Category: Opinion

By Pranav Sehgal

Contributing Writer

Recently, the U.S. political system has been in disarray: Democrats fight with Republicans, Democrats fight within their party and radical Republicans have also caused divisions in their own party.

With television stations like Fox, MSNBC and Comedy Central, the media has heightened these tensions between Democrats and Republicans to an extent never seen before. The hostility between these two parties has grown so much that conciliation and compromise between them is infrequent and unlikely.

These political tensions have spewed over to the social structure of American society. TV shows like “Glenn Beck” and “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” have polarized American society, with a great deal of conservatives watching TV shows centered on the right like “The O’Reilly Factor,” while liberals tend to watch programs like “The Colbert Report” and “Hardball with Chris Matthews.”

In order to quell the recent upheaval of political tensions that have led to such divisive policies and relations, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert hosted the “Rally to Restore Sanity” in Washington, D.C., hoping to restore fractured relationships between party lines and between voters of the respective parties.

Stewart and Colbert, selected as candidates in Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” poll, tried to downplay any political intent, as did the supporters, saying that their reason for supporting the rally stemmed from the fact that they wanted to promote a more “common-sense” politics.

Many rally participants agreed that politicians, members of the media and citizens must all “take it down a notch” in terms of political rhetoric. Numerically, the event proved widely successful with an attendance estimated to be well over 200,000. Glenn Beck’s “Rally to Restore Honor” was only estimated to have an audience of between 78,000 and 96,000. The Huffington Post also chipped in by hiring a fleet of 200 buses to shuttle people from New York to Washington, D.C.

Although the creators of “The Rally to Restore Sanity” intended to be apolitical, there is no doubt that a great number of participants were in fact liberal and tended to side more with Democrats. When figures like President Obama and Oprah, an ardent Democratic supporter, endorse this event, there is no hiding the fact that this event is indeed political.

As this year’s midterm election have come to a close, Republicans have gained more ground in congress with 239 seats in the House of Representatives, giving them a majority, and 46 seats in the Senate compared to the Democrats who have 52. It seems as if voter resentment has grown because of the lack of progress the economy is making and the prevalence of unemployment that still exists among Americans.

This brings me to the following questions: did “The Rally to Restore Sanity” in fact restore sanity to our political system, and to what extent was this rally effective in promoting “sanity”? Although many would argue the intentions of this event were to lessen tensions between parties and their constituents, this ideal may no longer stand. The Republican majority in Congress will likely widen the divide between parties and make it more difficult for progressive legislation to be passed. Democrats may have lost their chance to push their policies due to ineffectiveness and infighting, while Republicans are steadily gaining more ground. The only certain thing is that with difference comes divisiveness, which is the last thing our country needs.

By Chris Giglio

Opinions Editor

The privatization of jails and correctional facilities should end.  In the United States today there are 264 private correctional facilities, which house nearly 99,000 inmates.  Privatizing this “industry” has become popular because it has saved states money.  In fact, an independent study conducted by the Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy estimated states could save up to $15 million by using a mix of public and private correctional facilities. As the economic recession drags on, this cost-saving option will become all the more tempting.

But at what cost do we let the drive for profits dictate our actions?  Our goal as a society should be to limit the number of people who end up in jail.  By providing public schooling, welfare to poor families and alternative community activities, we hope to provide a bright future for as many youth as possible.  I worry that the privatizing of prisons is a backwards step in this effort. The goal of any private firm is to maximize profits—for a prison that means cutting costs and getting as many inmates as possible.  I can’t see how either of these goals will better society.

Private prisons will always have the incentive to cut accommodations to prisoners just to the point where civil rights lawyers could bring a case against them.  This has the very real possibility of cutting essential programs that may have otherwise helped prisoners get their lives back together.  The continual drive to bring inmates to prisons leaves a lot of room for corruption.

This has actually happened.  Cases brought to light include one in which two judges received up to $2.6 million to send children to certain juvenile facilities.  At times these children were brought before the court without a lawyer and sentenced to extended lengths of time. Another prime example is the recent immigration laws in Arizona.  This absurd law was originally written by the prison industry of Arizona, which hoped to ensure a steady stream of illegal immigrants into their prisons.

Maybe these are extreme cases or maybe this is only the tip of the iceberg.  Either way, the tendency to view prisoners as a commodity isn’t right.  The idea of profiting over someone else’s misery is sickening.

In the capitalist world, everything seems to be up for grabs.  Prisons, universities and volunteer efforts have all started to fall under the “for-profit” model.  But some things shouldn’t be driven by profit.  It’s time for us to seriously evaluate what those things should and shouldn’t be.

By Lizzie Kirshenbaum

Contributing Writer

For years, students ranging from middle school to college age have received education concerning the effects of alcohol. Within this subject, the theory of “moderation” has been strongly emphasized. Parents and educators have recognized the impracticality of doing away with all underage drinking and have implemented programs to teach how to drink safely if at all. The University, among many other colleges and universities, requires first-year students to take an online course, “AlcoholEdu.” This course contains an extensive series of lessons and videos pertaining to the risks of drinking.

But as the popularity of the alcoholic beverage “Four Loko” soars, individuals are suffering the effects of alcohol from the worst end of the spectrum. This has caused college authorities to institute total bans on the beverage. The current argument is that alcohol may be reasonable in moderation but not when coupled with caffeine even in a moderate serving.

Researchers have released statements noting the high risks of mixing a depressant with a stimulant. The caffeinated ingredient in the drink causes consumers to prolong the feeling of being intoxicated, causing them to drink more heavily. Additionally, one can of Four Loko, which has a 12 percent alcohol content and 135 milligrams of caffeine, is the equivalent of six servings of beer and approximately two cups of coffee.

While the obvious dangers lie within the ingredients of the product, the company defends its product by stating that it is only to be consumed by responsible adults. Four Loko’s website page on “Responsible Drinking” states: “as a responsible member of the alcoholic beverage industry we take seriously our obligation to market our products only to adults 21 and over.”

The authenticity of this statement is apparent when one accesses the website and must type in his or her birth date, for anyone under the legal age of drinking is barred from entering. Fortunately, at 18 years old I have the creative mind to change the year of my birth in order to access the site. Similarly, I’m sure there are many other resourceful 18-year-olds who can figure out how to purchase Four Loko products despite the 21+ labeled bottles and proposed cautions taken by distributors.

Vice President of the Caron Treatment center and addiction specialist, Harris Stratyner, has attested to the fatal dangers proposed by the drink to people of any age. Phusion Projects, the company that manufactures Four Loko, has stated its products are safe for consumption despite current FDA investigations. The company stresses that the mix of alcohol and caffeine is “nothing new.”

Taurine, one of the four main ingredients of the drink, is the same active ingredient as in Red Bull. One may compare drinking a can of Four Loko to taking a shot of hard liquor and then immediately drinking Red Bull as a chaser. Although neither act portrays good judgment, the latter seems to be the lesser of two evils, at least according to recent physical reactions to Four Loko.

All of this recent hype leads to an important question: Should the University join the movement to ban Four Loko products on campus? In my opinion, the students were admitted for their intelligence, and it is the responsibility of those students to make decisions for themselves. If the recent news of college-age students’ hospitalization for heart attacks does not deter students from consuming Four Loko, why would a campus policy hold any more clout?

By Eric Soble

Opinions Editor

Driving political activist Paul Loeb back to Harrisburg airport earlier this week, I remember talking at length about the absolute trouncing moderates had undergone in this week’s election. Democrats had lost 60+ seats in the House, making this the largest Republican victory since 1948. Republicans had also gained six Senate seats, a more modest success. President Obama admitted that this election was “humbling” and acknowledged that this would stall the creation of a comprehensive climate change policy as well as thwart Democrat efforts to continue Obama’s job creation agenda. After I vocalized this pessimistic yet truthful analysis, Loeb paused for a second and said something that still sticks out in my mind: “Disappointment is inevitable. It is what you do after disappointment that truly matters.”

Democrats and Independents cannot afford to do what they did after 2008—wash their hands of activism and become overly confident in the powers of a supposedly messianic figure. Simply put, a lot of us got lazy. We believed in the unbelievable and allowed ourselves to go about our daily lives, hoping someone above us was working hard to fix the nation.

The stakes are even higher now. In the lead up to 2012, the Democrats must reassert their goals for America and recalibrate their strategies for achieving these goals. They must rely upon compromise in some areas and maintain their ground in others. Compromise between parties may be easiest when it comes to government reform—abolishing the filibuster, agreeing on campaign finance reform, cutting unneeded spending, etc. But it may prove difficult in economic and social matters, such as healthcare reform, equality for sexual minorities and moving out of Afghanistan.

In this political climate, the main question left for the President is this: fight or flight? He must choose his battles wisely if he wishes to continue on after 2012. The two most contentious debates will concern the Bush tax cuts and the healthcare bill. These will surely be complex and lengthy issues to face, and will take up much time and energy. It is near impossible to predict how these will play out, but one thing is for sure: neither side will be happy.

Here are some fights the President can win:

• Sign an executive order repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A May 2010 Washington Post/ABC News poll shows 75 percent of the nation believes it should be repealed. There is no good reason not to act on this now.
• Combat the contradictory statements of the Tea Party. This party is a noxious branch of Republicans that wishes to travel back to an imagined “golden age” of our Founding Fathers. They do nothing but drain energy away from the political process and distract the public from the issues at hand.
• Move forward on climate change and responsible energy policies. The President cannot wait for the global warming denialism on the right to catch up to 21st century scientific fact. He should not compromise with representatives like John Boehner—the likely Speaker of the House—who think carbon dioxide emissions are not harmful to our planet.
• Reduce the deficit and cut the defense budget. The president should reign in spending on trillion dollar wars overseas. This does not mean sacrificing our armed forces or our security but rather ensuring a maintainable and efficient military force. This would force the so-called “economic conservatives” elected on Nov. 2 to show that their ideology can be evenly applied across the spectrum.

The next two years may be an exercise in extreme partisanship and frustrating gridlock. The “change we can believe in” slogan was great for 2008, but it could stand an addendum in 2010. Maybe “change we can feasibly accomplish in a limited number of months given our political and economic constraints” would be more apt. It surely isn’t as catchy, but it is something we can run with.

How well does Bucknell live up to its goal of promoting diversity on campus?  How can it do a better job?

“The diversity in our student body is definitely lacking and the international students that are here have a tendency to stick to themselves.  I think the problem starts with the separate orientation program for international students.  The school should continue providing this program but also integrate international students into the general orientation program.”—Ivana Stojkov  ’13

“Common Ground is one of the greatest ideas I’ve seen to promote diversity on campus.  It is effective because it continually encourages people of different backgrounds to discuss controversial issues such as race and sexuality.  The school should learn from this and encourage discussion in other areas like diversity lectures.  Presently these lectures are ineffective because it doesn’t incorporate the attending students into the discussion.”—Michael Kumcu ’12

“I definitely think Bucknell does a decent job but there is always room for improvement given that these issues are such a huge part of the college experience.”—Kate Palmer ’11

By Lizzie Kirshenbaum

Contributing Writer

Black mini-skirt, cropped blazer, metallic leggings: $54.99 plus a bit of scripture. Most Forever 21 shoppers enthused by the store’s low prices and trendy merchandise fail to notice what is written on the bottom of their yellow shopping bags: “John 3:16.” This frequently referenced Biblical passage is representative of the owners’ religious beliefs, but is this the universal belief among all Forever 21 customers?

In today’s world the power of the dollar holds equal if not greater strength than the power of the vote. While individuals may be subjected to a range of media propaganda and scandals concerning political candidates, similar information on a company is not as highly publicized. But when I noticed this imprint on the bottom of my shopping bag I felt my personal values had been infringed. As a consumer I do not care to have my own beliefs or ideologies influenced by the stores in which I shop.

Some people may be hesitant to order from Domino’s because of the high calorie count in the pizza, but they should also be wary of Domino’s connections to interest groups. Tom Monaghan, the original owner of Domino’s, publicly made financial contributions to interest groups like Right to Life and Operation Rescue. While this situation is different from that of Forever 21 in that the owner’s decisions are unrelated to the company, it still may be disconcerting to know that the slice of pizza you’re eating is contributing to an organization that seeks to eliminate the choice of abortion. Although Monaghan sold the company in 1998 and none of its profits are going to such campaigns anymore, other companies are proceeding with similar political donations.

Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of Curves Fitness is a well-known supporter of radical pro-life groups like Operation Save America. Similar to Monaghan’s contributions, his monetary support came from the profits of his company, not a direct contribution from Curves itself. Individuals are entitled to the freedom to spend their money where they please, but as long as Gary Heavin continues donating his profits to Operation Save America, mine will not be spent on a membership at Curves.

A more recent and well-known consumer controversy lies within financial contributions to political candidates stemming directly from companies. Target’s donation of $150,000 and Best Buy’s contribution of $100,000 to Minnesota candidate for governor Tom Emmer has stirred immense anger and conflict in the LGBT community. Unlike the situations of Tom Monaghan and Gary Heavin, this is a direct contribution.

Many will defend these political contributions as a corporation’s right to choose where it donates its own money. But perhaps one should look at it from a different angle: if I would not vote for  Tom Emmer why would I support him financially? It is commonly argued that an individual vote holds minimal power, but thousands of dollars in donations are certainly effective, especially with the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. the FEC, entitling corporations to give unlimited funds to political candidates. A large-scale boycott of a company could have a profound effect on that business’s income and therefore curb its ability to make such donations.

After World War II many people faced moral conflicts when buying German-made products like Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen automobiles. These companies closely associated with Hitler’s genocide have since made reparations, yet today many people still remain adamant in their decisions not to contribute to their financial gains.

Government and business are arguably the two most powerful entities across the globe. It is essential that consumers enlighten themselves on what a business does with its profits or how it relays information to its customers. Many individuals are inadvertently funding massive organizations they would not ordinarily support. While I respect the values of the owners of Forever 21, I prefer my jeans without the proselytism.

By Pranav Sehgal

Contributing Writer

It no longer seems as if the United States is the world’s only superpower. With countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China growing faster than the United States, American dominance over international affairs is already waning. Although the United States is regarded as the world’ s leader in many respects, it does not carry the same status as it did during the second half of the 20th century.

China’ s economic ascendancy has challenged the United States’ identity as a superpower. It seems as if China has America on a leash—it has loaned and continues to loan our country billions of dollars. If China were to call in its loans, the consequences would be devastating to the U.S. economy. While the Chinese government plans to invest $586 billion in infrastructure, investment of infrastructure in the United States remains minimal and a comprehensive plan to revamp our nation’ s roads, railways, runways and other transportation services has not yet been implemented.

China has extended its reach to Africa in an effort to compete for the world’ s natural resources. While our government is preoccupied with wars overseas and all the costs involved, China’ s leadership isn’t taking any chances. It has become the most aggressive investor-nation in Africa in order to gain the vast natural resources Africa offers.

The effects of China’ s dominance can also be seen on university campuses throughout the United States, as Chinese students compete with Americans for spots in educational institutions. Many regard the Chinese educational system as more rigorous than that of the United States. The Chinese have fewer days off, strict school systems and now the means to go abroad—all factors contributing to great success in standardized testing and superior academic results that eventually lead to success in the workforce.

In order to combat challenges to American domestic and international influence, the U.S. government must reassert itself as an economic power by investing in infrastructure and leading the way in other technological pursuits like alternative energy resources.

The United States has always led through great economic changes—for example the dot-com era and the real estate boom—and must continue to do so. Globalization has made the world smaller, so the United States must extend its partnerships overseas in order to be competitive with China because our consumer-based society needs resources to fuel our economy.

We must also invest heavily in education if the United States wants to continue to compete with students from China and beyond. If measures and policies are not implemented to fight these challenges, the United States will no longer be perceived as a superpower. It will fall like all the formerly great empires, and countries like China will fill the void.

By Chris Giglio

Opinions Editor

Baseball is one of the greatest sports ever played and embodies some of the values we as Americans hold most dear. Playing through a long, grueling season represents persistence, taking a pitch to the body without flinching represents resilience, and injecting a player’s body with steroids represents the relentless drive to win at all costs.

It is unfortunate that this last detail gets thrown into the conversation of baseball. Players over the years have made so many accomplishments just to see the sport get dragged down by a bunch of juicing goons smacking the ball out of the park every other at bat. This is an exaggeration, but unfortunately, not too much of one. Think of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, who stared despair in the eyes and inspired a whole country enduring the Great Depression. Or look at Jackie Robinson, who triumphed over racial prejudices and stood as an early symbol for the Civil Rights Movement. Can we ever compare modern day players, who more often than not use steroids, to these iconic figures?

Many players today do play fairly, but they are a minority in a league awash with needles and “enhancers.” The blame doesn’t fall solely on the players. In fact I would argue we as fans are more to blame for this problem. In an increasingly globalized and technologically advanced world, we demand entertainment and results immediately. This puts growing pressure on a sport that is relatively long and at times slow. This also pressures owners to keep sales up and players to produce more runs at a faster rate.

I come from the city probably most at fault for this. In San Francisco, we are not all doctors, but it was fairly obvious that Bonds’s tripling of size was not a natural occurrence. Despite his obvious use of steroids, we cheered him on because he could hit the long ball.

The World Series is upon us, and we should all enjoy and celebrate the sport. We’ve already seen great playoff match-ups like the Giants versus the Phillies, where an underdog from the West annihilated a team whose fans are unbearably obnoxious. But in the process we should evaluate what we cherish about the sport. Do we care about the wins or do we care about the values the sport stands for?

This question should be applied to other sports as well. Should we ignore steroid use in other sports? Should we let criminals continue to play? Should we ignore the new revelations that agents are paying college players under the table? It is easy to answer yes to all these questions now, but in the long run, these issues will corrupt the sports we enjoy.