have these qualities (think Ryan Gosling or Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but they lack something these old-time celebrities did not: true authenticity.

If there’s a theme for our generation of actors (which I’m defining as any A-list movie star between the ages of 10 and 35), I’d say it’s “Charm School Honor Roll.” They are, in essentially all cases, polite, well-groomed and never put a foot out of line. I don’t think this is necessarily bad; I’m certainly not a fan of people who are intentionally crude and self-destructive. I’m also not sure that I enjoy watching this politically correct dance.

I know many people have no problem with this. One of the more common arguments I often hear is that, for better or worse, celebrities end up as role models, and because they do, they should act like them. I’m not going to disagree. A massive part of the human experience is learning from others. Conscious or not, we strive to emulate those we look up to. I can completely understand why parents who want well-behaved children want well-behaved celebrities for said children to emulate.

That doesn’t mean I completely agree with them, though. It would be ridiculous to suggest that we should completely throw out our current cast of stars, and there’s no reason to. I think we just need a select few celebrities who plan on shaking things up a bit while looking exceedingly cool. I strongly believe our generation needs a “rebel without a cause,” a Marilyn Monroe or a Marlon Brando, because even though they didn’t always behave, they knew how to empower themselves. They knew how to take life and live it on their terms without letting anyone else dictate what they were going to be. They didn’t follow the rules; they made their own rules.  That was what was so damn cool about them, but it also means that we have something to learn from them.

We’re always told to “just be ourselves.” We’re never told what that looks like. We’re never told how to live in perfect congruence with our desires and passions. It’s just something we’re left to figure out on our own. Celebrities used to have it figured out. They used to be people we could learn from. I can’t tell if that’s still the case.

All I know is that I would love the return of increased populace of cool movie stars; whether they are from the past or a new generation. Bring back the cool movie stars.

By Justin Marinelli
Contributing Writer

Have you done great harm to an African child recently? The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all. You know what you’ve done. Let’s not beat around the bush; I’m talking about Kony 2012.

Odds are that one of your Facebook friends has shared this video–and by “one” I mean hundreds of your friends bombarded your newsfeed with the video by the end of March. But if you’ve only seen the video, you haven’t gotten the whole story. As early as November 2011 (before the video was even finished with production), Foreign Affairs reported that Invisible Children “manipulated facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murder.”  The video itself has been accused of promoting a simplistic worldview, hiding inconvenient facts, including that Kony is not actually in Uganda, nor is he fighting anybody at the moment–and prizing feel-good symbolic actions (“1 million ‘Likes’ and Kony will die”) over solving the inherent socio-economic issues that gave birth to situations in which warlords can seize power.

You know why men like Kony take power? Because in a region decimated by poverty, starvation and disease, despair runs rampant. Opportunistic individuals come in with food, promising peace, prosperity and power in exchange for your loyalty and silence. When your other option is starvation, who would choose death? If the government cannot provide for their people, someone will fill the vacuum. Odds are, this person won’t always play nice.

What are we supposed to do? Well, first, find a legitimate organization that knows what it’s doing. Luckily for you, the University’s very own chapter of GlobeMed actually does volunteer work in rural Uganda, working with a local organization that essentially works to combat the real problems of poverty and pestilence. 

Full disclosure here: I’m in GlobeMed. But I’m not name-dropping just because I’m a member. I’m mentioning the organization because its model actually works. Instead of waltzing into any old country and handing out food and medicine, every chapter goes to its partner organization and asks two things: “What do you need and how can we help?” Why? Because these organizations know best what ought to be done.

The biggest problem with Kony 2012 is not the simplistic narrative, the sketchy facts or being ubiquitous on Facebook; it’s that the measures it proposes won’t solve anything. It wants to treat the symptoms without doing anything about the cause. All you’re doing is perpetuating the cycle. One warlord dies, another takes his place. You have to eliminate the root causes.

Deep down, you understand this. I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. So try this: if you see an inspirational video on the Internet that makes you think about these issues, don’t share it. Make a donation to a legitimate organization that knows what it’s doing. You’ll feel good, and you’ll actually help. That’s how to do things right.

By Jasmine King
Writer

The most stressful part of the end of the semester isn’t finals anymore, it is course scheduling. When speaking to a variety of students on campus, the consensus is that course scheduling is borderline painful. The system is completely ridiculous and causes students unnecessary stress as they try to get into all of the classes that they want for the next semester.

As the system runs currently, seniority rules. This is fine because upperclassmen have been here the longest, so they deserve to pick the classes for their last semesters first and get everything that they want to take. My biggest problem with the process is with the way in which students within a class year are assigned to pick courses: in groups based on last name.  So not only does seniority rule; you have to be lucky enough to have the right last name to have the first spot of picking.

I understand that the last name process is varied throughout the years at the University so that eventually everyone will get a turn to go first. But if a senior chooses her classes last, there is no guarantee that she will get the classes that she wants to take in her final semester at the University. I think that the school should make it so that everyone within a class year (first-years, sophomores, juniors and seniors) should pick their classes all at the same time. This would make it a lot fairer for the students involved and then more students would have a better chance to get the classes that they want. Since all of the students in the group would pick at the same time, it also would be a lot quicker for the Registrar’s Office because the University could have all of the course selection process done in two days instead of making it a week-long process.

As a first-year who picked her classes in the very last spot, I can attest to the fact that this system is very inefficient.  If the system would run the way that I explained, then there would be less “dropping and adding” of courses by students in the fall. All in all, this would be a better system to run for the University. It would be a lot more efficient, less time consuming and less stressful for everyone involved.

By Elizabeth Bacharach

Opinions Editor

As a student who attended a high school that was inundated with bomb threats, I found myself somewhat scoffing at the University of Pittsburgh’s current issue. Since Feb. 13, the university has received 57 bomb threats, including 12 on Monday alone. Now, it might just be that I am jaded—sick of hearing about students calling out in desperate need of attention by scribbling words they’ve seen in a recent terror movie on a bathroom stall—that my first reaction to the issue occurring in Pittsburgh was disgust. But as I thought more deeply on the subject matter, I became ashamed of my initial instinct and actually formed new feelings toward what is occurring. I then considered what it would be like if such an issue hit our campus.

I understand that the University of Pittsburgh has been extremely considerate to the students on campus, taking each threat into profound deliberation by investigating and clearing the issue (as much as they can).  Students are welcomed to speak to psychiatric services and even return home if necessary.  The University of Pittsburgh can also be distinguished recently by the extensive lines spanning their campus due to the newly instituted regulations, requiring each student and staff member to show ID and have their bags searched before entering any campus building.  What would we do if any potential crises popped our bubble?

I will be the first to admit that I am overtly nervous, every second of the day, far too frequently. Once my high school was hit by threats I entered every classroom planning my method of escape or hiding, no matter the given emergency. But as I said earlier, I soon became jaded, sick of these (thankfully) non-committal threats.  However, Pittsburgh’s recent issue has me wondering who walks our campus and what their intentions are.

It is truly impossible to keep track of every person that tracks the pathways of the University.  Because of possible threats–like those at Pittsburgh–I think our University should institute drills for situations such as a bomb scares or a suspicious person sightings should they hit our campus. Students and faculty alike should recognize a certain code word, whether it be red, blue, or bison, and know what steps to take for protection and safety. These drills should be practiced monthly, awakening students in their automatic daily lives, making the situation as real as possible. These drills will further allow students to be conscientious of those people around them and feel confident, not scared, if they see a suspicious person.  How should students learn of what actions to take? Well, if the University can provide students with signs that say “wait, did you shut off the light?” then signs equally as obnoxiously green and poignant should be distributed and hung up detailing courses of action, numbers to call, and definitions of all codes. These actions are so simple and so efficient that I truly cannot understand why the University has yet to take such protective steps in these overarching times of terror.

Sometimes ignorance is not bliss.  It truly frightens me that as a student, I have no idea of what to do if there was a bomb scare or a threat of any kind.  Now I am not saying that we are the next University of Pittsburgh, but it wouldn’t hurt to be safe and knowledgeable in case it does happen to us.

By Josh Haywood

Writer

Recently, the New Orleans Saints have come under fire because of some things said by defensive coordinator Gregg Williams. In the pregame speech before the Saints played the San Francisco 49ers, Williams specifically told Saints players to rough up several 49ers to get them out of the game. Many people seemed shocked to hear a coach saying such things–especially if you add the team’s bounty program into the equation–but purposely harming opponents is nothing new to football.

First off, you need to remember that football is by far the most violent sport on the planet. Targeting an opposing player in an attempt to take them out of the game is nothing new. I can remember in high school if my team found out an opposing player had some sort of injury, we would go out of our way to aggravate the injury. The game is war, and in war you specifically look out for weak enemies. Anyone with a knee brace or extra wrap on their body was automatically a target for extra punishment; if anything our coaches promoted us to hit players as hard as we could. This is just the nature of the game, where the most violent individuals are praised for hard hits; it is not for everybody.

In regards to Williams’ recorded speech, coaches talk like this all the time–maybe not as explicitly as Williams, but they all preach the same ideology that to hit the hardest on the field makes you a better player. Coming from a football background in both high school and college, I did not find the speech to be that radical other than the amount of expletives used. This type of speech is not limited to the realm of football. It occurs in all contact sports, such as lacrosse and wrestling, especially wrestling. Honestly, if the Saints bounty program had not existed or come out into public light, Williams’ speech would not have even showed up on the radar. Maybe it is just the fact that this type of language and behavior has become normalized in my mind, but I just do not see all the fuss over the coach just trying to hype his players up. When the game is over and the pads come off, players are able to reenter “normal” society.

The reason football appeals to many people is that it acts as a medium for violence that the average person does not have the ability to express in person. If you try to soften the image, then you will lose a large part of what attracts viewers to the game. We as humans thrive on violence; it is a drug for our body that we legally do not have the ability to use. Football, along with many other contact sports, acts as a means of supplying our body with a fix. It is not through actual physical involvement but rather through association by spectating.

By Ginny Jacobs

Contributing Writer

In a recent New York Times poll, more than two-thirds of Americans said that the United States should not be at war in Afghanistan. Even many Afghans are planning on leaving their own country. Many believe the United States should withdraw, giving the worsening of relations due to disturbing events such as the shooting spree of a U.S. Army sergeant that massacred Afghan civilians and the riots set off by the burning of Korans by American forces.

Although it has been a discouraging few weeks in the Afghan War, the United States should not speed up the pace of withdrawal. If we walk away from Afghanistan without securing it, terrorists may return the nation to its condition in 2000—or worse. Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, recently spoke with The Telegraph about his views on the future of terrorism in the West.

“Al-Qaeda is still present in Afghanistan. If the West decides that 10 years in Afghanistan is too long, then they will be back, and the next time it will not be New York or Washington, it will be another big western city,” he said.

The moment U.S. troops leave, the Taliban is likely to return and regain its oppressive rule over Afghanistan. Fawzia Koofi, a candidate for the Afghan presidential elections in 2014, claims that if the West abandons Afghanistan, global terrorism will increase.

“Once again our country will become a playground for global terrorism and a risk to the world,” Koofi said.

Although there is an enormous amount of pressure on U.S. President Barack Obama to pull out of this unpopular war at a time of economic crisis, by pulling out now, we risk undoing all of the fragile gains we have made in the past 11 years.

Our main goal for being in Afghanistan has been to prevent Al-Qaeda’s return by preventing the Taliban and Haqqani Networks from gaining control of the Afghan state. U.S. military pressure has kept Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in check, despite Al Qaeda’s many efforts to return to its position of power. However, the Haqqani Network still remains. It is essential that the United States’  forces drive the Haqqanis from their safe havens and create a stable situation that Afghan troops can maintain.

Counterinsurgency wars are difficult to win. They take a long time; they force us to rely on the local government in order to achieve our goals, as well as our ability to persuade members of a devastated society that we are better than our enemies, such as getting them to trust us and not the enemies.

It is difficult to see progress, even as it is occurring. However, there is a reason our enemies force us to fight this way. If they fought to our strengths, they would lose completely and quickly. The only way our enemies can defeat us is by eroding our will to continue the war. Currently, they are succeeding.

We must stay until 2014 so that the Afghan security forces become sufficiently large enough and strong enough to take over the fight. Although this process is well underway, we should not persuade ourselves that Afghan forces are currently strong enough to either fight without us or hold what we have meticulously won thus far.

By Josh Haywood

Writer

Resume, check; references, check; Facebook password, I don’t think so. Recently there has been a rash of news stories about employers asking potential and current employees for their Facebook password so that they can “check out who they really are.” While this practice is not widespread, the idea of your future employer asking you to hand over your login information seems rather troubling to me. If the practice is not curtailed, it could set a legal precedent in what amount of privacy is expected by employees.  Currently there are no federal laws that can limit this practice. This seems to be a blatant disregard of privacy that should be stopped before it escalates any further.

The problem of employers gaining access to people’s private data on their Facebook page didn’t work its way into the news until it was released that the Maryland Department of Corrections had ask over some 2,000 applicants their password to check for “gang affiliation.” Out of all of the applicants only seven were denied the job due to what they had on their accounts. In response to this Maryland became the first state to pass a law that makes such requests illegal: laws similar to this are being talked about in California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Massachusetts. Some legal experts believe that this is in violation of the Equal Employment and Opportunity statues that ban employers from asking for employee information based upon issues of race, sexuality, religion, and etc. This is another issue of paper laws falling behind with the rise of the digital age. Currently Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) are communicating with Attorney General Eric Holder to have the Justice Department to investigate the legality of this employment practice.

How far can employers reach into an employee’s life? If this practice is not curtailed I could easily see it leading to employers forcing you to be Facebook friends with them so they can monitor your behavior 24/7. It sounds like an old-school Soviet Union movie; you’re driving down the road and reach a checkpoint, “Show us your papers, Comrade, or face the consequences.” Big Brother, who in this case is your boss, does not need to know where I checked in last weekend or what I like to do in my free time. This Orwellian intrusion of privacy is unwarranted because it distorts the line that separates work and home. What you do in your own home and free time is nobody’s business; this right should be extended to what you do in the digital world as well. I personally deleted my Facebook about two months ago; I recently made a new one because I thought I wanted to look at pictures, but I rarely use it even for that. I don’t know which is more like stalking, actual Facebook creeping or the fact the employers want to creep on your raw profile. I really think that something should be done about this practice on the federal level so that each state would not have to create their own unique laws.