Category: Opinion

Justin Marinelli

Writer

I must admit, the news that Summit House (also known as the LGBT affinity house) will now be able to throw registers came as a bit of a shock to me. I’m very interested in seeing how this turns out, as there is a lot of potential here. I’ve never had a problem with fraternities dominating the party scene, but my innate curiosity has me excited about this development.

If any non-Greek organization were in the position to host registers, it would be the Summit House community. They are comfortably ensconced in the old Theta Chi fraternity house, so the infrastructure for such a gathering is already in place. All that’s needed is to capitalize on that.

As anyone in a fraternity can tell you, hosting a register is trickier than it looks. The logistics have to be sound, everything must be set up properly, and hours of planning and work go into the event. A key focus point is having the financial power to be able to bring in all the alcohol that needs to be on hand. I doubt Summit House has the ability to match any fraternity in alcohol volume, but I think that could be a good thing.

It means that instead of focusing on maintaining an endless supply of booze, the denizens of Summit House are going to have to focus on everything else. The theme will have to be perfect, the decorations solid, and the organization and set-up flawless. Everything else is going to have to fall in line if they want to compete, and it seems to me that focusing on everything but the alcohol could be a viable strategy. It will force them to be more creative, more interesting, and more resourceful when it comes to their events, and I believe they will find a way to rise to the challenge.

Additionally, it could allow for the opening up of the party scene to those who want to go out and have a good time, but not necessarily drink. That’s a niche that could be much stronger on this campus. Even I cannot fathom the possibilities that might come from pandering to them.

Perhaps nothing will change. Perhaps Summit House will not succeed in shaking up the social scene whatsoever. But the new possibilities for Summit House, combined with the ability for student organizations to host registers with the aid of Uptown, at least offer the potential for non-Greek organizations to try to contribute to the party scene. And I, for one, am interested in seeing where that leads.

El McCabe

Writer

Our society seems to be obsessed with negativity. All news channels are packed with stories about violence, deaths, or even the latest celebrity scandal that portrays only the worst aspects of humankind. Due to the surplus of these types of stories, citizens become desensitized and unaware of the subconscious impact this mindset has on their daily lives.

Focusing so heavily on the negative paints a hopeless picture for the state of mankind. When all you hear about is Syria on the news and climate change melting the ice caps in Antarctica, you are much less likely to attempt to change something in society. It appears to be a daunting and insurmountable task to promote positive change in our world, and as a result of all the negative, many do not even attempt to try. Even those who do actually benefit society and raise awareness have their stories overshadowed by news stations, which are solely concerned with their ratings. It comes down to the fact that people crave to hear the “juicy” information, and that is what sells.

An important question to consider is who is more at fault, the media or the viewers and readers? If the media companies are simply giving consumers what they want, how can we blame them for society’s negative outlook? On the other hand, does the overflow of negative stories discussed by the media desensitize citizens to the harmful effects it has on their mental outlook? I do not have a concrete answer for this “chicken or the egg” dilemma. What is certain is that both the media and mankind feed off of each other, and the negativity will keep increasing until something breaks. This phenomenon is seen often in the celebrity world, where stars try to “out do” each other in terms of embarrassing themselves and gaining negative attention. For example, Miley Cyrus’ performance at the VMA’s did exactly what she wanted. It elicited reactions worldwide. It did not matter to her how others viewed her performance; the fact that the whole world saw it was all that mattered. This mentality is unfortunately shared by everyone, from celebrities to editors-in-chief to regular Joe’s, and you better bet there are consequences.

If this negative mentality continues to thrive, adults and children will never be fully satisfied with their lives. I expect more people to go to prison, steal, lie, cheat, and be unhappy with themselves as time goes on, because they have been bombarded with images and messages that the world is not a good place. A lifetime of these messages adds up, and I am sure that society’s negative mentality has already altered the lives of millions. Changes in this mentality shift will be slow and gradual, but will truly do wonders for the human quality of life.

Riley Schwengel

Writer

I think it’s fascinating how culture changes so dramatically over the decades and how the different mediums of art and entertainment follow different patterns between generations. One medium in particular, television, has undergone a radical transformation within the past couple decades. In the past, television was a safe form of entertainment; it was comforting to those who watched it and provided an escape from our hectic and unpredictable lives. Barring sports programs, the outcomes of shows in the past were predictable: good guys win, the boy and girl get together, the family overcomes challenges set before them, and the murderer always gets caught. But recently, we’ve seen movement away from these trends. Shows have become more unpredictable, more violent, and more sexualized. I believe that viewers have become so desensitized to the violence and sex they witness that the companies creating these shows have to keep increasing the shock value in order to gain audiences.

This desensitization has me worried, but my concerns are not the same as the ones that the talking heads on the news express. I don’t blame violent television for any sort of massacres or human tragedies, but I do wonder what sort of effect watching these shows may have on an individual. Consider the shows that we watched in the 90s and early 2000s, and then think of shows like “Breaking Bad,” “Game of Thrones,” “Boardwalk Empire,” and “The Wire.” These shows probably would have been too shocking or offensive just 20 years ago, and now we are watching them regularly. I am not speaking as an opponent of these shows. I have seen every episode of all of the previously mentioned series, and marveled at the wonderful and engrossing plot lines they wove. But when I see a brutal rape scene or a child murdered and find that I have little emotional response other than interest in the show, I fear my normal human responses to such scenes have been dulled.

I remember the first time I watched “Game of Thrones,” which is probably my favorite show on television. The violence in the first episode shocked me and haunted me for a little while. But soon I was watching the show every weekend, and the senseless tragedies that they portrayed for my entertainment did little more than give me my adrenaline rush for the evening. Again, I do not believe that portrayal of violence causes violence, yet such easy and regular access to brutal images must have some negative effects on our minds. I worry quite a bit when I turn on the television and see scenes that should shake any human being to his or her core, but instead they are our main sources of entertainment. I just hope that, unlike Walter White and Jon Snow on television, we do not become so enveloped with the violence that we dismiss it as another piece of everyday life.

Colette Brottman

Contributing Writer

For a few years after Sept. 11, my heart would pound every time I heard a low flying airplane. Even though I lived far from the actual tragedy itself, my second-grade self began to comprehend loss and fear. In college, I have come to learn the impact of that day in the lives of my peers and professors, but even though my own realization of the day came late, I can watch as America tries to forget.

It wasn’t until I came here last fall and discussed the tragedy in my political science class that I realized the horror of that day. I realized the effect it had on my peers, best friends, and neighbors’ lives. The huge divide that separated me from New York City that day was slowly being bridged together. I realized 11 years later the power of Sept. 11. As I walked past the hundreds of tiny American flags in front of the Elaine Langone Center, the silence from my peers was humbling, and I spent a moment looking at the flags and reflecting on America.

This year, Sept. 11 came and went. The Conservatives Club paid the same homage as it had in the past, but not a word was spoken in a class or a table conversation. Twitter and Facebook were filled with short anecdotes and statements expressing love for our country, but collectively, Americans have truly started to move on. In 2001 our country came together and stood as one, but now our country exists in division and conflict. For a while Sept. 11 was a day where people came together to discuss loss and fear, and it was a day to show pride and appreciation. We have lost touch of that as a country. Media has turned its attention to new things and people have directed their hurt to anger.

They say time heals wounds: to forgive, but not forget. It seems, though, that our nation has tried its best to heal its wounds by forgetting. Americans often look for direction from the media on what they should be focusing on. The media’s lack of attention toward the remembrance of Sept. 11 has in turn caused people to focus on other things. People will never forget the day their lives changed, where they were and whom they lost, but they try their best to forget the pain and suffering that day caused. It is natural for human beings to move on, but we must remember. For years to come, the most I can ask for is to spend a few minutes remembering and reconciling with the hardships of our past.

El McCabe

Senior Writer

On Sept. 15 the 87th Miss America pageant occurred, in which beauty queens from all 50 states competed for the coveted crown. The judging was based on the run-of-the-mill categories: talent, poise, attractiveness in minimal clothing, ability to answer questions, and the infamous strut. This year there was one huge change. The winner was neither blonde nor white! The 2014 winner, Nina Davuluri, is a New York native of Indian descent. This small fact created a huge backlash on social media sites, where people called her names such as “terrorist” and accused her of being a member of Al-Qaeda.

I am not the biggest fan of beauty pageants in the first place. It is no secret that the entire pageant world is exclusively for attractive women, and puts women’s bodies on display for others to covet and compare themselves to. It’s not as if there are Mr. America pageants that stir up headlines in every gossip magazine. Pageants in general are a disgrace to women and a reflection of just how close-minded the American ideal of beauty can be. The attempt to pick a well-rounded Miss America is to simply cover up the fact that looks are the most valued commodity a person can have.

Despite how I feel about the pageant world, nothing makes me angrier than the response toward the Indian-American winner this year. Last time I checked, being born in America was the criteria for being an American, not the color of your skin nor the country where your parents came from. There was no objection to Davuluri when she was on stage wearing a bikini, but as soon as the judges crowned her the most beautiful woman in America, there was an uproar. It is disheartening the level at which racism still functions in America. People believe that just because all races have “equality” under law, racist beliefs have disappeared. This pageant provided a wakeup call: racism is just as prevalent as ever. Take this tweet for example: “Congratulations Al-Qaeda. Our Miss America is one of you.” The assumption that having brown skin makes you part of a terrorist organization that has a vendetta against our country is so far beyond the realm of what is acceptable and true. Even if Davuluri was from outside of the United States, the color of her skin would not automatically make her a terrorist.

Many Americans have a long way to go to redeem themselves for this ignorant display. America is a country of so many different races, and it just so happens that past beauty pageants have showcased only one type of beauty valued in our country. Just because you do not have blonde hair and blue eyes does not make you a terrorist or force you to prove your citizenship. Crowning Davuluri the winner was a small step forward in the fight against ignorance, but the heavy backlash shows that there is a still a long battle ahead.

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.