Categories
Opinion

Is Coors encouraging binge drinking?

By Elle Fried

Contributing Writer

According to many online sources, the Coors Brewing Company has confirmed that they will be releasing a new special can, crafted specifically for the purpose of shotgunning.

For those of you who are unaware of what shotgunning entails, it is the act of poking a hole in the side of a beer can (preferably with a key), slightly opening the tab on the top of the can and then drinking the beer out of the hole that was poked in on the side as fast as you can.

This new can will feature a second tab on the side of the can which will avoid the unruly cuts on fingers and lips that inevitably happen.

I am sure that the main criticism of this innovation is that it will encourage binge drinking, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of college kids know what shotgunning is and how to do it; therefore, I don’t believe it will encourage binge drinking and irresponsible behavior. This type of drinking is going to happen whether or not there is an extra tab to shotgun.

In fact, I believe it makes this act even safer. By avoiding the need to stab the can with a foreign object, it eliminates the likelihood of someone cutting or hurting oneself. Additionally, it would also prevent sharp edges from cutting the mouth, which could lead to severe infections.

Because shotgunning at times may be an unsafe action, there is no harm in helping them be a little bit safer. Coors is simply trying to assist drinkers with a college pastime that people of the legal drinking may or may not choose to engage in.

Categories
Opinion

Watson’s debut on ‘Jeopardy!’ raises more questions than answers

By Mike McPhee

Managing Editor

The game show “Jeopardy!” featured an unprecedented contestant this week: Watson, an IBM-created supercomputer with highly sophisticated software, competed against “Jeopardy!” superstars Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter in a trivia test of man versus machine. For a machine that was designed to win at trivia competitions, Watson’s performance generated more questions than answers.

The idea of a computer that plays “Jeopardy!” has drawn media attention back to the development of artificial intelligence, something that has been quietly worked on by computer scientists and engineers for years. How soon will it be before machines become smarter than humans? Is Watson the first step in that direction?

Watson’s “Jeopardy!” performance does not tell us much about that bigger picture. Its most strikingly “human” trait is that it is not perfect. Despite IBM’s four years of research and development, there were still some shortcomings to Watson’s “thought” processes that became obvious over the course of the three-day “Jeopardy!” special.

For example, on the second day of the showing, Watson got 24 of the 25 questions in Double Jeopardy right. When prompted with the Final Jeopardy question, “U.S. Cities: Its largest airport is named for a WWII hero. Its second largest is named after a WWII battle,” Watson answered “Toronto.” The studio audience was shocked that this supercomputer came up with an answer that was so obviously incorrect. Watson also had an odd tendency to end all of its Daily Double wagers with atypical amounts instead of a round multiple of $100.

Watson did win the competition on “Jeopardy!”  In fact, it earned more money than both Jennings and Rutter combined. But compare its success rate to other electronic devices you own. It wouldn’t be acceptable if your cell phone only answered 24 out of 25 of your phone calls, or if sometimes your computer misinterpreted what you clicked on screen. Watson’s algorithm needs to be further developed before it can be branched out to other applications.

Those potential applications are quite interesting. Watson’s technology could be used to replace jobs that are currently held by humans – for example, answering questions when you call a help number for a broken computer, or even conducting telemarketing more intelligently.

In addition, Watson is very good at taking vast quantities of data as an input, receiving a question and formulating a useful output; in this way, it could function as a more advanced form of a search engine for important data-intensive fields like medical research.

Before this can happen, work still needs to be done. The computers that Watson is built out of fill an entire room, draw an enormous amount of power and certainly are not cheap. It is definitely not cost-effective to use a Watson to replace a human at a job yet.

The real take-away message for people who watched the “Jeopardy!” special is not that we should “welcome our new computer overlords,” as Ken wrote during his Final Jeopardy answer on Wednesday. We should keep an eye on the developing technology of “deep thought” computer programs as enhancements to human intelligence, not replacements for it.

Categories
Letters to the Editor Opinion

Response to gun control article predictable and disturbing

To the editor:

I just opened up the editorial section of The Bucknellian and was humored by the lively response on the “Gun Policy” (“Tuscon tragedy shouldn’t affect gun control policy,” Feb. 2) by Alexander Riley to editorial writer Amanda Ayers. While the editorial opinion piece may have lacked pertinent details supporting the enforcement of existing gun laws as written, it nevertheless adequately supported the second amendment and the founders’ intentions. The response, on the other hand, while well intentioned, was an unfortunately predictable piece riddled (no pun intended) with holes, emotion and misguided logic.

Let us first start with the “obligatory” reference to the founders, who he wryly remarks “we are told liked guns.” While it is historically debatable what the founders’ personal likes and dislikes were, what is clear is that the “invitation to struggle” that became the U.S. Constitution was brilliantly framed to limit powers of each branch of government and, more profoundly, to outline protections of its citizenry by listing what a government writ large could not control. The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers leading up to the Constitutional Convention clearly followed one key vanguard that was codified into law – an inherent and wise distrust of what often develops when centralized power devolves to tyranny over its citizenry. Mr. Riley accurately identifies social norms that did not track with later values in the 19th and 20th centuries, and they were rightly corrected through the amendment process. He incorrectly draws parallels that evolving social norms now must be aggressively applied to gun ownership, and that drafting additional laws to restrict lawful gun ownership is essential, presumably regardless of whether or not they progressively whittle away at a constitutional right with a clear endgame. The follow-up questions then become: is a deliberate journey to undermine the Second Amendment and slowly prevent lawful gun ownership by citizens the right path? Is private gun ownership in and of itself an outdated concept in the modern world? Ask the Korean-American business establishments during the L.A. riots or, perhaps more recently (albeit abroad), the Green movement in Iran what they think on this subject.

Mr. Riley also conveniently skips details in his argument, like the magazine bans that have occurred elsewhere, previous “assault-looking” weapons bans and other laws that have had in fact adverse impacts on crime; that cities with the most restrictive anti-gun laws like Washington D.C., Detroit and Los Angeles have experienced increases in gun violence when the “bad guys” became the only ones who are carrying them. Conversely, numerous other cities have experienced the reverse when concealed permits were increased.

The shooter in the Tucson tragedy, certifiably insane by any measure, was in fact already in violation of numerous gun laws already in place, and he will no doubt suffer the consequences for his actions. Yes, the “man” did do the action, and yes, a large clip enabled him to carry out this crime with ruthless efficiency and violence. What Mr. Riley omits is that someone of this mind, already in violation of the law, could and likely would have resorted to other measures such as a homemade bomb, an automobile, rat poison or any other imaginable means with equally deadly efficiency, precision and murderous results. Sociopaths do these things, hence the name, and a reactive and alarmist response (with a political agenda behind it) to such horrors makes for bad broad policy and further limits rights, like it or not Mr. Riley, that are in fact guaranteed under the Constitution. I wonder what Mr. Riley’s response would have been if a private citizen legally carrying a firearm had downed this sociopath, as has occurred at other crime scenes. No mind, he was on a roll. “The Germans were bombing Pearl Harbor,” as John Belushi so eloquently pointed out in “Animal House.”

Let us next look at the “more Americans died between 1965 and 2000 from firearm accidents than were killed in the entire duration of the Vietnam war” argument. Perhaps based on that we should outlaw cars, motorcycles, power tools and lawnmowers, which data show clearly have killed more Americans than either Vietnam or firearms. Perhaps the most disturbing remark of the response, however, was, “It is depressing to see how frequently, in this country where education levels are so high, and even in a university like this one where students must excel academically just to gain admission, the falsehoods of the extremist gun lobby are uncritically reiterated in this manner.” Translation: even though you must be “book smart” to get into a school of this caliber, you are nonetheless ignorant to disagree with me (in upholding the Constitution) … perhaps in time you will become more “enlightened” (as I am) and see the real truth someday as it is outlined in partisan writings of like-minded individuals. Wow, I guess those founders really didn’t know what they were up to.

Katherine Bourque

Categories
Opinion

Middle East protests cause domino effect

By Pranav Sehgal

Opinions Editor

Recently, there has been a great deal of upheaval in the Middle East centering on anti-government protesters clashing with police and government supporters.

Although the news has been inundated with news of protests all across North Africa and the Middle East, the unrest originally started in Tunisia, and like a domino effect it has reached to all corners of the region.

Tunisia is one of the more liberal countries in North Africa. While it has a large middle class, social norms and a large tourism industry, it had one of the most oppressive governments in which corruption was rampant to the point where it was crippling its economy.

In what became known as the Jasmine Revolution, masses of protesters took to the streets to oust authoritarian leader President Ben Ali, who had been in power for 23 years.

This event served as catalyst for revolts across the region, most noticeably in Egypt. Hundreds of thousands of protesters succeeded in leading a popular uprising, which ended the rule of another authoritarian leader in North Africa, President Hosni Mubarak. Similar to Ali, Mubarak had ruled Egypt under a strict policy system for approximately 30 years.

These uprisings have inspired the masses in Yemen, Bahrain, and are expected to continue in Algeria, as the Prime Minister has yet to lift a 19-year state of emergency.

It feels as if the conservative, authoritarian and, in many cases, corrupt governments of the Middle East are being turned on their heads. It does not take a scientist to determine that not only will these protests not stop until the people of their respective countries get the reforms they want, but these protests will also spread to other areas of the region and eventually to other areas of the globe.

These current actions have also re-inspired the Iranian opposition movement after a year and a half in hiatus. It is clear that these reform movements are gaining steam and popularity among the region’s youth.

Although these protests have yet to hit some of the Middle East’s ultra-conservative countries, like Saudi Arabia, it seems inevitable that it will hit the Islamic-centered Kingdom. Even though I may doubt the effectiveness of such revolts, I still believe that they are necessary in promoting dialogue and eventually affecting change in the areas of the world where reforms are vital.

Categories
Opinion

University’s attempts to halt binge drinking inadequate

By John Stevenson

Publication Designer

Within the next year, there is a high chance that a University student will lose his or her life to alcohol.

During the Greek Officer Orientation in January, President John Bravman and several other University administrators and alumni discussed ominous statistics from the fall semester: a 300-percent increase in the number of reported sexual assaults and 42 students hospitalized for alcohol-related issues. Of those students hospitalized, two experienced cardiac arrest. Yes, they were saved, but for some period of time, our classmates, our peers, were dead.

These issues—while a blight on campuses everywhere—have reached crisis proportions here.

Attempts to remedy the escalation of assaults come to campus in the form of marches, speakers and book groups—University students surely know there is a problem. The issues, however, will not be solved in these ways. Colossal problems must be solved in forceful ways. The University must put forth a comprehensive, unified and aggressive effort to mitigate sexual assaults and the related scourge, binge drinking.

To state the obvious: There is never any excuse for sexual assault. No one asks for it; no one deserves it. The damage is irreparable, and it is a pain which survivors carry for the entirety of their lives. If the survivor is comfortable with telling his or her friends and loved ones, the pain—while potentially easier to manage when shared—spreads. University students feel this weight in our own hearts because of our strong sense of community.

The sexual assault epidemic on campus is not rooted in a flawed mentality in men; it is prevalent because of a flawed mentality propagated in all students, faculty and staff—namely that somehow status quo responses will yield something other than the status quo. Buying thousands of blue-colored “For-a-Better-Bucknell” wristbands is wishfully and woefully inadequate; it is credulity to think otherwise.

We are all to blame.

The University has acted too passively. It has brought speakers, supported marches and gatherings, but these things will not solve the issue. Dr. Jackson Katz’s talk last week did little. Bringing a speaker is simply inadequate for the University to claim it is doing all it can to “fix” the problem.

Katz will not have that effect. The social issues he discussed may exist, but if these flaws are the only impetus to the violence, the sexual assault rate off campus would be the same as on campus. Cities would be trying to organize book groups to protect their citizenry. This is not happening. Clearly, there is a variable which makes this surge a “within-the-Bubble” issue. The difference is the misuse of alcohol.

Alcohol has a profound impact on the number of sexual assaults. Researchers report that roughly half of all sexual assaults involve perpetrators who have been drinking; in some studies that percentage soars to nearly 80 percent (Collins and Messerschmidt 1993, Abbey et al. 1994, Crowell and Burgess 1996). While by no means suggesting the survivor is responsible for the crime, studies indicate that roughly the same percentage of those individuals had also been consuming alcohol. In addition to contributing to the skyrocketing number of sexual assaults, alcohol’s widespread and flagrant abuse on campus is significantly increasing the likelihood of a student’s death. The pain caused by this would be immeasurable. If one member was lost, the entire school would ache.

It is simply inexcusable to allow alcohol abuse to continue on our campus. Students must be more proactive in helping their friends—not just in dealing with the aftermath of binge drinking, but also in stopping it in the first place. Such aid, however, will not be enough; it must be supplemented with support from the staff, faculty and administration.

True change must occur, and for it to succeed, listen to Dr. Katz’s words from over a week ago: This solution comes from “taking a stand and taking some risks.” These words were not spoken about students; they were spoken about our administration.

Staff and faculty of the University: Act. By all means, participate in the marches, the book talks. Tell your students of the risks. Even with these efforts, more must be done.

The University and Public Safety must no longer turn a blind eye to the binge drinking on campus, nor can they—or the local authorities—ignore the excessive drinking that happens in downtown houses leased to University students.

On campus, it is common to see Public Safety sitting in cars on Fraternity Road as hordes of students stumble in and out of fraternity houses hosting unregistered events. Officers, entire sororities do not live in one fraternity house, especially if they are seen serially staggering in on a Wednesday.

Again, this is not about a beer or two with your buddies, or moderate social drinking, or drinking responsibly. This is the kind of drinking that puts people in the hospital, or stops their hearts, or risks irreparable harm to the drinkers and the people around them.

If a fraternity flagrantly and frequently defies the rules or is routinely found in possession of too much alcohol for its events, punish it. Thoroughly search the venue if it wishes to hold an event, and discipline the fraternity if the search finds contraband. Let the punishment—especially for repeated violations—be meaningful.

Greek life is an integral part of the University experience. Dealing seriously with these issues is not hostile to Greek life or its principles—quite the opposite; our founders would wholeheartedly support action to uphold that which is right.

University students are favored to attend an institution that sincerely cares about its students. We are fortunate to have a well-trained and just Department of Public Safety. Most importantly, we are blessed to have one another, each of us part of a community that would do anything to keep a member from harm.

Now is the time for that. Now is the time for this campus to burst the binge-drinking bubble. Time to address this problem and the problems that stem from it, forcefully, fully, and like our lives depended on it.

Because they do.

Categories
Opinion

Printing Process in Library

By Allison Shook, Madison Lane, and Megan Herrera

Layout Editors and News Editor

Being a college student requires a lot of printing.  Having class syllabi, notes, PowerPoint slides, essays and more printed out is essential for success in a class. In an institution where printing is free and accessible throughout campus, it is no surprise that majority of students wouldn’t care about wasting excessive amounts of paper, ink and money.

As of this semester, the Administration has implemented a new printing system in the Bertrand Library in an attempt to conserve resources. This process requires students to choose a number as a personal code to receive their document. When printing, students must walk to their printer, click on their document that can be seen by their username, enter the code and then click “OK.” The purpose of this is to decrease the amount of paper that was being thrown away every day and avoid problems such as lost pages or mix-ups.

Some students have found this process to be extremely time consuming because walking to a printer and punching a couple numbers into a screen, and waiting two minutes for their document seems to be a waste of time. Instead of realizing the advantages of this system, they focus on and criticize the small problem of a little extra effort required. Walking to a printer and not having your document ready for you seems to be the main concern for lazy students that can’t find the time to ensure their document is printed properly.

However, this new system has multiple benefits. It provides efficiency, while also being eco-friendly. As the world around is trying to go green, it seems honorable for the University to switch to this advantageous policy. As a campus that advertises and promotes events such as RecycleMania and housing students in an Environmental Residential College, we are taking baby steps to a more eco-friendly future.

Ultimately, the advantages of this new printing method outweigh the small hassles  that some students are complaining about. Hopefully these students will see the benefits of the new system and their negativity will fade away over time.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Editorial

On Monday night, Dr. Jackson Katz gave a lecture about the need for men to take an active role in preventing gender violence. The speech was sponsored by the Interfraternity Council and the Women’s Resource Center and is the latest in a series of efforts to improve campus climate at the University. The majority of the Greek community, both fraternities and sororities, were present at the event. In the wake of Katz’s speech, much of campus is involved in discussing ways to reduce sexual assault and other abuse and violence.

Bringing speakers such as Katz to campus is an important first step. Many faculty members are also striving to continue the conversation begun by Katz’s lecture. Groups of professors have organized reading groups to discuss books dealing with gender violence issues (including Katz’s book), some of which are specifically targeted at female students and some of which are targeted at males. Other professors and department secretaries have brought up these issues in class (even in classes about completely irrelevant subject matter) and forwarded information about these reading groups to get the word out to students. On their own, students who attended the lecture have discussed their reactions to it, and even if reactions have not always been positive, some conversation and awareness about gender violence is better than none.

The faculty, administration and a selection of students clearly care very deeply about these issues. They are acknowledging the need to emphasize these issues and doing everything they can conceivably do to address them, and they should be commended for their efforts to create a safer environment on campus. But how effective their efforts will be remains to be seen.

We suspect that the people who most need to think more about these gender violence issues will be among the people least likely to attend a reading group discussion or take a lecture such as Katz’s seriously. Indeed, many students seemed to blow off Katz’s lecture. Some were seen doing homework during the speech, while others apparently got nothing out of it except irritation that it had run long. Katz was correct in his observation that many people distance themselves from these issues, thinking that they only apply to “monsters” rather than themselves, but this distancing also makes people less responsive to his message.

This is why it is so important that those who did listen and do care take action. These people must refuse to let themselves be “bystanders” and must step up to stop abuse as it happens. They must also realize that “gender violence” is not merely rape; unwanted touching and groping and verbal harassment are also harmful. Perhaps most difficult, they must be willing to stand up for what’s right, even if it means going against their friends.

The administration and faculty have done everything they can do; whether or not their efforts succeed is up to the student body.

Categories
Opinion

Ignorance of national anthem embarrassment for entire nation

By Olivia Seecof

Writer

Well, I never thought that I would have anything in common with pop star and five-time Grammy award-winner Christina Aguliera except for our love for the city of Pittsburgh. But, after Super Bowl XLV, we now share the story of a “most embarrassing moment.”

Our nation has sung the difficult melody of “The Star Spangled Banner” at sporting events and July 4 parades for years. Different musicians have put their own individual spin on the well-known tune, but these harmonies and rearrangements never before included the omission of the lyrics.

Now, I said that Christina Aguliera and I share an embarrassing moment, but they are definitely not equivalent.

My social trauma occurred in high school at a middle school hockey game. I was running the scoreboard and was required to play the national anthem.  However, due to technical difficulties, it would not play. My friend who was working with me told me to “just say it” (meaning say that there was technical difficulties), but I interpreted this to mean, “Go right ahead and sing the national anthem.”

Well, I cannot sing, and when I got to the climactic part about the rockets, I failed to remember what color the rockets’ glare was. Once I remembered, I slowed down and my voice shook even more, but I continued and finished out our country’s anthem strong.

OK, not that bad right? I mean, who goes to middle school hockey games anyway? Christina Aguliera, on the other hand, blew it in front of a national audience.

With her extravagant riffs and ability to belt out any note, she started out strong; then the letdown set in. I felt bad for the troops serving overseas who had to stand there while some pop star celebrity botched the theme song of the American soldier. Christina Aguliera replaced “O’er the ramparts we watch’d were so gallantly streaming ” with “What so proudly we watch’d at the twilight’s last streaming.”

Good one, Xtina. That doesn’t even make sense. Still, according to www.songfacts.com, one poll showed that 61% of Americans don’t know all of the words and only 39% of those who claimed to know the words correctly said what came after “Whose broad stripes and bright stars.”

Come on, America, that’s pathetic. This song represents our country and demonstrates our unity, yet we don’t even know the words. While both Christina Aguliera and I have had embarrassing moments surrounding this song, I think the above statistics are our entire country’s most embarrassing moment. If you are reading this article and do not know the words to our nation’s anthem, please take a break from studying and look them up.

Our only hope is the fact that both Christina Aguliera and myself recovered and finished strong, proving that even through embarrassing times, America really is the “home of the brave.”

Now if only the Steelers could have recovered and finished strong …

Categories
Opinion

Jersey Shore can only be a secret pleasure

By Leah Rogers

Contributing Writer

Everyone has a dirty little secret, whether it is sneaking an extra piece of cake late at night or Facebook-stalking your latest crush. For many of us, that little secret happens every Thursday night at 10 p.m.–watching Jersey Shore.

MTV’s popular show is on its third season now and it’s still going strong, attracting 8.4 million viewers for the season premiere. For those of you who don’t know, Jersey Shore follows the lives of eight New Jersey Italians, who refer to themselves as “guidos,” although we now know that not all of them are truly from Jersey, or even Italian.

Their lives consist mainly of “GTL,” more commonly known as gym, tanning and laundry, and they love to party all the time. They occasionally work in a T-shirt shop on the Seaside Heights boardwalk, but their attitudes at work are always pretty poor.

Although the concept of the show–getting paid to party and be on TV–is ridiculous, millions of people still enjoy watching it every week. The group goes out to clubs and drinks large amounts of alcohol most nights of the week.

This sets a poor example of behavior for many teens today who are struggling with increasing alcohol consumption at younger ages. However, this does not stop anyone from watching it.

The show also has consistently had a degrading view towards women. The main goal of the guys on the show when they go out is to find a woman to bring home with them. Younger teens who watch this will think that non-committal, mostly sexual relationships are the norm.

The “guidos” also refer to ugly girls as “grenades” and refuse to stay with them. This shows younger teens that they have to be good-looking for guys to like them and increases body image issues in a world where many young girls are already struggling with them. However, once again, this does not stop anyone from watching the show.

People love watching Jersey Shore. They know in the back of their minds that the show sets poor examples and paints New Jersey in a poor light, but they don’t care to say anything about it. Some people think the Jersey Shore lifestyle is ideal and strive to be like the characters on the show, but most people have a little more common sense.

Many people still watch the show for their own entertainment, but since it sends out many poor messages, people feel the need to refer to it as their dirty little secret.

Categories
Opinion

Don’t limit the best times of your life to four years of college

By Erin Kircher

Contributing Writer

College is amazing. That’s the message I got at age 14 the day I visited my brother at his unbelievably messy, deafeningly loud fraternity house. I found myself mesmerized by the excitement and freedom of this lifestyle.

If I had been able to, I would have packed up my bags and started college myself the next day. Unfortunately, I had several years of SAT preparation, AP classes and college counseling before I was ready for that step.

Growing up, so much of our time is spent preparing and looking forward to college. As antsy adolescents caught in constant screaming matches with our parents, we held on to the hope of one day being free from curfews and other tedious rules.

While movies like “Old School” and “Van Wilder” are extremely entertaining, they only escalate our optimistic expectations for college. In these films, college is unrealistically portrayed as all raging parties and endless good times. This puts an enormous amount of pressure on your college experience.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard the phrase, “College will be the best four years of your life.” While I certainly can’t argue with the sentiment that college is an incredibly life-changing time, I have to express my frustrations with the idea that in the 80-plus years you may live, you have only four golden years–and you peak by about age 22.

I’ve enjoyed college enormously thus far, and I intend to continue doing so. But it is only a brief phase of life and there are so many other exciting phases to experience.

For all those students out there who are daunted by the idea of stepping outside of this “Bucknell Bubble” and venturing out into the “real world,” let me highlight some potentially bright parts of your post-college life.

First of all, no homework (sorry future graduate school students, it may take you a while to reach this benefit). Time off work no longer means hours spent in the library. Even better, some salaried positions offer paid vacations. Getting paid to enjoy yourself? Sounds good to me.

If you’re worried that you’ll miss out on the fun of intramural sports, think again. There are organizations like ZogSports in NYC, where you can form your own co-ed league. There are also an endless number of charities to involve yourself in; you just won’t have the luxury of finding out about all of them at a community service fair.

Some of us may never want to leave college like Ryan Reynolds in “Van Wilder,” because we’ve been convinced that nothing can ever be as wild and stimulating as college life.

If you want the next (hopefully) 60-plus years of your life to be just as amazing, then that is up to you to make them so. It is not so much our circumstances that decide our happiness, but how we react to our circumstances.