Category: Opinion

By Leah Rogers

Writer

House Party Weekend – Bucknellians Gone Wild?

It’s the one event that everyone talks about the entire year: House Party Weekend. As a first-year student, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. I had heard it gets pretty crazy, and judging from what a normal weekend on campus is like I knew we were in for a wild few days.

Although somewhat out of control, everybody had a great time and the school did an excellent job of keeping the students safe throughout the weekend. Everyone had to wear wristbands to get into parties and could only be seen drinking if they had “21+” wristbands. I think this was a good way to keep the students from getting in trouble and receiving points.

Public Safety also played a huge role in maintaining the students’ safety. There were officers walking around everywhere, even inside Bostwick Marketplace. I have to admit, I was a little intimidated by officers circulating the cafeteria while I was just trying to eat my food in peace, but they were just there to keep everything under control.

I was surprised to see just how excessively people partied during the weekend. People on my hall started Thursday night, then continued early Friday morning. Some students ended up going to class drunk on Friday, which I thought was inappropriate.

The shenanigans continued into Saturday morning and night as well. I didn’t think it was too healthy for students to be drinking constantly for three days and nights straight, but the atmosphere of the weekend encourages it.

Although the University says students under 21 are not allowed to drink, they know it is going to happen. The Bostwick Marketplace plates and silverware were replaced with paper and plastic for the weekend, which was a sign that the University knew things were going to get a little crazy.

House Party Weekend can be somewhat risky, but it is a long-standing and much talked about tradition that will continue for years into the future. And I have to admit, it was pretty entertaining to see the excessive list of lost and found items in the Message Center Digest the next day.

By Pranav Sehgal

Opinions Editor

With wars in Afghanistan and Iraq already, should the United States be involved in Libya?

The ripple effects from the conflict in Libya have dramatically impacted the politics of the region, global oil prices, and have now made many people question the United States’ involvement in Libya.

The coalition effort, primarily led by the United States, to halt the government’s attacks on civilians is drawing a lot of heat from United States politicians and media pundits because as we are already bogged down in two wars in the Middle East and are in a mounting deficit. We spend billions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet refuse to spend money for important domestic matters such as healthcare or teachers’ pay.

Many are baffled by the fact that in Wisconsin they are firing government workers yet we are spending a great deal of money in our involvement in Libya.

Additionally, many Republicans find it unbelievable that the United States was able to do this without approval from Congress. They are also questioning what interests are at stake in Libya and if it was right to intervene without the support of the American people, or even consulting them for their opinions.

However, top Democrats rallied behind Obama’s decision to support the enforcement of a “no fly” zone in Libya in order to protect innocent civilians. In response to critics, many Democrats have argued that the United States has an interest in protecting people’s freedoms not only in the United States but worldwide and therefore have a responsibility to the Libyan people.

Although I believe the United States has a responsibility to uphold people’s rights on a global basis, I believe that without a clear objective and purpose we will never succeed in Libya. Without a goal or clear mission statement, it will be difficult to assess whether or not our involvement in Libya was beneficial or detrimental to the people of Libya and the United States.

With conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa on the rise, I also believe Arab nations must play a much larger part in quelling the turmoil. They must take responsibility for their region rather than rely in Western Europe and America to clean up the mess.

The United States has long played the role of the global police–but with a high deficit and internal political pressure, it seems unlikely that the United States will be able to keep up that image for much longer.

By Erin Kircher

Contributing Writer

“I was just looking through your Facebook the other day, and it seems like you’ve been doing really well!” These were some of the first words I heard after recently running into a person who had gone to my high school. I didn’t know if I should feel flattered or uncomfortable; I hadn’t talked to her in years.

Facebook makes people vulnerable in an unconventional way.  Our Facebook pages are open to scrutiny or admiration from a wide range of people—many are not close friends, but rather distant acquaintances.

What’s particularly unnerving is that this high school acquaintance probably received a false portrayal of my real life. My profile is a series of selectively chosen aspects of my life that I decide to include—most commonly, pictures that I find to be more attractive and in which I appear to be having a great time. I do not think I am alone in being so selective.

Creating a Facebook profile page is an opportunity to form a unique persona in which you can leave out the ordinary or negative parts of your life. Rather than just being a way to connect with others, it has turned into a way to impress others. However, some personal aspects of your life might be better left out.

Facebook offers so many ways to express yourself, from your religious beliefs to your favorite kind of music. However, how much profile information is appropriate before you reach information overload? I tend to stay on the simplified side.

Facebook etiquette is especially complex when it comes to relationships and dating. These matters are confusing enough without the added stress of publicizing them. For instance, the moment you click “It’s complicated” for your relationship status is the moment you invite a large network of people to meddle in your personal business.

Then again, some people claim that if the relationship is not on Facebook, it is not official. It is truly embarrassing that many people use Facebook, a superficial form of identity, to define the legitimacy of a relationship.

Research has actually shown that Facebook can play a role in relationship failure. According to an article by PR News Channel, “The newest divorce Facebook study shows that one in five marriages are destroyed by the nation’s most popular website.”

Now, it does seem like a hefty claim that Facebook is the major reason for these marriage failures. The couples in this study surely must have had other deep-seated problems.  Still, there is something to be said for the negative impact Facebook can have on an already unstable relationship.

Not only does Facebook put pressure on a relationship through publicizing its status, it also has the potential of leading to trust issues. For instance, according to the above divorce Facebook study, Facebook offers connection to so many people that the temptation to reach out to old exes or potential new partners increases. Evidence of affairs has been increasingly linked to Facebook.

Facebook can be fun and relaxing, but it can also cause unnecessary drama. I suggest not putting so much importance on this persona that is your Facebook identity, and rather spending more time focusing on the person you really are.

The same holds true for relationships. What a couple has is between those two people, and does not need to be solidified by any public approval or complicated by public judgment. Remember that Facebook is not real life and so should not dictate it.

By Brian Shoener

Contributing Writer

Over the past few years, one actor’s name has been incessantly clogging the airwaves and wasting valuable space in countless newspapers. His recent tirades have given him pop-culture status comparable to Chuck Norris. The problem is that there is no way Charlie Sheen could ever count to infinity and back even once (let alone twice).

Charlie Sheen was fired from his role on “Two and a Half Men” after he made insulting remarks about the show’s creator, Chuck Lorre. Sheen plans on suing CBS for “bazillions” that they owe him.

Some people think he’s awesome and shouldn’t have been fired. In fact, viewership of his show was on the rise. The question has to be asked, though, whether people were watching the show or if they were just watching the Sheen.

More often than not, people like attention. They usually prefer the good kind of attention, where others are speaking highly of them and their good deeds, but there are always the anomalies that want to be in the spotlight all the time. These are the people who will do whatever is necessary to get attention. Partying, exorbitant drug use, violence, cheating and lying become the norm for these desperate people.

This intense lifestyle is bound to have its negative consequences. Simply watching Charlie Sheen’s ABC interview shows how physically and mentally taxing his lifestyle has been. The worst part about all this, though, is the pathological lying.

After watching his interview multiple times, it seems like he truly believes that he is superhuman, but there are multiple points throughout the interview when he shows signs of deceit.

There are many different ways someone can show unconsciously that they are lying. These include deflection (twisting words to delay answering a question), where a person is looking as they are talking, how they are moving their head in relation to what they are saying and what they do with their eyebrows. Though these might seem trivial, if you test these signs in real life (as I have), you will find that they truly are a good predictor of whether a person is lying or not.

In the case of Charlie Sheen, he has displayed all of these. When asked, “When was the last time you used?” his initial response was, “I use a blender, I use a vacuum cleaner, I use household items.” He goes on to say that he doesn’t remember when he last used drugs, but he still initially deflected the question.

In addition, when he said that he doesn’t remember his last drug use, he stared right at the interviewer’s eyes. People actually look away when they are remembering something. They stare straight at a person when they are lying.

Later on in the interview, Charlie Sheen was asked if he enjoys his current life sans partying. His initial response? Yes. How did his body respond? He shook his head no. That was the truth; he misses being a party-boy but was lying about it.

Finally, he was asked if his drug providers are out of his life. His immediate physical response was to raise his eyebrows and shake his head no. These are both signs that the words to come are a lie (and he didn’t even answer that question anyway).

Charlie Sheen’s life is finally catching up to him. He lost his job, has a 71% disapproval rating and is physically and mentally wearing thin. He might be rich, but I seriously doubt that he’s happy.

By Lizzie Kirshenbaum

Contributing Writer

As someone who thinks of the YouTube video “Marcel the Shell” when asked about her opinions on the mining of Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, I felt slightly out of place attending the University’s forum on the topic.

This panel discussion between Pennsylvania State Senator Gene Yaw and Pennsylvania House Representative Rick Mirabito ultimately turned out to be a verbally uncontainable debate extending into the members of the audience.

Sitting in the audience with only a handful of other students there for the same purpose as myself–extra credit–I started to wonder why a top-tier liberal arts university could not produce a greater turnout for such an important political event.

Marcellus Shale is a natural gas that could radically change Pennsylvania’s energy development, and yet at a university whose first-year class is composed of 20% Pennsylvanian residents, only about a dozen students were in attendance of this forum.

Despite the lack of student representation, the audience was fairly full but with people of a slightly grayer hair color than the average University student. These local residents attending the forum brought their notepads and pens but unlike myself, without intentions of writing a summary for their professor; rather, they were there listening intently, formulating questions for the speakers.

As Mirabito spoke, an overwhelming amount of support could be drawn from the audience, but when it came time for Republican Senator Yaw to take the podium, several derogatory comments were made before he could even finish formulating his opening statement. In fact, Senator Yaw threatened to walk out several times in response to the slurs.

Prior to this night I knew that Marcellus Shale was a valuable commodity in Pennsylvania; what I learned from this forum was that Marcellus Shale is an extremely touchy subject for Pennsylvanian residents and that very few of these residents understood the concept of keeping their questions “brief.” I walked into the forum expecting to be staring at the clock for the majority of it but found myself engrossed in the fervor of the attendees.

“I hope you don’t consider yourself pro-life,” muttered a nervous man through the microphone to Senator Yaw, “because of the miscarriages you are going to cause in this state.”

This man was only one of the initial seven who immediately formed a line when the mediator announced questions would now be taken. As I listened to these people ask their intricate questions and make their odious comments I instantly compared it to question-and-answer portion of the Paul Rusesabagina lecture.

Two weeks ago, Rwandan humanitarian Paul Rusesabagina spoke in the Weis Center for the Performing Arts and when he prompted the students to ask questions, one would have thought he had invited them to leave.

Where have the outspoken college students gone? We wear our bracelets that say “Save Darfur” and participate in walks to raise money for cancer, but where is our passion? It seems as though we’ve forgotten who the hippies were and only remember them as inspiration for Halloween costumes.

They staged protests, they vocalized their beliefs, they were a community of activists. Perhaps this passion has dwindled due to the overwhelming fascination our generation has with technology.

Everyday I pass the newsstands located in the Elaine Langone Center and the Ellen Clarke Bertrand Library and see free copies of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal remain perfectly in their stacks. The number of people attending college has risen extraordinarily seen the 1960s, and yet it appears as though those in attendance lack the intellectual interest of those before them to be active or even informed concerning current events.

But perhaps I am wrong in identifying this generation gap; after all, the outspoken woman sitting in front of me at the forum was blatantly texting on her iPhone throughout the evening.

By Sarah Block

News Editor

On Tuesday, every student on campus received a newsletter from the staff of The Counterweight entitled “What the Buck.” While receiving mass mailings would not normally seem out of the ordinary, what makes this newsletter particularly unusual is the lack of legitimate by-lines. Every article is attributed to a writer under a pseudonym rather than their actual name.

Justifiably, there are some circumstances under which the use of a pseudonym is reasonable if not necessary. Mary Ann Evans, for example, published a number of novels under the name George Eliot in order to conceal the fact that she was a woman in a time when female writers were not taken seriously. Jane Austen published her first novel, “Sense and Sensibility,” under the name “A Lady” for the same reason. Even the Founding Fathers of this country used a pseudonym; they published their famed Federalist Papers, a collection of essays in support of the United States Constitution, under the name Publius. More recently, the man secretly providing information on the Watergate scandal to the Washington Post used the name Deep Throat.

Anonymity, too, has its place. Sometimes it is impossible to speak truthfully on a subject knowing that your connection to it may compromise your career or your family. When the use of one’s real name will limit his or her ability to communicate effectively or will jeopardize that person’s health, safety or career, the use of a pseudonym seems to be the best way to ensure a fair and harm-free expression of their beliefs.

This newsletter does not do any of these things. What is college for, if not to encourage scholarly debate on meaningful subjects? There is nothing so overtly controversial in “What the Buck” to merit the use of pseudonyms. Sure, the newsletter presents a point of view with which many people on campus will not agree. The mere presentation of a minority point of view, though, does not mean that it is necessary to shield yourself from connections to it. By being a part of The Counterweight, each writer is already associating themselves with the publication. No one on campus is attacking them for it. This type of anonymity is especially unnecessary on a college campus, where we are all here to listen, debate and learn from each other.

Words are no different than actions. Take responsibility for what you say. If you are going to express an opinion, do so with conviction. Maybe having one’s name publicly connected to an opinion will force people to think before they speak. In a time when the world is full of hatred and intolerance, the use of one’s name will force him or her to think carefully about their words and the impact they might have on those around them. And once you do so, don’t be afraid to stand up for what you believe in, for the world desperately needs more people who are not afraid to speak their minds no matter how controversial their opinions might be.