The test came just two months after North Korea angered international powers over a successful ballistic missile launch that landed a weather satellite into orbit and sparked even more United Nations sanctions on the self-proclaimed “self-reliant” state.

The U.N. Security Council denounced the test and is planning future sanctions, but their actions will continue to be in vain unless all of the Security Council’s member states can uniformly sanction North Korea, isolating it from international aid until it ceases nuclear programs.

The problem is that, though most of the world’s powers are allied in efforts to ostracize the DPRK and its antics, China has continued an economic relationship with Pyongyang, despite the fact that it has voted in favor of implementing the last three sanctions. Any international trade with North Korea strengthens Kim Jong-un’s regime and his desperation for making a name for himself — not the impoverished North Korean population that has an abysmal GDP of $40 billion as of 2011, according to the CIA World Factbook.

North Korea has made it abundantly clear that sanctions, embargoes or any other international actions will not deter its plans of developing weapons of mass destruction.

Even after the missile launch in December, the DPRK boasted their actions were posed to create a nuclear warhead capable of traveling as far as the U.S.

When a government as oppressive and ill-advised as North Korea continually ignores international stability the way it has since the end of the Korean War, there needs to be serious and relentless pressure placed on it until it complies.

Ignoring the severity of the DPRK’s persistence toward nuclear weapons by only suggesting U.N. sanctions that it continues to ignore is shameful.

Though nobody wants the events of the Korean War to be repeated, the ineffectiveness of U.N. sanctions needs to be considered when thinking about future plans regarding North Korea.

If China is unwilling to participate in implementing the sanctions, perhaps it is worthy of consideration to implement sanctions upon bystander, but enabling, nations.

While there are many important issues that face this country, I was pleased that the president brought up manufacturing. He said that Washington must “guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is made in America.” With the Republicans reeling and looking to find support, Obama must strike a bipartisan agreement on the fiscal issues facing this country. Now is the time for Congress to finally make America a “magnet for jobs and manufacturing.”

Though there have been signs of erosion, the American manufacturing industry is still one of the largest in the world. A Jan. 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that America’s share of global manufacturing activity has decreased in recent years. China’s manufacturing sector is almost as large as in the United States, valued at $1.814 trillion and $1.756 trillion respectively. In Dec. 2012, the manufacturing sector made modest gains in manufacturing activity and factory hiring.

One of the common arguments related to manufacturing thrown around recently is that American companies are outsourcing jobs to other countries because their labor laws allow manufacturing operations to be more profitable. However, this is not as big of an issue as most Americans think it is. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics has found, the effect of outsourcing has been minimal. In the third quarter of 2012, when more than 100,000 workers were laid off, firms told BLS that less than 1 percent of these workers had their jobs moved to another country.

An article from The Atlantic reported that American companies are seeing the economic benefits of keeping jobs in America and have, in fact, started to “insource” jobs. China’s Foxconn, the Chinese manufacturing giant, is actually planning on increasing their operations in the United States. American companies are realizing the benefits of keeping jobs in the U.S., which will limit the effect that outsourcing will have on the economy.

On the other hand, what’s preventing companies from producing in the United States is the attractiveness of production in other countries. Part of the issue is that the value of the dollar made producing goods in the United States less attractive than other countries with cheaper labor and production costs and lower marginal tax rates. If America wants to become more competitive in this regard, the federal government must be willing to create a plan that provides subsidies and “lowers tax rates for businesses and manufactures that (will) create jobs right here in America.” This would help reduce the costs of production in the U.S., which would make companies more willing to attract new jobs without having to reduce workers’ salaries.

One point that President Obama has been stressing is that increasing our focus on alternative energy will make America a stronger manufacturing country. According the Department of Energy, in Aug. 2012 the wind sector was employing “75,000 American workers, including workers at manufacturing facilities up and down the supply chain, as well as engineers and construction workers who build and operate the wind farms.” People are now feeling the benefits of alternative energy manufacturing. On top of providing jobs, it will help Americans save money on energy consumption. This is the direction the manufacturing sector is going. If we fail to recognize the importance of alternative energy, America will fall behind.

Manufacturing is what has driven America over the past century. If we plan to give up on manufacturing, we are throwing the future of this country away. But words can only go so far. This plan will not completely revive the American car industry or the steel industry. While it’s not complete, President Obama’s plan will make American manufacturing industry more competitive that it is today so that we can be authors of the next great chapter in our American story.

The relationship between the press and the armed forces has not always been as close as today’s. After journalists relayed overtly negative stories to the American public during the Vietnam War, the military increasingly distanced itself from the media. Even as late as the Persian Gulf War, journalists were strictly managed and generally kept separate from American servicemen and women. This policy changed during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when the U.S. Department of Defense allowed 600 journalists to embed with the troops.

The intimacy provided certain advantages. On the one hand, the military was reported in a more favorable light, since journalists wrote about men and women they knew and interacted with on a daily basis. On the other, reporters received detailed knowledge and information about their subjects, and the public became better informed. Embedded journalists received an added benefit: protection. Of the 150 media workers killed on the job in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, only 26 were not Iraqis. Essentially all foreign journalists employ security — for those embedded, this safety is free and guaranteed.

The close relationship, however, has several disadvantages. First, the media may be granted too much access to the military, depending on your views regarding freedom of information. Nonetheless, it is true, despite our opinion on the legitimacy of this freedom and whether it pertains to all state information (as Julian Assange and his followers would believe), the media may reveal information that is clearly not in the interest of the military.  The 2010 Rolling Stone interview with General Stanley McChrystal, for instance, revealed serious personal divides within the defense organization. As a result of his public comments, General McChrystal was relieved of his command, and soon after the incident then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued a memo to officials urging caution in interactions with the media.

Second, when journalists act closely with troops, they tend to exhibit bias in favor of the military. (A notable counterexample to this trend is the behavior of the media during the Vietnam War, when journalists were biased against the American military.) From the two World Wars to Iraq, the closer reporters are to soldiers, the more agreeable the relationship. While the journalist-soldier embrace may be beneficial to the armed forces, it deprives the public of a truly accurate picture of the situation on the ground.

It is dubious to assert any piece written in a war zone, however, would be impartial, yet the information embedded journalists glean is unsurpassed. Biased reporting is not necessarily an evil. Neutrality is certainly valuable, but writers and reporters should also be able to convey their perspectives. Doing so provides a more accurate picture of their experiences. If we accept the premise of biased reporting though, it is important we recognize it when we read it — something the public may not do. The problem is bias is often reported and interpreted as fact, so we believe we gain a neutral standpoint on a topic when the opposite is true.

Attempting to destroy media bias is neither realistic nor appropriate. Instead of trying to change how journalists tell their stories, we should recognize that although there are certainly many pieces with a pro-military bent, there are also reports with opposing viewpoints. We should train ourselves to more accurately identify this partiality, and in doing so pro-military media bias would become simply another perspective from which we read the news.

Why does this matter? Why does it matter that a Pope whose most notable steps have been the further alienation of an already alienated, archaic religion is stepping down? Indeed, when all is said and done, I do believe Pope Benedict’s most notable action in his eight year Papal tenure will be his termination of that tenure. That statement’s meant as a backhanded slap, to be sure, but also as a serious critique of a man who, among other things, ignored increasing cries to allow women into the priesthood, accept gay Catholics into the church, and unite more closely and harmoniously with other world religions. Given these actions, I believe Benedict XVI will go down as a weak Pope. However, this does not mean, unfortunately, that I hold any great hope for Benedict’s successor.

The antiquated and immovable moral foundations of the Catholic Church — and all world religions for that matter — are increasingly at odds with the largely secular moral framework of our country. An example of this would be the great strides our country has taken in the areas of gay rights and gender equality, the biggest obstacles to which have come from organized religion, both in the Catholic Church and various fundamentalist Protestant sects.

The heyday of Catholicism, and of Christian religion in America, is dwindling. Polls and statistics show that increasingly younger generations are abandoning the religions in which they were raised. If they are anything like me, they are doing this not as a matter of theological objection or a rejection of the sense of community the church provides, but from an awareness of the ever-widening gap between their own ideals and the Church’s. Catholicism’s failure to adapt and solve — or at the very least hear out — issues concerning gay rights, contraception and gender equality may be winning them points with the older, conservative generations. But these are not the people the Catholic Church must win over if it wishes to survive in the U.S. and globally. The church must win a young following, and to do this they will likely have to do something very difficult for an organization founded on the teachings of historical figures: They will have to look to uncharted territory.

I write this column not as a militant atheist. I was raised Catholic and am no longer. I have doubts, certainly, about the absolute guarantee of a greater power beyond that which I can see and hear myself, just as I have doubts about most things that are told to me in black and white and with absolute conviction. I am, however, open to the possibility of a God. Heck, I may even want one. If I am to become a religious adherent in my adult life, however, the Church is going to have to meet me half way. They are also going to have to admit, hard as it may be for them, that there are some things they are not sure about, theologically, morally and socially. As it stands now, the Church equates all uncertainty with weakness, and anything less than iron conviction with fallacy. This may have worked for our parents’ generation, serving a rock on which to lean, but we are the generation of uncertainty, and we do not mind if our leaders show themselves to be human.

I mentioned before that I hold no great hope for the next Pope. Indeed, I am a cynic, and it may be hard to fully please me unless the next Pope is Barack Obama. I am aware, and not entirely pleased, that the next Pope will be someone who has spent his entire life in abbeys, churches and monasteries, doing work which though morally sound is hardly connected with most people or issues of today. But supposing I can accept this, may I ask in return for a religion that accepts — or at least acknowledges — the social values I have clearly chosen in my own personal life? Why must I choose between being a Catholic and being a Liberal? I shouldn’t have to, and nobody should have to choose between practicing their religion and practicing anything else they damn well want.

Young people are on the verge of abandoning this God advertised as infinitely accepting and loving, all because his representatives on Earth are not infinitely accepting and loving enough. The Church is no longer needed as a moral framework on how to live our lives. For that we are doing just fine on our own. What it can provide is a sense of community, a sense of shelter and warmth for those who have otherwise been cast out, rather than a barrier against those same people. After all, Jesus’ earliest followers included prostitutes and street thugs, beggars and outlaws. Perhaps the Catholic Church needs to look no further than this for its lesson in diversity.

The next Pope best understand all of this. He best understand the superfluous nature of God in our modern society, best know the thin ice that he walks on and the fog which surrounds him. Then, and only then, can he make his light shine through.

Al-Awlaki’s death isn’t necessarily a truly senseless one — even if he is technically an American. What is senseless, however, is the refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge the occurrence and sweep it under the rug.

Al-Qaida is an organization responsible for the death of thousands of Americans as well as our current involvement in the Middle East. Few would criticize the loss of one of its top agents. But what many could, and should criticize, is the silence from the president on the situation.

The Obama administration’s continued silence on the issue screams hypocrisy, considering he, as well as other democrats, slammed Mitt Romney all throughout the election for not opening up or being transparent enough in foreign policy.

Every head of state has secrets. That’s an obvious component of the job. Classified files, inherently, don’t get released to the public and, as private people, we are not privy to certain conversations. That’s fine. What isn’t fine is the secrecy running rampant in Obama’s administration at the present time.

More specifically, the administration refused to release a summary of arguments about why the executive branch is within its power to order a killing of an American citizen without any other form of approval. This summary was unclassified but eventually discovered and published by NBC News. As Americans, we are affected by the government’s haziness on arguments especially during war times.

Let’s avoid the argument that Obama could order any of our deaths on the fly, and we still have stake in the issue. Why does a president, or one specific branch, get to make such a decision without the approval of the other branches? Checks and balances are in place for a reason, and bypassing them opens up a can of worms disastrous for everyone — especially the American people.

The circumstances surrounding the summary is reminiscent of the Pentagon Papers save for one key detail. Unlike the Pentagon Papers, this summary was an unclassified file. No enormous breach of American security should be expected thanks to the release. What comes as a result of the leak is a better understanding of who our president truly is.

Obama has proven himself a successful candidate after being re-elected following an economic recession. We put our faith in him as our leader, but that can quickly change if his actions

continue to be so secretive and surreptitious.

The president blasted Romney for behaving in that specific manner, yet it seems Obama behaves similarly. Why should the American people put stock in a leader who not only follows a “do as I say, not as I do” policy on leadership, but is also unwilling to be transparent to the public he serves? Our last president, who we blindly trusted, sent us on a wild goose chase for weapons of mass destruction, gave us illegal wiretapping and indefinite detention. One would hope we learned from our mistakes.

Although Obama has proven that he can be trusted, these recent instances of secrecy and deception cannot. Transparency was one of the best points of Obama. Sadly, it seems things have begun to shift. The American people cannot allow that to happen. Accountability in our president is a must.

We cannot condone the acts of a head of state who puts his branch in absolute power. And we cannot condone the actions of a president who does not hold up to the expectations he sets for the opposition.

Carson, a neurosurgeon at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, took the stage Thursday morning with a speech that critiqued the tax system, Obamacare and political correctness — all while referencing Jesus. It was beautiful and it made me wish C-SPAN was a more watched channel.

While Carson’s speech began innocent enough, quoting verses from the Bible such as “‘With his mouth the Godless destroys his neighbor, but through knowledge the righteous escapes,’” the rest of the speech drifted far from anything Obama expected.

Carson first ripped apart the entire idea of political correctness (thank the Lord — wait am I allowed to say that, or will too many people be offended?). He condemned it as something that “muffles” American citizens. Needless to say, his speech certainly was not deterred by any such muzzle — though I’m sure Obama would have appreciated that.

On the subject of taxes, Carson made not only his case plain and simple but also plan plain and simple.

“When I pick up my Bible” he said, “I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and He’s given us a system. It’s called tithe.”

For non-religious folk out there, tithing is the act of giving God 10 percent of your income through the means of the church. Wealthy Christians don’t give more than poor Christians. It’s always 10 percent.

Basically what Carson suggests is all Americans, no matter their income, give the same percentage of their income in taxes, just as all Christians give 10 percent to the church. Honestly, if it’s good enough for God, surely it should be good enough for the government.

Now I — nor Carson I’m sure — am not implying that everyone’s Christian or everyone in the government should do it this way because the Bible says so. That would be silly and infringe upon separation of church and state. The government should do it the way Carson describes because it just bloody makes more sense for all Americans to have to give the same percentage.

Carson then went on to mention Obamacare, despite being two seats away from Obama himself. I don’t pretend to understand all the mechanics of the healthcare policy he suggested, but the word “efficient” was used: a word that is disturbingly lacking from the vocabulary of our policymakers.

Carson suggested that a citizen should have a “health savings account to which money can be attributed pre-tax from the time you’re born until the time you die. When you die you can pass it on to your family members so that when you’re 85 years old and you’ve got six diseases, you’re not trying to spend up everything, you’re happy to pass it on and there’s nobody talking about death panels.”

After that statement, Obama switched his attention to the ground.

The idea of being able to pass on your healthcare to loved ones especially makes Carson’s plan stand out. Especially in a world in which little is legally allowed to pass on from parent to child — our own iTunes libraries don’t even actually belong to us (sorry future daughter, I guess my hardy collecting of Taylor Swift songs has been in vain). If I can give whatever amount of healthcare money I failed to use to my children, that will almost make up for them missing out on hours upon hours of Taylor Swift enjoyment.

Although it was obvious how uncomfortable Obama was throughout the speech, Carson still managed to be one of the few to stand up and speak out about the government’s inefficiency — an action other citizens would do well to follow.

Carson embodies everything that’s needed in a leader. Not only did he point out problems with the government, but he also offered common sense solutions, the latter of which many politicians seem to be lacking lately. Maybe we need a change from politicians in the White House. Maybe it’s time for just an average Joe, or even a neurosurgeon to lead our country in the right direction (no pun intended).

I’d like to hope that before the country’s next presidential election, our current president would learn from Carson. I’d like to hope Obama will take all the wonderful points from Carson’s speech and try to incorporate a few into his own plans, or even for Vice President Joe Biden to have taken something to heart.

Then again, I’m also hopeful that reporters will start being fair and balanced — so I shouldn’t hold my breath.

Just ask the United States Congress how much they know about that. I’ve learned a lot from them about disagreement and not working with others. U.S. history teaches us this country was built on compromise, a system of give-and-take and, above all, an underlying mutual respect for the person sitting next to you. The idea was that if our representatives worked together, the country would work better.

But you know what’s a great example of our country’s compromising values? The $1.3 billion that lawmakers cost the U.S. government while they were holding the debt ceiling hostage in 2011. The threat of a potential debt downgrade nearly blasted another hole in our already-precarious economic system. The $1.3 billion was the minimum loss estimate. But what’s ironic is they did it all over again on the fiscal cliff.

A message to Congress: The next time there’s another chance to have an incredibly vacuous argument about whether or not to move the country forward, please remember how much money it costs to bicker.

But Congress certainly wasn’t the only one teaching class in recent years. My man Mitt Romney sure gave his fair share of classroom lectures. I learned from Romney that changing your opinions to please people is a good way to try to get ahead in the world. I learned that if you work towards avoiding peoples’ concerns, rich folks will give you lots of money to keep doing it. But most importantly, I learned that caring 47 percent about anything gets you nowhere — sorry Mitt.

I mock what I watched this November, but it’s not with pleasure that I do so. I love this country and I find it disheartening that the 2012 presidential election reminded me more of a censored Jerry Springer episode than a contest between great men of great intent and aspiration. President Obama lost the first debate not because Romney had any content to his argument, but because Obama underestimated Romney’s capacity for obfuscation and his determination to reposition himself — yet again — to suit the mood of the general electorate.

It’s sad that we live in a time in which people are so uninformed and uninterested in working towards a common good and that politics is now a form of entertainment — or blood sport — instead of the respected form of civil service that produced great men and women in our history. How can it be that we claim to be the descendants of the “Greatest Generation,” a group of people whose great strength lay in their understanding that, at times, individual sacrifice and compromise are necessary in order for everyone to be better off?

Two months ago, a gunman in Connecticut mowed down 27 people: 20 small children, six teachers and his mother. This happened three days after a gunman shot up a mall in Oregon and in the same year as fatal mass shootings in Minneapolis, Tulsa, a Sikh temple, the midnight showing of a movie, a coffee bar in Seattle and a Halloween party on a college campus. Twenty-seven, two, six, three, six, 12, six, two. That’s a body count of 64. It’s time to ask again: How do we work together?

It’s time that our political system answer that question and learn to live within the times — not expect the times to live with them.

Our age is being reshaped by mass communication and mass communication is where change will begin. I loved that after every presidential debate, Facebook turned into a political forum for ideas and opinions on the candidates’ performances. That shows me there is hope, that people are interested. All of you who put up statuses that told me to keep my politics to myself can get lost. We need discussion.

That’s how we will begin to make a difference.

Next time you read about something you think ought to be recognized and changed, I want to hear about it. My friend at Northwestern University wants to hear about it. The Herald wants to hear about it. Chances are, people you never would expect to care want to hear about it.

In the end, it’s simple. Whether or not we solve the issues of our time will be the ultimate reflection of whether or not we can learn to work together — you, me, our congressmen, our professors, the deans, our new president — we is all of us.

The U.S. Postal Service wishes to move to a five-day-mail-delivery schedule to cut nearly $2 billion in losses. The end to the Saturday service is proposed for August.

Packages would still be delivered six days a week, but letters, bills and junk mail that we receive on the weekend will be pushed back to the following week.

The slimming down of the U.S. Postal Service has been inevitable for quite sometime. With the rise of the Internet, email and smartphones, sending messages through the mail has become the slowest form of communication and the most expensive. That is even with stamps costing 46 cents each.

The U.S. Postal Service is funded by the government. The government, with trillions of dollars of debt, needs to make cuts somewhere. The Saturday U.S. Postal Service could be one of those cuts.

The editorial board for the Daily 49er agrees that it is a necessary evil to cut Saturday delivery.

We all occasionally use the U.S. Postal Service to mail letters to family or friends, receive the arts and crafts we buy on Etsy or pay our bills. However, eliminating Saturday service will not have a great effect on our lives. We will just have to plan accordingly so we can make sure our mail arrives on time.

The fact of the matter is that by closing the Saturday mail delivery, the U.S. Postal Service saves a lot of money. By cutting Saturday service, this hopefully means the U.S. Postal Service will not have to cut as many jobs. Yes, there will be one less day available for mailmen and mailwomen to work, but at least more will be able to keep their routes during the week.

As for the rest of us, we will have to resort to emailing each other on Saturdays — but that’s not too much of a stretch. We email each other on a daily basis as it is.

It is interesting, though, to wonder if canceling the Saturday service could start a trend.

Technology is gradually changing the way we live our lives.

There could be a time when the U.S. Postal Service delivery is entirely canceled. As the mail system becomes more and more irrelevant, this is not a far-off possibility. This could become a reality as we find better and more efficient means of communicating with each other.

A capital gains tax is a special tax paid on, unsurprisingly, gains from capital investment. The problem, however, stems from the fact that under the current tax code, people who make their money through the management of capital, instead of through its investment, are also taxed at the flat capital gains tax rate of 15%, rather than through the progressive income tax. While this may seem like semantic quibbling more suited for an accountant’s office than the Oval, this policy leads to significant losses in government revenue.

The problem arises from the difficulty in defining the income of capital managers. Hedge fund and private equity managers, including venture capitalists, are compensated based partly on a management fee (usually between two percent and three percent of fund size) as well as a performance-based fee (usually around 20 percent of the gains from investment.) The argument in favor of the existing policy goes as follows: since fund managers are paid based at least partly on the performance of their funds, their earnings represent capital gains and should be taxed as such. The logic behind the capital gains tax being lower than all but two of the marginal income tax rates (historically 15 percent, though raised to 20 percent in the January 2013 fiscal cliff compromise) is that the money invested was initially taxed as someone’s income, and it would be unfair to tax that income twice at the same rate. While this argument holds water for wage-earning Americans who choose to invest the fruits of their labor, it does not for those fund managers whose primary income is from capital gains. While fund managers’ income may be performance-based (and in that no different from salesmen who work on commission), it is no more capital gains than any other form of income. Working to maximize others’ capital gains is not capital gains itself.

In the context of our current political budget mania, it is strange that such an obvious loophole should exist, let alone go largely unacknowledged. A quick look at the campaign contributions made to various members of congressional leadership, however, quickly makes the reason plain. Key leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle are major recipients of hedge fund money. Both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) count Paulson & Co, one of the most successful funds in the United States, among their top five largest donors. Paulson & Co is also the single largest donor to Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Securities and investment firms number among the top donors by industry for every single member of the 112^th Congress’ leadership.

While it probably comes as no surprise that politicians have a vested financial stake in policies that favor the titans of finance, this breach of fiscal logic has gone unaddressed for far too long. Even in the most recent presidential election, so dominated by debates over the relative tax policies of the two candidates, neither seriously mentioned reforming the government’s definition of capital gains.

This shortcoming in Congress’ examination of the capital gains prevents lawmakers from utilizing a significant tool for deficit reduction. Even if only the 25 most successful hedge fund managers were taxed according to the system of progressive income tax, the government could raise millions of dollars of lost tax revenue from the so-called “one percent.” As the congressional battle over budget austerity rages on, the time has come for Americans to push leading politicians to address this tax oversight, even if in doing so they must bite the hand that feeds them.

The issue of cybersecurity came to the forefront of national discourse last Wednesday, when The New York Times revealed that they had fallen victim to a four-month-long network security breach that was reported to have originated in China. The initial breach occurred around Oct. 25, 2012, the publication date of an article reporting on the family of the country’s prime minister. This disturbing news was followed by revelations that The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and The Washington Post experienced similar issues within their own networks.

The fact that unfriendly powers are carrying out such breaches against institutions of free speech is unsettling enough, but the threats extend beyond mere invasions of privacy. Large attacks were leveled in September against the online systems of JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank and PNC Bank, resulting in at least daylong denials of service.

Such attacks indicate that much more is at stake, with some especially problematic areas being not only economic institutions and tech firms but also power grids for nuclear power plants and water purification systems. “Nation-state attackers will target critical infrastructure networks such as power grids at an unprecedented scale in 2013  . . . These types of attacks could grow more sophisticated, and the slippery slope could lead to the loss of human life,” said Chiranjeev Bordoloi, CEO of security company Top Patch.

According to a CNN interview with James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, at least 12 of the world’s largest military powers are working to construct complicated cyberwarfare systems.

It would be no stretch to say that the United States has the most to lose at the hands of these powers if our government continues to put cybersecurity on the backburner.

Though the media’s constant bombardment of the public with images of war-ravaged Afghanistan would suggest otherwise, the events in a remote desert nation do not necessarily pose a greater threat to national security than seemingly less dangerous cyberattacks. The recent infiltrations should remind our legislators of this and prompt them to not only engage in serious discussion with other nations such as China, but also quickly pass legislation that would re-allocate substantial defense resources to building a stronger cyberdefense system.

Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) spoke to the immediacy of the situation in an interview with Politico: “Foreign cyberattackers are targeting every aspect of the American economy every day and Congress needs to act with urgency to protect our national security and our economy,” he said.

With the defense budget and looming sequestration cuts up for debate, Congress needs to take advantage of an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. Instead of continuing partisan bickering on troop withdrawals and timetables, lawmakers must work to pass serious legislation that will provide the tools necessary to combat lurking cyberthreats.

Attacks on public utilities and power plants can create not only inconvenient but dangerous situations for everyday Americans, and the crash of a bank’s computer system can wreak economic havoc. In addition, some of the nation’s most sensitive intelligence information could be discretely collected and used against us in unexpected attacks.

Aggression in cyberspace is unfortunately a product of our times, truly illustrating both the magic and terror that modern technology can bring. As such, our leaders must act so that we are prepared for whatever comes our way. Technological capacities will only continue to grow as time passes, and as nations unfriendly to the United States develop economically and politically, the possibility of more serious attacks will only increase. Constructing a stronger defense in U.S. cyberspace is of paramount importance, and waiting longer could only harm the nation — the time for action is now.

At the outset of his first term, an overcautious Obama squandered considerable political capital on tepid stimulus and healthcare bills due to a baffling inability to command the bully pulpit.  Mired in the minefields of increasingly radicalized Republican obstinacy, the administration’s myriad concessions and omissions rightly disheartened the president’s supporters.

To the glee of many of his supporters, the president delivered a full-throated defense of the social safety net, declaring that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security “do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”

Jabbing at climate change deniers, Obama asserted, “some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

The first president to ever use the word gay in an inaugural address, Obama most poignantly underscored the motif of equal rights for all people by grouping Seneca Falls and Selma with Stonewall, succinctly linking the women’s rights, civil rights, and gay rights movements.

The recent inaugural address revealed a bolder, more bellicose president who, no longer fearful of re-election, eschewed the traditional highfalutin, hollow rhetoric of inaugural addresses for an unapologetic liberal agenda. It was an eloquent rethinking of the American Dream through the progressive collective action embodied in the address’s refrain: “We the people.”

And the speech contained many points that Republicans ought to rally behind rather than impulsively dismiss as an unnatural return to liberalism, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did. Obama channeled the quintessentially American ideal of self-reliance in articulating skepticism towards government as panacea, a call for tax code reform, and a warning to reduce the size of the deficit.

Seeing that the House of Representatives remains under intransigent Republican control, it’s unlikely that the president’s emboldened rhetoric can affect actual change on the policy front. But Obama has begun his second term in the right tone: one that is a marked departure from the seemingly weak-willed tone of the first term’s negotiator.

But while the administration is in the throes of renovation, I cannot help but feel uneasy about the president’s identity (and not in the nonsensical birtherist way). After four years of pessimism with the way the president has authorized the National Defense Authorization Act and drone strikes and expanded the police state, I must ask—who is Barack Obama?

He’s certainly not the liberal messiah that the 2008 campaign hailed him as. There’s a striking cognitive dissonance between candidate Obama and his actions as president. This is evident when one looks at his administration’s continuation and bolstering of controversial Bush-era practices like warrantless wiretapping, kill lists that sanction the extrajudicial killings of American citizens abroad, increased reliance on drone strikes in Pakistan employing questionable tactics like double taps (follow-up strikes that target first responders) and signature strikes (unidentified victims fitting a certain description are counted as combatants). All liberals should be vehemently opposed to these policies, perpetrated by a one-time constitutional law professor, which so flagrantly infringe the Bill of Rights. The chorus of opposition to President Bush has sadly fallen silent.

One might try to prove him faithful to his campaign pledges by pointing to his first term “achievements.” But many of these were watered down to the point of irrelevance by a dysfunctional Congress, including the healthcare law, the rescue of the financial and auto sectors, and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Perhaps the question of Obama’s political identity is best answered by the man himself: “The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican,” the president said in an interview. It’s certainly true when one recalls that Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan increased the debt ceiling 18 times, and the individual mandate central to the Affordable Care Act was an idea promoted by the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank.

I worry about possible Democratic complacency as the Republican Party demagogues itself into obsolescence. Citizens should not embrace the false dichotomy of Democrat and Republican—the imprimatur of a self-identifying liberal president should not allow his controversial actions to go unchecked and unchallenged. The president and the establishment Democratic Party have drifted so far to the right that too many political debates are between center-right and far-right positions, leaving the center vulnerable.

As Yeats cautioned, when “the center cannot hold, things fall apart.”

The deaths of these men — and thousands of other al-Qaida affiliates — should be commended for doing so without putting more American troops in harm’s way.

However, the practice of drone strikes becomes controversial when the target is an American citizen.

On Sept. 30, 2011 American-born Anwar al-Awlaki was traveling with Pakistani-born American citizen Samir Kahn in Yemen when they were both killed by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft. Both men were high-ranking al-Qaida leaders and there was significant evidence they were planning to launch attacks against Americans.

The question is whether it is lawful and ethical to kill American citizens abroad, ignoring their constitutional rights to due process — even if they are affiliated with al-Qaida. A bigger question lingers as to how much power the executive branch has to overstep the judicial system in claiming that a suspect should be a part of this special rule — a rule that until recently was confidential in its definition and description.

America has been using drone technology for surveillance purposes since the 1960s, but has only been using them for air strikes for less than 13 years. Due to the immature nature of the technology, there are few military guidelines that precede over this kind of warfare.

The only documentation available from the Justice Department regarding drone strikes is a 16-page paper uncovered by MSNBC’s Michael Isikoff that only briefly describes the justification of such attacks.

Though the paper is not an official memorandum, it works as a legal representation of the classified documents that were reportedly distributed to the president and the executive branch agencies from the Justice Department’s legal council.

The justifications of drone strikes, the way they have been presented in the paper, leaves the legality of overruling an American citizen’s rights up to interpretation by the executive branch alone. Because the executive branch has the obligation to ensure national security, it can act on any threat without the oversight of other branches of the government.

America’s war on terror will never be free of controversy and hardship. The men killed by drone strikes were men who were determined to cause as much pain to Americans as they could, many men fighting these forces died in the process.

Unmanned drones allow the military to engage terrorists without the necessity having troops on the ground.

However ambiguous the current framework is, the president and the Executive Branch have the obligation to protect us from any threat both foreign and domestic. We should trust they will continue to work in the best interest of national security in fighting al-Qaida through any means necessary.

But they don’t realize that the drug can be highly addictive, and that side effects can include serious psychological risks.

Saturday, The New York Times published the story of Richard Fee, the athletic and personable college class president and aspiring medical student from North Carolina who committed suicide (in 2009) after his Adderall prescription ran out. Fee had become addicted to the drug, unable to operate without it.

His untimely death highlights what the Times deemed the widespread failings in the system through which five million Americans take medication for A.D.H.D. It has become too easy for individuals “lacking concentration” to obtain a prescription for focus-enhancing drugs when, in actuality, they do not require them. The Times reported that doctors “tend to skip established diagnostic procedures, renew prescriptions reflexively and spend too little time with patients to accurately monitor side effects.” As a result, nearly 14 million monthly prescriptions for the condition were written for Americans ages 20 to 39 in 2011, which, according to the Times, is two and a half times the 5.6 million just four years before.

The numbers should be a signal that the drug has become too easy to obtain.

But it should be noted, also, that if people seeking Adderall have no desire to visit the doctor and take the all-too-easy exam, they can purchase the pills from their friends. It’s estimated that between eight and 35 percent of college students take stimulant pills to enhance school performance, according to the Times. On college campuses where the demand to focus is ever-rampant, pill-swapping is nonchalant, prevalent, and consequently hard to control.

It’s true that Adderall greatly helps in increasing levels of productivity. And it does what it’s intended to do: it can markedly improve the lives of children and others with the disorder it’s designed to treat. But for those without real A.D.H.D. — for those who suffer what everyone suffers: difficulty sitting in one place for too long, with one long paper, and one cup of coffee, for example — it is possible, as we see with the case of Fee, for an attachment to the drug to have catastrophic results.

True, Fee is a tragic and hopefully singular case. Most students who experiment with Adderall are unlikely to over-abuse it, and will hopefully shake the habit by the time their demanding studies are over. But the fact that doctors are loosely prescribing a drug that can have dangerous side effects is worrisome. Fee claimed that his doctor “wouldn’t prescribe [him] something that isn’t safe,” according to the Times. Doctors must realize that patients who “lack concentration” do not necessarily need medication — they might just have to turn off their iPhones and log off of BuzzFeed.

It’s important that people become aware of the dangers of taking stimulant drugs so that they can learn to be careful when using them. Hopefully, they will avoid the dangers by steering clear of the drug entirely. We all have difficulty concentrating; to be naturally high-functioning has always required effort. Making drugs do our work for us is an unhealthy habit.

The Congressional deal that averted our going off the “fiscal cliff” at the beginning of the year did not, unfortunately, solve the problems of pending spending cuts and revenue shortfalls. The language of the bill merely forestalled the date by which Congress must act to prevent government spending cuts that economic analysts and the White House say “would have a devastating impact on important defense and nondefense programs.” Now the spending cuts begin soon, on Friday, March 1.

This situation requires action.

The possibilities are as numerous as the number of perspectives on governmental actions. My own preference is action that passes a budget for a whole fiscal year instead of continuing resolutions that postpone thought and decision, lower spending to arrest the development of a huge class of Americans who depend in some way on the government, and increases payments toward reducing the national debt.

But anything is preferable to nothing.

Procrastination is one of the great ills of society. Ask any student, and he or she probably will tell you that parents and teachers have admonished him since a young age against doing tomorrow what could be done today.

There are a few legitimate reasons for procrastination. The innumerable tasks before us require some prioritization; it would be improper of us to consider and resolve a small annoyance before dealing with a problem that threatens our way of life. By nearly all accounts, failing to stop the sequestration of federal spending presents the latter kind of task. It is the lesser, not the greater, problems that should be procrastinate or put off, and we should do so for the sake of addressing the larger ones.

There is a word for failing to address until the latest possible moments such a “fiscal cliff” as we face: lazy. The members of Congress, if they failed to do something to put our fiscal house in order, would be, in the words of a wise, sage man, “a bunch of bums.”

Inaction in this situation would be the opposite of productivity, industry, ambition and health. It contaminates public life with the feeling that the members of Congress can enact laws (as the Constitution says) “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” as it suits them, not the people for whom those laws are to be made. American citizens should not find themselves almost universally saying the same words sung by a character from the musical “Les Miserables”: “Where are the leaders of the land? / Where are the swells who run this show?”

In the absence of an established church, especially without one that uses a rigid hierarchy, such as Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism; in the absence of a nobility that holds certain legal privileges and exists in a feudal relationship with inferiors and superiors; in the absence of any social role-models apart from those that a person willfully adopts; the leaders of the United States are its politicians, especially the president and members of Congress. The only kind of social distinction that we all must recognize is the holding of public office. Every other kind of esteem or high regard that a person can receive from others is the choice of the giver. But everyone — even the people who did not vote for a victorious candidate — must admit that office holders are in some way special.

So why do they think they can get away with doing nothing? Even the most partisan of congressional districts (Republican and Democrat alike) elected their representatives to office so that they could do work. And yet, although members of Congress obviously postpone their confrontations with the biggest challenges the United States faces, we continue to pay their salaries and benefits.

In a complete reversal of a speech made by Winston Churchill — that “Never in the field of conflict was so much owed by so many to so few” — never have so few owed so much to so many.

As we gaze upon a tradition of heinous adherence to party rather than truly public service, all that we can do is hope that they rise to the occasion made for them by taking the oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Well, now you can get around the awkward wondering with a new app that notifies other friends if the two of you want to “bang.”

Here is the breakdown: A person installs the “Bang With Friends” app. That person clicks any friends they might want to sleep with. The friends they might want to sleep with will only be notified of the desire should that same friend also have clicked the desire to sleep with that person.

Long and the short is, people don’t have to worry about if the other person is going to feel awkward about their advances.

Now, there are some obvious problems with the whole plan, namely the whole friends having sex thing. Sex is already an awkward situation for some folks, and then, adding that to a friendship can quickly destroy the relationship.

Those worries aside, this app appears to be a marvelous bit of technological advancement for all those out there that are not afraid of “no strings” sex and see it as healthy.

Yes, the app goes against many religious teachings and some more traditional outlooks toward relationships and fornication, but those folks that dislike it won’t know about what does or does not go on as they will never be notified due to the way the program is set up.

A big fear with the program though is when those under 18 start using it as there are always ways around any age restrictions involved in using the app. But then, problems like that already exist when using Facebook anyways, and with time, the program should have a lot of those problems covered.

As of now, the app appears to be more centered around men and their desire to get down, which makes sense given men tend to be a bit more talkative about constant sexual desire. As the app matures, maybe it will come to encompass homosexuality and alter its marketing to target more than the Y chromosome or just heterosexuals.

There is also the possibility for someone to just click all of their friends as would-be partners just to see who is going to click them for some intimate times without actually having any intention of following through with it.

That could result in some serious embarrassment for those using the app. However, why would people want to have a friend who was enough of a jerk to do something of that sort? Maybe this app will finally help people to stop accepting every random person they meet as a “friend.”

Complaints about the death of personal communication will be stirred fully by this new way to circumvent actual in-real-life getting-to-know-you conversation. Those fears will be around as long as technology and the Internet continue to offer people new means to do things. So cast them aside. It isn’t as if this is any worse than spending hours in a bar trying to get enough liquid and regular courage together to hit on, with the likely intent of sleeping with, that certain someone.

It could be said the app is hardly different from dating sites currently available, and those people would be right. Really, all the app does is cut out some of the time people might spend cruising the “one night stand” preferences but with one big difference: The app cuts out most of the creepy folks that someone looking just for a hookup is bombarded by.

Yes, this app is likely going to be a headache for some women as they discover that almost every male friend they have wants to get in their pants, but a little honesty can go a long way.

Who knows, the app could finally begin to show some men out there that women are sexual creatures the same as men when guys realize the girls they are into had to be in the same mindset for the app to function. “By your powers combined, we are sexuality!”

Use of the app doesn’t even have to be for sex; it could just be so people know the attraction is there and, therefore, get the ball rolling for a date. Or it could eliminate the wonder of if a date should end with a nice handshake or a trip to the bedroom.

Maybe, just maybe, the app will allow some friends who never would otherwise have gotten up the nerve to express their healthy sexual desires to jump into the sack. Just having that release granted from sexual activity, or merely knowing that they are desired, could be a huge moral boost to a lot of people.

Obviously, this app isn’t for everyone, but for those who enjoy sex as a fun and health activity, it is something to look into.

In the immortal words of Rodney Dangerfield in his first film appearance, “Caddyshack:” “Hey everybody, we’re all gonna get laid!“

So what is the U.S. to do? Ideally, absolutely nothing.

If countries were celebrities, North Korea would be 2010 Charlie Sheen — dysfunctional, delusional and really interesting to follow. North Korea’s repressive communist government and its complete control of information more often finds itself the butt of jokes than in serious conversations, and rightly so.

The country is not sustainable. North Korea relies heavily on foreign food aid from several countries, including China, its closest ally, and for no good reason, the U.S.

Past negotiations for food and other forms of aid from the U.S. have worked as an extortion racket. North Korea promises to stop developing nuclear weapons and the U.S. gives aid as an incentive. Then, North Korea resumes developing nuclear weapons and the process starts over again. Extortion is usually the powerful extorting money from the weak, but thanks to leadership in Washington, North Korea is somehow extorting us.

The U.S. must realize North Korea is absolutely nonthreatening. If the U.S. could go toe to toe with the Soviet Union, a country with thousands of nuclear weapons, we shouldn’t be scared of a country that possesses maybe two.

There isn’t a reason to provide North Korea with aid, no reason what so ever. Giving aid to third world countries only helps legitimize oppressive governments. More often than not, dictators use food aid to control their people rather than to feed them.

However, North Korea is by no means wrong to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, given the ever-present involvement of the U.S. with countries without nuclear weapons, I’d say it’s a smart move. For the most part, countries with nuclear capabilities tend to be left free of unwanted U.S. military involvement. After seeing what happened to Iraq, it is only natural countries like Iran are looking to develop nuclear weapons.

The U.S. needs to respect North Korea’s sovereignty. It is a country’s right to develop weapons it feels are required to maintain sovereignty against foreign threats. At the same time, we need to stop sending aid, which only serves to legitimize Kim Jong-un’s tyrannical regime.

In other words, foreign policy is a lot better and cheaper when you just do nothing.

Purchasing textbooks is traditionally seen as a necessary college expense and can be a rite of passage for first-years taking their first courses. But students in this day and age have found other, sometimes illicit, approaches to obtaining textbooks. We do not condone the illegality of these methods, but we cannot deny their existence or their appeal to students.

Rather than spending money, students can receive textbooks from a friend, borrow them “long-term” from the library, download them from the Internet, purchase international editions of textbooks that are often cheaper or even choose not to buy them at all.

We do not specifically advocate any of these options, but they are certainly more sensible to the frugal college student. This begs the question: Should textbook companies adapt to remain relevant cornerstones of our educational experiences? Are they even capable of doing so?

We have nothing against textbooks in general. Many students find having a physical copy of the textbook to be much more conducive to studying, and for those students who are perfectly content with purchasing textbooks, feel free to stop reading at this point. But many students do look to economize, and it is common knowledge that other options exist, such as the ones outlined above.

After all, there are formal institutions that suggest knowledge is a public good that should be accessible to all who seek it. This is why websites such as Wikipedia have been so popular not just with students, but also with the general public.

In addition, the popularity of free courseware with several top institutions such as Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attest to the belief that the more people gain knowledge, the better. We hope the textbook industry can recognize the trend toward the de-commodification of education and take appropriate and drastic measures to stay relevant in these rapidly changing times.

We understand buying textbooks is sometimes completely necessary. Many classes require course packets that can only be bought through the bookstore, and it can be difficult to obtain that specific gender studies or post-modernist Bengali poetry book from a friend or online.

But simultaneously, we want to challenge the notion that buying textbooks is the only option or even the best option. In accordance with the now-prevalent principles of open, accessible knowledge, institutions and the general public alike have already fundamentally uprooted the tenets of education. While textbooks cannot be handed out for free, it is time for the textbook industry to seriously evaluate and adapt to compete with the new, worthy competitors that have risen in its previously monopolized market in education.

Like many teenagers, Emily fell victim to the pressures of adolescence and made a bad decision to consume drugs. But instead of suffering from a headache or increased appetite, Bauer suffered blood clots in her brain that led to severe brain damage.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and law enforcement are fighting a losing battle against marijuana that some states have already bowed out of. The introduction of synthetic cannabinoids, such as Spice and K2, only helps the argument that marijuana should be legalized by noting that the illicit drug has not proved to cause health risks.

Since the legal substances became popular over the last eight years, the federal government and the DEA have fought another losing battle to catch up with the drugs’ manufacturers in order to ban the specific compounds that make up the dangerous products.

The problem is that every time a sanction is put in place to make a specific strand of the synthetic cannabinoids illegal, the drug makers are able to produce a different strand that complies with current law that has even more unpredictable side effects.

When the government tried to make any product that can be used as synthetic drugs illegal, the manufacturers in turn just marketed the products as potpourri or incense and marked the packages to say that the product is not for human consumption.

Emily’s story is one of many stories of how synthetic narcotics have affected those who use it beyond the designed inebriation. It has come to a point where the illicit drugs are a healthier alternative to the synthetic drugs that were designed to emulate the same high as marijuana.

The only difference is the controversial legality of marijuana and society’s perception of it.

If marijuana were legalized then synthetic cannabinoids would be useless.

Despite marijuana’s illegal status, people will continue to consume drugs or alcohol to become intoxicated. Instead of fighting a legal battle with chemical distributors of synthetic weed, decriminalizing the organic substance that is less potent would serve well.

While studying at the University of Canberra, I worked part-time at a college pub near the school. Although this meant passing a bartending certification exam, it basically required knowing that alcohol poisoning is bad. Moreover, thanks to Australia’s obscenely high minimum wage, the job paid an impressive-sounding $23 an hour.

Because our dollar is currently worth less than Australia’s, this ended up being a fantastic salary when I got back to the US. It was considerably less remarkable, however, when I was actually in Australia.

Unfortunately, it turns out that doubling everyone’s wages doesn’t make everyone twice as rich, it just makes everything twice as expensive. Vending machines, for example, charge $4.50 per drink, and I couldn’t find a barbershop that charged less than $35 for a buzz cut.

I learned more about minimum wage laws while traveling around New South Wales. I met two young Germans who had come to Australia through an amazing program called WWOOF, or Worldwide Opportunities on Organic Farms. In exchange for helping out on a small farm, travelers who sign up with WWOOF can obtain free room and board all over the world and learn how to grow food in the process. However, because the work is unpaid, minimum wage advocates are less than thrilled about the idea and are working to shut the program down.

According to a May 7, 2011, Redding article, Allan Griggs, a California farmer who participates in the program, is now “forced to pay his WWOOFers the minimum wage of $8 an hour if they work more than four hours a day,” which “may make it economically impractical for him to use them in the future.” Minimum wage laws ostensibly exist to improve existing opportunities. When it comes to WWOOF, however, the laws are simply taking opportunities away.

If this sounds like the exception to the rule, consider that, according to the US Small Business Administration, “Small businesses employ about half of U.S. workers.” Like the Griggs family farm, these firms do not have secret pits of money that they delight in withholding from their employees. Whenever the minimum wage is increased, these businesses may simply have to employ fewer people, ironically leaving the most downtrodden workers jobless and thus worse off than they were before.

Unsurprisingly, there is a wealth of research linking minimum wage with unemployment. A 1981 National Bureau of Economic Research paper by Charles Brown et al. found that teenage employment reliably drops whenever the minimum wage is raised by a certain amount.

In January 2011, a joint study by economists from the universities of Pennsylvania and Chile titled “The Labor Impact of Minimum Wages” found that minimum wage increases have “a significant negative effect on the probability of staying employed.”

Conversely, the data that minimum wage advocates have to offer is less than compelling and, frankly, suspicious. A 2006 Show-Me Institute Paper by Dave Neumark says the study “cited most frequently by minimum wage advocates” is a 1994 phone survey of New Jersey restaurants by David Card and Alan Krueger. Sure enough, the Economic Policy Institute — a think tank on the frontlines of the minimum wage cause — has cited this “landmark New Jersey study” as recently as July 2012.

However, in 1996, a different think tank — the Employment Policy Institute — thought to obtain the actual payroll data from these restaurants. In a blistering 16-page paper titled “The Crippling Flaws in the New Jersey Fast Food Study,” it was found that Card and Krueger’s numbers bore “no relation to numbers drawn from the payroll records of the restaurants the New Jersey study claims to cover.” Tellingly, even the most credible minimum wage advocates have continued to recycle this discredited study for 16 years.

The repetition, apparently, isn’t working. Even the U.S. Department of Labor now seems to be aware of the damage these obstructive laws can do. According to the DOL website, exceptions to the minimum wage are now sometimes allowed for “workers with disabilities, full-time students” and “youth under age 20.”

If the minimum wage benefits the least productive workers, why on earth would those very workers seek to be exempt from it? Likewise, if raising the minimum wage helps the poor, why don’t we raise it by hundreds of dollars instead of a petty few?

The answer, of course, is that anyone who subjects these laws to common sense can see that they make none. The minimum wage exists only because it’s been imposed on us by utopians who cared more about whether the policy sounded nice than how it would actually work.

Out of all the complicated forms a student can expect to fill out, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, surely ranks among the most arduous of paper journeys upon which a student will have to embark. With the recent arrival in our AccessPlus personal messages, we have been reminded that the deadline to file a FAFSA looms dead ahead.

Within the next few weeks, we will all have to sit down with our parents (if dependent) or our lonely selves (if independent) and spend perhaps hours poring over financial documents. Although you may very well have suppressed the memory of such an event, try to recall its crux: that magic number called an Estimated Family Contribution (EFC). The linchpin of the FAFSA experience, colleges use the EFC “to calculate the amount of federal student aid you are eligible to receive.”

Although it allegedly measures “your family’s financial strength,” the EFC seems like an arbitrary number. If you have the courage to use a worksheet provided by the federal government to see how your EFC is calculated, prepare to be baffled with what looks like more arbitrary numbers and a set of forms even less comprehensible than an insurance policy, a credit card policy, a mortgage, or basically any bill that has gone through Congress in living memory.

The website of President Barack Obama’s White House states that Obama has “set a new goal for the country: that by 2020, America would once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” That site offers four general ideas to improve access to higher education: Help middle class families afford college, keep costs down, strengthen community colleges, and improve transparency and accountability.

Simplifying the paperwork associated with getting financial aid would probably help. The current forms are daunting to say the least, which, as we have learned from Democrats criticizing the idea that an ID to vote, limits access on its own.

And if you do manage to pass the great barrier form, you may find that your parents make “too much” money and that your EFC is too high to make you eligible for grants. In that regard, the FAFSA — and, therefore, the federal government — presume a familial relationship in which parents substantially contribute to their children’s college education. With high debts of their own in a slow economy, however, that presumption threatens the creation of a cyclical problem.

Expecting the current college age cohort’s parents to pay for much of their costs of attendance at college, when those parents cannot, means that students are only eligible for more loans. In a few decades, then, today’s college students will be parents who are unable to pay for their children’s education because they still have loans of their own.

At the end of the day, students must overturn every possible rock for potential scholarships. If the federal government is going to do anything to make college more affordable and accessible, perhaps the FAFSA should be simplified, the EFC made less arbitrary, and a nationwide index of scholarships put together. Uncle Sam taxes everyone, provides health insurance to millions of Americans, and takes a census every 10 years. Making a list of all the college scholarships offered in the United States can’t be that hard.

Hagel, a former republican U.S. senator from Nebraska, is a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran and a recipient of two Purple Hearts.

Hagel has mostly stayed conservative over his career in politics on issues ranging from abortion to school prayer and school vouchers. Be that as it may, his track record on foreign policy and defense is somewhat liberal.

Hagel called on his military experience on the Senate Foreign Relations committee in the late 1990s to support a treaty against land mines and accused the Bush administration of a “cavalier approach” to the rest of the world in the months leading up to the Iraq War.

The current Georgetown University professor has long been considered an isolationist in regard to foreign policy. In 2002, he wrote that the U.S. should be inspiring allies to work on “making a better world” as opposed to ruling by a sense of “divine mission,” particularly when accusing a country of having weapons of mass destruction without clear evidence — something Hagel was clearly skeptical of.

The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Thursday brought together a shameful narrow spectrum of ideas, and here’s why: With the plethora of unique opinions Hagel has held on various issues, the most overwhelming topic of discussion wasn’t his support of chemical weapons in 1997, nor was it his opposition to 2007 surge in Iraq. No, it was Israel.

Conservatives, such as Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and Republican Sen. John McCain, stamped Hagel as the biggest threat to Israel’s national security in ages, claiming he was soft on terrorism and a modest supporter of the Israel state. Democrats bombarded Hagel with questions, using the hearing as a time to exhibit their full-fledged support of Israel.

Hagel claimed that, above all, he was a U.S. Senator, not an Israeli senator. This, of course, is referring to the Hagel’s controversial opinion that the influential “Jewish lobby” intimidates lawmakers into supporting Israel’s foreign policy, even if it’s detrimental to U.S. interests.

Israeli lobbying has been a large part of American politics since the beginning of the 20th century. After all, Zionist lobbying in the U.S. aided in the creation of the State of Israel in 1947-48.

Our Middle East ally has received the most U.S. foreign assistance — mostly in the form of military aid — of any other country in the world: roughly $115 billion. This comprises only a small percentage of the U.S. budget every year, but when everything is on the chopping block — or supposed to be — it’s hard to look away from such a substantial cash flow.

Lobbying groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Christians United for Israel funnel millions of dollars into American campaigns each year. Organizations such as AIPAC and CUFI spend countless hours traveling to Congressional offices of both parties just before appropriations take place, keeping checks on those who are beginning to waver their support.

The consequence of lost support is a flood of donations to a candidate’s opponent in the next election. At a time when donations and special interest have clouded honorable campaign tactics, this has simply added fuel to the fire.

These claims simply define the background of Hagel’s argument and they don’t necessarily represent my opinions. However, Hagel does represent a new era of American defense — one that is beginning to represent our generation, one that is a bit more isolationist-friendly and one that begins to question our previous ties to other countries.

Because what’s the point of staying true to traditional conformity when it’s not questioned once in a while?

If Israel needs $2-3 billion of our tax money every year to comfortably defend our nation’s best interest, then so be it. Our mutual allegiance is an integral and strategically unique piece in the puzzle of world affairs.

If not, it may be beneficial to bring some back to those suffering within our own borders.

These soft drinks — the more than 650 products made by Coca-Cola — have become a part of the fabric of America. They are the drinks of our childhood, birthday parties, school lunches and sports games. However, these drinks and those who sell them are also slowly killing us.

American U. is a “Coke university.” Any beverage you purchase at AU is produced by, owned by and is a subsidiary of Coca-Cola. From the Eagle’s Nest to the vending machines to the Terrace Dining Room, AU supports the company behind the largest health crisis in the U.S.

Yet Coca-Cola is now urging Americans to come together to fight obesity. In a latest ad campaign entitled “Coming Together,” a soft female voice extols the efforts of Coca-Cola to be a part of the obesity solution over a slowly building piano sonata and images of school children, families, scientists and flashy graphics.

Don’t buy the deceptive concoction.

It is easy to get lulled by Coke’s coercive advertising. The commercial begins by talking about more than 125 years of Coca-Cola bringing people together and their voluntary efforts to offer low-calorie choices, smaller sizes and healthier options in schools. The narrator proudly states that “All calories count, no matter where they come from, including Coca-Cola and everything else with calories. And if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you’ll gain weight.”

Thank you, Coca-Cola, for that pearl of wisdom.

Behind the smoke and mirrors, there is a company that has created a global brand that is directly linked to higher obesity, diabetes, tooth decay and malnutrition. All calories are not created equal, and the mixture of high-fructose corn syrup, caramel color, phosphoric acid, natural flavors and caffeine that make up many of Coca-Cola’s products are a toxic combination.

I decided to call Coca-Cola to learn more about their campaign against obesity and was reassured that Coca-Cola is 80 to 90 percent water and is part of your daily fluid intake (but not a replacement for water). They forgot to mention the 39 grams of sugar in a 12-ounce Coke, which far exceeds the daily requirements.

Coca-Cola’s duplicity goes beyond a marketing campaign designed to confuse and disorient Americans. Coca-Cola, along with other members of “Big Soda,” have virulently fought efforts to limit the size of soft drinks.

Christine Quinn, a New York City mayoral candidate, has received $10,000 from Coca-Cola, as have many other New York legislators and candidates (Coca-Cola spends millions each year on lobbying as well). Coca-Cola has also brought in the NAACP to fight New York City’s soda ban, despite the fact that obesity disproportionately affects minority communities.

Big Soda was also intimately involved in defeating the proposed D.C. soda tax in 2010, spending over $300,000 for grassroots campaigns, testimony before the city council and likely much more on anti-tax advertisements (that do not need to be reported).

Soft drinks are in many respects the contemporary Big Tobacco. Their coffers are deep, and they are supported by misinformation, denial and millions of dollars in lobbying.

The impact is just as severe. America’s addiction to soft drinks is a public health and food crisis, and blame can be placed squarely on the largest drug-dealer, Coca-Cola.

While Coca-Cola may proclaim that a can of Coke is “140 happy calories,” those 140 calories (all from sugar) are very different from the 140 calories in a banana. The deliberate distortions of Coca-Cola are deplorable but not all that surprising. Coca-Cola’s rebranding effort is a pathetic attempt to extend an addiction of its own creation, an addiction that must end.

But I question this first-response intuition that has been propagated by the mass media. To begin, I want to point out that guns on campus already de facto exist: A person with Concealed Handgun License (CHL) is allowed to carry his or her guns on 21st Street, Dean Keaton, and for that matter, all other public streets, sidewalks and outdoor areas. We attend an open campus where anyone may walk in and out. In this regard, those with CHL are already allowed to have guns on certain parts of campus. Guns are not allowed, however, on University premises, such as buildings and educational facilities.

The equation of guns with violence has been so pervasive in our culture that the possibility of guns curtailing violence is simply lost or rejected. After all, it is harder to prove if guns have prevented crimes than if guns were used to perpetrate crimes. Here are some thoughts and statistics on concealed carry on campus:

1.  According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education’s statistics on campus safety, there were about 1,000 criminal offenses in 2011 across four-year public universities in Texas. Those offenses include: rape, burglary, aggravated assault, robbery and vehicle theft, among others. The question is, should individuals be in control of means for self-defense within reasonable limits against significant campus crimes? I know very little about mental issues, but it occurs to me that a person who is mentally unstable would find means to carry out heinous acts regardless of regulations, if his or her fragile psyche compels such action. Therefore, regulating against the lawful bearing of arms is simply a perverse exclusion of law-abiding citizens from self-defense. Whether you personally agree with the choice of means for self-defense is secondary to the person’s right to choose, especially considering the means in question conform with existing laws regulating concealed carry — namely, through a permitting process.

2. To obtain a CHL in Texas, a person has to complete 10 hours of training on gun laws, proficiency, storage and nonviolent dispute resolutions taught by a Texas Department of Public Safety-certified CHL trainer, on top of strict eligibility requirements that cut out those with criminal backgrounds and psychiatric disorders. The process ensures that only law-abiding citizens are allowed to qualify for concealed carry licenses. TDPS reports that out of all the criminal convictions in Texas in 2011, only 120 out of 63,679, or about 0.2 percent of total criminal convictions, were of CHL holders. This strongly suggests that CHL holders are largely law-abiding citizens who simply want to have a means for self-defense.

3. Existing evidence does not point to a potential influx of guns on campus. Young people ages 18-29 constitute only about one out of every nine CHL applicants in Texas. The dominant college-age group (18-24) constitutes less than 5 percent — about 7,000 in raw numbers — of the total applicant pool in the state of Texas. Thus the notion that somehow universities will be flooded with guns as result of allowing law-abiding faculty and students with a CHL to exercise their right to self-defense is mere illusion and, frankly, demagoguery.

Taking these factors into account, it seems far-fetched to alarm against the sort of “armed matriculation” proposed by another columnist last week.

Growing up, I never expected to be arrested for civil disobedience, but today I find myself and my generation in a desperate situation. We are living in a time of great crisis—the climate crisis. The World Bank recently published a report announcing that we are on track to warm the planet up by four degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The report details predictions of intense heat waves, widespread water shortages, massive wildfires, and the disruption of livelihoods around the world. These alarming details, however, are overshadowed by the authors’ terrifying statement that “there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world would be possible.”

We may not be able to adapt to global warming. The basis of our civilization could fall out from under our feet within our lifetimes. Everything we have ever worked for—all the cities, the families, the art, the science—could be lost.

Unfortunately, the unbendable rules of chemistry and physics have set a very narrow timeframe for action against the climate crisis. After humans have warmed the planet up a certain amount, we will cross a natural “tipping point,” such as the melting of the arctic tundra and the accompanying release of potent greenhouse gases locked under its surface. After these tipping points, the Earth will begin to warm itself, and any success we have in lowering our own greenhouse gas emissions will not stop the warming. No one knows exactly when the tipping points will arrive, but the International Energy Agency has projected that we will be “locked in” to irreversible climate change in four years because of our continued construction of fossil fuel infrastructure.

Rage boils up inside of me when I look at these numbers because the world did not need to let things go this close to the edge. Scientists have been calling for action for more years than I have been alive, yet our government has failed to act. The costs of inaction grow each day, as the timeframe left to transition to renewables shortens and the impacts of climate change, from last summer’s droughts in the Midwest to Superstorm Sandy, start to take their toll. Even today, our government has failed to act with enough resolve to really solve the problem. Its failure is inexcusable.

If our government will not stop these corporations on the basis of strong scientific and economic arguments, then we must produce the political will to stop them through our actions. The traditional methods of political mobilization—rallies, lobbying, even opinion polls that show 88 percent support for government action on climate change—have failed to overcome the stranglehold that fossil fuel corporations have on our government. Civil disobedience has thus become a logical and necessary next step for the increasingly powerful and desperate climate movement.

Our action in Westborough was not an anomaly but rather an addition to a growing nationwide narrative as more and more people turn to civil disobedience to stop the climate crisis. Over 1,200 activists were arrested for a sit-in against Keystone XL outside the White House, while dozens of Texan activists have taken courageous direct action to prevent and delay construction of the pipeline’s southern leg. Coal mines, natural gas fracking wells, and other fossil fuel infrastructure projects are becoming hotbeds for civil disobedience, as are the offices of the decision-makers who irresponsibly let the projects proceed. In a sign of the times, the Sierra Club recently made the first exception in 120 years to its policy against civil disobedience.

By putting our bodies on the line in acts of peaceful civil disobedience, we are making the ultimate moral statement. The message sent by our sacrifices will reverberate through society until the corporations give up or the government finally finds the political will to stop them.

The task of transitioning to renewable energy may look daunting, but as our acts of civil disobedience make clear, our commitment to survival is non-negotiable.

This was a paragraph in a column I wrote last July after the Boy Scouts made a public reaffirmation of its anti-homosexual policy after a two year long internal debate. Two years of internal debate must show that they were conflicted to begin with.

Earlier this week the Boy Scout organization has eaten the words it once so firmly stood by last July, saying they plan on revisiting the decision to not allow homosexuals in the organization, and instead leave it up to individual troops to decide.

Already pressure was mounting for the organization to rewrite its policy, at the same time held at gunpoint by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints over potential funding leading to the Boy Scout’s July decision.

Outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other religious funding, there are many corporations that support the Boy Scouts. In the last several months, after the Boy Scout’s reaffirmation of its anti-gay policy, these corporations have also put some heat on the Boy Scouts claiming it violates their nondiscrimination policy.

With the Boy Scouts already on a membership decline over the last several years (20 percent over the last decade), a loss of support from its many corporate sponsors would be crippling, regardless if its top two contributors are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and United Methodist church.

Last July I also wrote, “No law needs to change; the BSA is still completely protected by the Constitution, and that is the beauty of a free society. The change of becoming a less discriminating organization needs to happen internally; and this ruling, though pathetic, might just finally teeter the Boy Scouts towards a truly moralistic organization.”

In 2000, the Boy Scouts went all the way to the Supreme Court on the matter of discriminating against gays and the court ruled a split 5-4 in favor of the Boy Scouts of America. So long as the group is a not-for-profit, private organization, they can discriminate against whomever they choose.

Just this last May, Eagle Scout Zach Wahls of Iowa City, Iowa, turned in a petition containing over a quarter million signatures that called for the lifting of the gay ban. Since Wahls petition and the Boy Scouts’ failure to act upon it, many other online petitions began sprouting up, amounting to signatures in the millions.

Many major corporations have pulled their funding from the organization due to their continued, active discrimination. A few of these CEOs are taking an active effort in actually lifting the ban, including members on the actual BSA Board. The National Council Board includes CEOs of major international businesses. Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, supports lifting the ban, and he is next in line to take control of the board.

At the same time, the ultimate reason why the Boy Scouts organization is so readily thinking about reversing its July reaffirmation soon, is thanks to the grassroots movement it forged itself, essentially digging their own grave.

Troops, leaders, parents, boys, civil rights advocates and Eagle Scouts such as myself caused an uproar. Be it total troop defiance of the policy or Eagle Scouts immolating their own rank in front of the council, all over America (and the world), the Boy Scouts of America National Council was marked as one of the greatest bigoted organizations of our time.

Though not a final decision, both President Barack Obama and his former competitor Mitt Romney stated the association should be all inclusive, mounting even more weight on the board’s shoulders. The board is said to meet and discuss next week.

Just as I concluded my July column, I will conclude this column with the posting of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council mailing address. As stressed before, please voice your opinion to them, personally. A discriminant society is a primitive and amoral society.

Boy Scouts of America, National Council

1325 West Walnut Hill Lane

Irving, Texas 75015-2079

In an interview with The New Republic, President Barack Obama said that organizations like the NCAA and NFL need to make changes in football to improve player safety, and that fans may have to compromise some of the excitement they get while watching a game to do so.

“Those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence,” Obama said.

One of the points Obama asserted was that the focus of most of his efforts lie with the NCAA. He said that while players in the NFL are well-compensated for the risk they take and the toll taken on their bodies, NCAA players take the same risk without the financial backing.

“You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on,” Obama said. “That’s something that I’d like to see the NCAA think about.”

While Obama primarily kept his interview with The New Republic professional, he veered off a little bit and gave probably his most poignant comment of the entire interview.

Obama, who has two daughters but no son, said that if he did have a son, he would have to give serious thought as to whether or not he would let him play tackle football.

“I’m a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I’d have to think long and hard before I let him play football,” Obama said.

Opinions on Obama’s political stances vary dramatically across the country. While Obama handily won the Electoral College this past election, 49.4 percent of voters did not vote for Obama. And neither did I. I am a registered independent in the state of Kansas who voted for Mitt Romney last November.

However, as a sportswriter by trade, ever since Obama was elected in 2008, I have agreed with his hard stance regarding issues in sports and his take on the safety issues in football are right on the mark.

As fans, we often put too much focus on winning and the excitement of the game. Bone-crushing hits often flood the SportsCenter Top 10 even while issues of concussions and other injuries become more and more prevalent.

In the column I ran last week, I mentioned the tragedy of Junior Seau’s suicide. One thing I failed to mention, but that Obama indirectly touched on, was the effect that this game is having on players’ families.

The saddest part of the Seau tragedy was not that the world lost one of the game’s greatest linebackers or that the city of San Diego lost one of its favorite players. The saddest part was that a mother had to bury her son. Seau’s mother’s agony was on full display during a press conference, when she could not contain her grief and openly wept at the loss of her son.

Obama’s comments were not poignant simply because of the fact that a high-profile world leader addressed a controversial issue in sports. They were poignant because the comments put the issue into perspective. Too many parents are losing their children to this game.

Football will have to change to become safer. Hopefully Obama’s comments on this issue will help push safety in football to the front of the priority list in the NCAA and the NFL.

Historically, the contributions of the women in the U.S. military have been devalued by an institutionalized gender bias against them. The specific ban that is being rescinded was established in 1994 restricting women from serving on the frontlines of the battlefield.  Not only did this prevent capable women from serving their country to their fullest capacity, but the lack of battlefield experience also inhibited women from rising up the ranks in the military to the same degree as men.

However, particularly over the last 10 years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, women have proven their value time and time again. Although they weren’t officially allowed to serve in combat roles, the reality of the battlefield in these theaters of war led to women often being drawn into combat. Their performance in these situations convinced Secretary of Defense Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, that there was no longer any reason to proscribe women from serving in these roles.

In the past few days most people have welcomed the change. However, a few have continued to speak out against women in combat. Among the opposition is Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who said that the committee might “introduce legislation to stop any changes we believe to be detrimental to our fighting forces and their capabilities.”  Those that oppose the ban have echoed the Senator’s sentiment, suggesting that any gains in equality in the military would be overshadowed by a decrease in effectiveness. Although the transition to opening more high-level roles to women will surely not come without any obstacles, the opposition’s argument is baseless because the evaluation for these new positions will be gender neutral. Thus women and men will be held to the same standards.

All the branches of the military will proceed in developing plans to phase in women by May 15 of this year. Although the initial stages of this new era of equality in the military surely won’t be free of unforeseen consequences, overall we should welcome this change as one that will not only allow our military to realize the full potential of its members, but also to achieve a level of equality that reflects the ideals of our country.

Through news websites, Twitter, Facebook and other networks, the American public knew of the events occurring in Newtown, Conn. just minutes after they began. And as time passed and more interest was garnered, questions were raised. Why is this happening? Who is doing this? What is happening to these people? Ours is an easily intrigued and interested culture. It is in our nature to raise questions about events that shock and disturb us.

Thankfully, our media outlets are able to satiate our hunger for information. But sharing the news is not always an act of altruism — information sharing is a for-profit industry. And it is through the media’s overwhelming desire for page views that we, the intrigued public, bear witness to unethical measures. In the hours after the shooting, journalists and reporters flocked to the elementary school. While some interviewed police officers and respondents to the shooting, others sought the input of children.

Consulting kids, many of whom were traumatized by the events that occurred at Sandy Hook, is no display of journalistic integrity. It is a cruel and invasive act that only disrupts a community, and disruption is the last thing needed by the residents of Newtown. There is a fine line between reporting on an event and dealing more damage after tragedy strikes a community. If the success of your report depends on a statement from a child, perhaps your report needs some work.

When it comes to modern journalism, it is often said that “if it bleeds, it leads.” That is, tragic stories with extreme details attract the most viewers, regardless of whether or not those details were obtained ethically. As empathetic people, we tune in to certain stories just to see how much “bleeding” there really is. Stories like Newtown provoke ethical dilemmas for journalists. How can they maintain their duty to inform the public without manipulating the emotions of the affected and the consumers? Just like it is unethical to violate the privacy of children for a headline, it is wrong to intrude upon a community to obtain sensational, violent details. Likewise, the media should not attack consumers’ emotions with violent reports for the sake of profit.

Amidst tragedy in places like Newtown, it often becomes easy to forget the community itself. But despite the policy issues these horrific events bring to the table, it is wrong to define a thriving town by a political debate or the media’s fascination. The phrase “school shooting” is not a pleasant one to have in my vernacular, but it is preferable to “pulling a Columbine” — an inconsiderate statement that disregards the people involved in this tragedy.

Shootings like that at Sandy Hook bring many important topics up for discussion — topics I believe are worth discussing. But among the significance of these issues remains the need for respect from the media. One way to help the problem is to shrink the already massive reporting force. The White House provides news to the public with smaller press pools that report back to a collective source, as opposed to sending hordes of eager journalists to an event. Perhaps this sort of organization is what the popular media needs. Not only would it reduce the amount of intrusion suffered by a grieving community, but also it would provide more condensed and concise, rather than sensationalized, reports.

Most importantly, the media must stop abusing the well-being of individuals. People should be treated as people, not commodities for reporters to snatch in hopes of getting an eye-catching headline. That especially includes children who have been affected by tragedy, individuals who should be left to heal after an event rather than continuously reminded of it. In journalism, sometimes less is more.

While it will take time for the entire system to change, I hope that the discourse of media ethics serves as a wake-up call to journalists, both successful and aspiring. Getting thousands of views on a news segment is gratifying, but the first priority should be the ethical and proper treatment of others, not profit. The media is an important part of a democratic society, and as such, it should work with and for the people, not against it.

Unlocking a smartphone frees it from the current carrier’s network, and enables it to communicate with other networks.

This law oversteps governmental boundaries and doesn’t do much else but generate fear. The maximum fine for first-time offenders is $500,000 and/or up to five years in prison. For repeat offenders, the maximum penalty increases to $1 million and/or up to 10 years in prison.

To this, we must say, “wha-huh?”

It’s important to know unlocking a smartphone and rooting one are two different things. Before you give Techy-Tom flak for rooting his phone, be advised he’s still technically not breaking the law.

Rooting — also known as jailbreaking — a phone grants the owner administrative access on a device he or she paid for. Honestly, everyone should have administrative rights over their property.

When a phone is rooted, the owner has the ability to clean out all the bloatware cellular providers load onto it, which generally increases the phone’s response time. It also allows the owner to install advertisement blocking in apps, and install other applications that may have not been previously available. There are other, more technical applications a rooted phone can do. Unless you’re familiar with what you’re doing, however, it’s probably best to steer clear of overclocking (which increases the power that runs through the CPU to speed up the device) or tethering (which basically turns your phone into a router).

Though rooting a smartphone is technical work, unlocking it is an advanced step only the most comfortable and knowledgeable should perform.

This law now locks customers in with a specific carrier. It could also hinder providers marketing specifically to those with unlocked phones looking to switch. It’s unclear how this will affect T-Mobile’s “bring in your own phone” campaign.

Other than catching and penalizing the masterminds who dissect a phone’s software in order to unlock it and release the code and instructions for the rest of us, this law probably won’t affect many average users.

Hacking and piracy has rampantly increased as our understanding of different technologies advances. It’s no wonder why the “victims” — like media, entertainment and government agencies — would make a fuss and demand government action. This law, however, doesn’t make sense.

There are places that sell unlocked phones. Paying full price, as opposed to the discount prices packaged with a contract, you can legally purchase an unlocked phone. Some carriers, like AT&T, will unlock a phone once the contract expires.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if you want to legally unlock your phone you must first ask for permission from your carrier. Frankly, this is bologna. It’s like asking your mom for permission to stay up late after you’ve moved out.

Once we’ve purchased something, it is ours. Cell phones are no exception. We should have the freedom to do whatever floats our boat, because it’s our property. If we want to drop it off a building just to see how it shatters, that’s our prerogative. If we want to root or unlock our phone, that too, is our prerogative.

If you decide to root your phone, make sure you do your research. Don’t blame us if you brick it.

We don’t advise you break this law. If you do, though, we won’t be the ones to rat you out.

The argument against term limits is so well known that it has become axiomatic. Such restrictions on the membership of legislative bodies, it is insisted, would eliminate officials just as they’ve grown knowledgeable about key issues and influential among their peers. Term limits also would be anathema to democracy, as they necessarily restrict the choices present to voters. “We already have term limits,” opponents assert, dutifully providing a civics lesson to the 75 percent of Americans that support curbing the amount of time their leaders can spend living off their dime. “They’re called elections!”

Anyone who makes this latter argument has either a jejune understanding of political science or, more plausibly, is an elected official himself. Only a starry-eyed tyro to the workings of the world could possibly contend with a straight face that elections currently provide citizens with the unrestrained ability to choose new representatives. After all, the advantage of incumbency is well documented throughout American history. To see it, one need look no further than the past election, when over three-fourths of those in Congress were reelected, despite the body’s 9 percent approval rating—a figure making it less popular than colonoscopies, used car salesmen, and lice. As it turns out, it is a lot easier to run for office when your living expenses are already footed by Uncle Sam.

The other argument in opposition to term limits is more difficult to discredit. The notion that a politician gets better at his job the longer he does it is intuitive—that’s true of every professional. However, one has to remember that public service is not just any profession but rather the embodiment of governing principles. Term limits would downplay the role of individuals’ influence in the legislative bodies. Do we really want our laws to be determined by which states have delegations most likely to be found in a Georgetown geriatric ward?

For years, Hawaii held outsize sway in the Senate due to the high positions held by superannuated veterans Daniel K. Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye, the latter of which had represented the islands since they achieved statehood in 1959. While citizens of the 11th-least populous state did not bemoan the importance of influence in Congress at any point during the last half-century, the simultaneity of Inouye’s death and Akaka’s retirement has put them in the precarious position in which no one in their entire Congressional delegation has served for longer than two years. This could pose a bit of an issue for the state that currently receives the fourth-most taxpayer dollars.

Opponents of term limits often paint the picture of a hapless naïf with big dreams walking into Congress unable to deal with the diversity and subtlety of issues that the experienced professionals have spent years learning. Again this viewpoint is both too idealistic and fundamentally dishonest about the real-world apparatus of the legislative branch of the United States government. Members of Congress do not live in some cloistered world, à la the Supreme Court, in which the ideas manifest in their policy proposals are purely their own. Rather, they turn to staff lawyers to craft bills on issues they want to support. Most don’t even read the bills they are supposed to be making informed decisions on. This is not because they are congressional tenderfoots, but rather because the current proceedings do not provide enough time to carefully examine the thousands of bills introduced each year.

The reason that term limit legislation continually dies in Congress is obvious. It is poison hemlock, and, unfortunately, so few of our elected officials are veritable Socratics. Too many politicians look at Congress as a way to increase their statuses and pad their pocketbooks. The argument that the Methuselahs of D.C. are the only ones who can tackle the nation’s problems is a sophomoric one. We manage to find a new and capable president every eight years; there is no reason we can’t find fresh blood from each state to protect the nation’s interests. Besides, it’s not like there isn’t already a professional government class in the district ready to help the newbies out.

While the numbers for HIV/AIDS are still high, they have dropped dramatically since the 1980s and ’90s. Due to an uprising of powerful activists groups and community advocacy, HIV/AIDS was brought to the forefront of political and social issues. Meanwhile, Hepatitis C is on the opposite side of the spectrum. It has lacked a community of concerned individuals and has consequently had very little attention since 1989, when it was first discovered. Advocacy for Hepatitis C is practically dismal, especially compared to HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B. Funding for Hepatitis C research and resources is virtually negligible. This is due to the fact that Hepatitis C is not only an unspoken topic, but it is also an incredibly complex topic.

Hepatitis C is a slow-progressing, sometimes deadly blood-borne virus that attacks the liver. Of all people with the Hepatitis C virus, up to 85 percent will develop chronic hepatitis. Of this 85 percent, 70 percent will develop chronic liver disease, nearly 20 percent will develop cirrhosis, an incurable disease that results in scarring of the liver, and up to five percent will die of cirrhosis or liver cancer.

What many people are not aware of is that there is now a cure for Hepatitis C. A person with Hepatitis C can be free of the virus within 24 weeks if he or she follows a prescribed treatment plan. However, the virus is asymptomatic, which means that people who are infected are not aware of their status unless they are tested—and Hepatitis C testing is not a commonplace or encouraged procedure among medical institutions. The virus is also most commonly transmitted through injection drugs, contributing to the fact that Hepatitis C is most prevalent among poor, urban, and marginalized populations (especially drug users), many of whom are incapable of or not receptive to seeking out treatment.

This is for reasons such as a lack of motivation, a lack of peer, social, and community support, failure to recognize the long-lasting impact of not seeking treatment, lack of education about the illness, the attached stigmatization of infection, and an under-recognition of the condition (especially due to the fact that one could live 20 years without experiencing any symptoms). In addition, retention rates for those who actually seek treatment are incredibly low because the side effects are highly physically, financially, and emotionally debilitating.

Research has found that Hepatitis C is also most prevalent among the baby-boomer generation, the generation that lived through the “Summer of Love,” when experimentation with Schedule I drugs was especially high. Today, individuals who lived during that era have an HCV prevalence rate of more than double the national average. Targeting this generation is our best bet at drastically dampening the epidemic.

However, the “hippie” generation should not be our only focus. New statistics have shown that Hepatitis C is on the rise among American youth. In Massachusetts alone, HCV prevalence has risen from 65 cases per 100,000 between the ages of 15 and 24 in 2002 to 113 cases per 100,000 in 2009. This has been caused by to an increase in injection drug usage among America’s youth.

What the fight against Hepatitis C needs is both attention and money, and a lot of it. Specifically, it needs funding for programs such as the Division for Viral Hepatitis of the Centers for Disease Control, needle exchange sites, surveillance programs that value both casework and harm-reduction approaches, Hepatitis C education in communities and secondary schools, research funding for the development of a Hepatitis C vaccination, and more. But these needs cannot be met, let alone be requested, until our communities are educated and aware of the gravity and urgency of this issue. The time to act is now.

To put it in a more straightforward perspective: Americans consume about four times more resources than necessary, significantly limiting the resources available to those in other countries. Several developing countries do not even have access to clean drinking water, let alone many other resources which we take for granted with our lavish lifestyles.

Fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and natural gas) are currently the most commonly used sources of energy, despite the fact that they are far more harmful to the environment than several other sources. They are a nonpoint source of pollution (runoff that moves through the ground via rainfall and snowmelt which carries pollutants into various bodies of water) and a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

As hopefully all of you have noticed by now, there has been a significant spike in gas prices over this decade, and if we continue to rely on fossil fuels for every aspect of our energy use, the cost of gas will continue to climb. Eventually, the cost of retrieving fossil fuels will probably be too expensive for many of us to buy due to the rapid rate in which we’re using it; Provided we do not run out of these finite sources completely.

There have been success stories about vehicles powered by fuels such as water and electricity, but they are uncommon and have yet to be fully developed. In addition, the average American simply cannot afford to trade their current gas-guzzling cars for new energy efficient ones. For now, the limited resources necessary to power our vehicles should be used wisely and for things which do not have a decent alternative source of power available.

Luckily, over the years people have been coming up with new and exciting ways to harness renewable energy that is friendlier to humans and ecosystems alike.

One method, which has been a popular topic in the Iowa State U. news lately, is wind energy. As many of you have seen, a new, small wind turbine has been set up on the east side of campus. This project cost $250,000, but it can create enough electricity to power buildings like Catt Hall and East Hall for an entire year. In statistical terms, it can generate up to $18,000 (.12 percent) worth of Iowa State’s electrical needs annually, which is about 183,330-kilowatt hours. Iowa State also has partial ownership of a large wind turbine farm in northern Story County.

In Iowa, wind turbine farms have been increasing in popularity over the years and produce approximately twenty percent of the state’s electricity. There are nearly 3,000 utility-scale turbines in the state; enough to power over one million homes. Iowa is also rated No. 1 in wind energy related employment in the nation by offering at least 3,000 jobs, if not more.

Best of all, aside from the start up costs, wind energy is renewable and has less hazardous effects on the environment. There are several other types of similar renewable energy resources that would be better alternatives to fossil fuels, such as solar energy, hydropower and biomass energy. In addition, there are a few energy sources that have the potential to be useful but are not very cost-effective or easily acquired right now, such as geothermal energy, hydrogen and ocean energy.

Overall, it is in everyone’s best interest to be conscious of the energy they consume and where it comes from. Developing awareness of renewable energy is essential. If the human species continues on the current trajectory of heavy fossil fuel usage, the impacts it will have on our lives and the environment could be devastating in the near future.

But not only can Playbook users rate their experiences, thereby rating the individuals with whom they shared them — which, we all know, is a natural thing to do with or without an app — they can also indicate how far they went with the significant (or insignificant) other (first base, etc.), consequently allowing any friends who follow your sexual progress to judge and publicly comment on your so-called “play.” Classy.

The main thing we’re asking is, “What’s the point?” You can already text your friends, Facebook message your friends — heck, you can talk to your friends in person and avoid the potentially destructive permanence that accompanies Internet-based communication — and more likely than not, you’re going to rate what you’re telling your friends about in the process as well. Why document this more than we already do? More specifically, why give a company (that is, the group of young developers who created Playbook) access to your sex life? Whatever you say will stay somewhere in cyberspace. Someone somewhere (a future employer, maybe?) will have access to your cheap romance and raunchy pictures. Your words could easily come back to haunt you.

In most cases — though admittedly we rarely adhere to this wisdom — the dirty details of your life in the bed sheets are best not transcribed on the Internet. Remember when you thought SnapChat was safe? Remember to think twice.

So far the app caters to “bro” figures, but according to TechCrunch, Playbook’s creators are working to make the app more gender-neutral. Will the app be as appealing to females? Time will tell. And that’s not to say that all males find the app to be particularly luring. In fact, while it’s unkind to rate your piece of meat from the night before to your friends, it’s all the more worse to do so to the cyber public by downloading an app for it.

Presidents breathe rare air, and re-elected presidents, rarer air still. Only 44 people in American history have held the office of president; Barack Obama is the just 17th to have been elected twice. Rare air sometimes invigorates; more often it makes people dizzy. An oddity of American politics is that nearly every president wants a second term, but second terms almost never turn out well. The re-elected Thomas Jefferson coerced Congress into declaring a ruinous embargo; Andrew Jackson sent the country into a financial tailspin; Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley were assassinated; Woodrow Wilson broke his health in a vain attempt to persuade Americans to join the League of Nations. The unlucky list goes on.

The second-term curse can be ascribed to an evil alignment of influences. Second-termers enjoy no honeymoon; their opponents attack them and their policies from the moment they retake their Oath of Office. Second-termers typically operate with a second-string team. On first election they get their top choices for cabinet and White House positions, but those first picks generally resign from the most crucial — and stressful — offices by end of the first term. Their successors are usually less talented, less energetic, less credible or less reliable.

Second-term presidencies are prone to scandal. Some of this tendency is a statistical artifact. Presidencies in general are prone to scandal, the temptations of power being more than many people can resist. If a scandal occurs during a first term, that president doesn’t get a second term. If the first term is scandal-free, the odds are likelier to catch up with the president in the second term.

But scandals also reflect a relaxation of standards, a loss of vigilance. First-term presidents who attempt  election to a second term (a group that includes every president since Rutherford Hayes) mind their manners and those of their administrations with great care. Once freed of the burden of running again, however, they often let their guard down.

Yet hope springs eternal for second terms, not least among those who achieve them. Second-term presidents can focus on the long run, on issues too large or with payoffs too distant to survive the short-run tyranny that has constrained them theretofore. A first-term president asks how a decision will read in the next day’s papers; a second-term president asks how it will read in the history books. Second-term presidents can ascend the moral high ground of the national interest, as opposed to the party interest, and not be charged with hypocrisy as easily as first-termers.

What does all this mean for Barack Obama? First, he must be extremely careful to avoid scandal. Nothing stays secret for long these days; the slightest slip by him or a subordinate can ruin what remains of his presidency. The four most recent two-term presidencies ended in ignominy or severe embarrassment: Nixon in Watergate, Reagan in Iran-Contra, Clinton in impeachment, Bush in the Katrina bungle. Obama must be very watchful — and perhaps lucky — to avoid a similar fate.

Second, he should concentrate on a few carefully chosen issues. With these he might have a chance of success. In his second inaugural address, he staked a position on immigration reform that would have been bold before the election but that parallels what many Republicans have been thinking after the election results revealed how thoroughly they have alienated Latinos. Expect a bipartisan law before the end of the current Congress. More difficult yet more pressing is a grand bargain on taxes and spending. Already the Republicans have retreated on the federal debt limit; if Obama doesn’t push too hard, he might win the moderate Republican votes he needs to put fiscal policy on a sustainable path.

Third, he almost certainly will devote more of his time to foreign policy, especially in his seventh and eighth years. Presidents are merely coequals with Congress in domestic affairs, but in matters of war and peace and much of what lies between, they enjoy great autonomy. They can embark on wars, negotiate treaties and do all the other things that lie within the purview of the commander in chief and diplomat in chief. Obama might attempt a transatlantic trade pact with the European Union, issue executive orders on climate change or jump-start the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. There is no guarantee of success — foreign policy is hard. But when the approach of 2016 tempts the Republicans to run out the clock on Obama, as it assuredly will, foreign policy will seem like a vacation.

In fact, foreign policy is often a vacation for presidents, which is another reason it beckons second-termers. There’s no ride like Air Force One.

H. W. Brands is the Dickson Allen Anderson Centennial Professor of History.

For proof that we are not so different, look at the Heritage Foundation’s 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. Canada is sixth in this ranking, Denmark ninth, the U.S. 10th, Finland 16th and Sweden 18th. All of these countries surpassed the U.S. in business freedom as well, partly due to lower corporate tax rates. Sweden’s government commands 51.3 percent of the GDP compared to America’s 42 percent and Canada’s 42.9 percent, and the U.S. spends an additional 5.3 percent of GDP on tax expenditures. At any rate, America, Sweden and Canada can each be accurately categorized as having mixed market economies and big governments.

In light of Sweden and Canada’s substantial welfare states, it is impressive that they have kept balanced budgets and debt-to-GDP ratios below 50 percent. Though much of this can be credited to a steady stream of tax revenue, it is also due to foresighted pension reforms; unlike Social Security, which uses a demographically unsustainable “pay-as-you-go” system, Canada’s state pension plan is partially funded, while Sweden’s state pensions are partially privatized.

Yet we would do well to recall the early 1990s, when Canada had a chronic deficit of six percent GDP in 1994 with unemployment at 10 percent, and when Sweden’s deficit was a whopping 13 percent of GDP with unemployment at 10 percent in 1993. By comparison, America’s current unemployment rate stands at 7.8 percent and the deficit is 8 percent of GDP. Despite elevated unemployment rates, Sweden and Canada massively reduced their deficits during the 1990s, primarily through spending cuts. In Canada, seven dollars of spending was slashed for every one dollar in tax increases. Cherished social programs were gutted and tens of thousands of public employees were let go. But by 1998, neither country had a deficit, while unemployment had fallen as well.

In contrast, over the last five years, the U.S. increased spending and reduced taxes in the face of high unemployment and a high deficit. Compared to Canada and Sweden’s successes in the 1990s, current results in the U.S. have not been nearly as good. While Canada and Sweden also reduced taxes during the most recent recession, they did so from positions of relative fiscal strength, thus aiding the economic recovery without deepening their fiscal holes. Admittedly, these countries began their cuts during the 1990s with spending and tax levels higher than those in the U.S. Thus, tax cuts will be less effective in the U.S. today than they were in Canada and Sweden and spending cuts will hurt more. However, despite the fact that government spending is no longer a larger share of GDP in Canada than in the U.S., Canada continues to forge ahead with such spending cuts.

Beyond fiscal policy, the North still has much to teach us. School choice programs introduced in the 1990s in Sweden have offered parents with limited means the ability to send their children to private schools. Contrary to American fears that such programs will undermine public schools, Sweden’s state institutions improved following the end of the near-monopoly on education, evidenced by the fact that most Swedish pupils still attend public school. Finnish schools — while all public — have a great deal of autonomy in curriculum development and pedagogy. Both Finnish and Canadian schools rely heavily on professional teacher development programs. All of these countries’ schools best American ones on international assessments despite lower per pupil expenditures.

I have not addressed the numerous social programs provided by Scandinavian countries that the U.S. does not offer to its citizens — these no doubt account for part of the high living standards enjoyed by Swedes, Finns and others. Unfortunately, developing such programs is not an option for America, where governments at all levels face gaping budget holes. We can, however, set a path for sustainable budgets and growth in the future, and following the Northern model may be the way to go.

According to Panetta, “If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job – and let me be clear, we are not reducing qualifications – then they should have the right to serve.” The pronouncement comes as another historic decision under Panetta’s leadership, as he was a key player in repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 2011.

Obviously, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” wasn’t without critics, and neither is Panetta’s most recent choice to open up more combat positions to women. Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark), a veteran, told a radio host. “To have women serving in infantry could impair the mission’s central task in those units. That’s been proved in study after study just as a matter of nature.”

John Piper, a mega-church minister from Minnesota, has written on his blog that coed combat is “cultural cowardice,” writing that “A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp.”

Wayne State U. law professor, Kingsley Browne, published a book about the issue titled “Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars.” Browne believes women shouldn’t be allowed to be involved in combat positions, because they aren’t as physically fit as men, as well as because women being mixed with men in combat situations might cultivate more situations of sexual harassment.

What Panetta – and countless other proponents of military equality – has fought for is a new, inclusive, American military. The repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the lifting of the combat ban represent the military taking steps to offer the type of equality for which America should be known.

If there is one lesson America should have learned by now, it’s that a lack of diversity is not ideal for decision-making, and authority without diversity is a recipe for oppression and stupidity. One only has to recall President Obama’s mention of Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall in his second Inaugural Address to dwell on the poor, exclusive, and dominating decisions the country has made without different voices offering advice.

While effective and courageous, our nation’s military has earned a controversial reputation. The military has often asked the nation to take a “don’t ask; we don’t want to tell” approach to its politics and problems.

The 2012 Oscar-nominated documentary “The Invisible War” sheds light on the rampant sexual abuse in the armed forces. According to the film, the Department of Defense estimates that over 19,000 instances of sexual abuse happened in 2010, and 20 percent of women in the military will be sexually assaulted. And while the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a big step in policy for gay military equality, documented harassment still occurs in the ranks of the armed forces.

The most important impact of the lift of the combat ban is that combat duty and experience are necessary for women to advance and be promoted in military leadership. Therefore, allowing women to apply for more combat-intense positions will increase the chance for diversity in military authority, adding important voices to the conversation of what our country will do and where our country will go.

With North Korea testing nuclear missiles, controversy over the use of both foreign and domestic drones and intervention in the Arab world always on the table, more women in the military will be better for the country.

Besides being of pragmatic benefit, increased opportunities for women in the military helps realize part of the American experiment and aids America in becoming the exceptional country it so desperately wants to be.

In the past, there has been a notion that military presence and power make America great, but in a 21st century in which both methods of warfare and ideas about equality have changed, giving women the same opportunities as men should make all Americans proud.

We cannot afford to be contrary to cultural changes due to outdated conceptions of gender and bravery, and we cannot shy away from breaking down barriers just because the systems set in place to protect against sexual abuse aren’t solid. Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall were all leaps in American progress, but occurred amidst controversy, bigotry and violence.

We should be proud women want to protect and serve, and in response we should applaud and protect their thriving in military ranks.

The decision made in Roe v. Wade attempted to rectify the complication of two key interests with regard to pregnancy termination: women’s health and prenatal life. It was established that women should have full access to abortion services until viability. Since we have become accustomed to the issue of choice, the terminology of the decision lacks so much specificity that attempts at defining “life” have become prevalent.

For instance, viability is relative to each pregnancy and cannot be applied in a universal manner and is complicated by conceptions of personhood, as shown in attempts at limiting Mississippi’s Initiative 26. Such are the issues that arise in motions to regulate and enforce the inherent nuances of pregnancy. We have seen efforts aimed at clarifying these problems through the legal system in successive cases brought before the Supreme Court, including Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart.

As we attempt to coalesce action regarding an issue with two main interest camps maintaining their own distinct perspectives on the issue, we will continue to encounter issues of clarity and complications of enforcement. The values with which the groups approach abortion, when applied rigidly, are exclusive of each other.

The valuation of prenatal life over the health of the woman, for one, excludes considerations for the woman’s particular circumstance. The arrival at the decision to abort is deeply personal and regulation of access to abortion services, if any, should respect this agency. This respect for individual authority is an issue that needs to be further articulated and discussed in the public sphere as a uniting valuation we can apply to the many, multifaceted issues that manifest in our modern society.

Many are concerned with the possible actions and subsequent consequences in response to the cases previously mentioned. This inability to come to a compromise on the situation is causing a new, wider rift in our country and people’s political allegiances.

The problem is never going to disappear, and the women who are affected by the possible outcomes and interpretations of new laws face a daunting prospect. Women across the country who have aborted will gain new stigma in the event that pro-life supporters have their way, and those who revile women for discarding the budding life within them will be seen as criminals to the people who reserve the right to govern what happens within their own bodies.

Unfortunately, it seems inevitable that either way, someone is going to be left offended and nursing their ideologically driven anger.

What impacts this will have in 10, perhaps 20 years in the future are as of yet unknown until one standard is implemented. But hopefully, the next few generations will not be as offended at our indiscretions as we were to hear about how doctors once “treated” the mentally ill or how unyielding many previous generations were in accepting the reality of evolution.

“Fools… speak wisely what wise men do foolishly” (As You Like It 1.2)

Stewart defines himself as “a comedian” and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as “fake news.” In an interview on Meet the Press, Colbert described his character on The Colbert Report as “an active idiot.” However, some have argued that the Stewart-Colbert brand of “fake news” can actually be substantive and impactful. Their shows frequently highlight and raise awareness of serious issues, including some that may not receive sufficient attention from politicians and the mainstream media.

For instance, while many politicians decline to talk seriously about climate change, Colbert and Stewart have invited leading scientists to discuss the issue. Indeed, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that, in 2007, The Daily Show “devoted a greater percentage of its news to science/technology and environmental stories than did the mainstream news media.” Shortly after Colbert invited astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson on the show to criticize proposed cuts to NASA’s manned space program, President Obama, coincidentally or not, backtracked on the proposed cuts.

Similarly, Stewart repeatedly lambasted Congress for holding up benefits for 9/11 First Responders (the “Zadroga Act”), increasing coverage of the issue and arguably shaming Congress into eventually passing the bill. Meanwhile, by creating his own Super PAC, Colbert called attention to the issue of campaign finance and what he calls the “politico-industrial complex,” winning a Peabody Award for his efforts.

The substantive content of these shows has not been lost on viewers. While Stewart and Colbert insist that they are not newsmen, some, especially younger viewers, view the shows as legitimate news sources. A 2004 Pew study found that shows like The Daily Show rivaled traditional broadcast news as sources of campaign information for young adults. Meanwhile, an Indiana University study found that The Daily Show’s coverage of the 2004 campaign was as substantive as network news. Furthermore, a 2007 Pew survey found that regular viewers of Stewart’s and Colbert’s shows were much better informed than the national average and were even better informed than those who rely on traditional news outlets.

The appeal of Stewart and Colbert may be largely driven by deep frustration with current political reality. Timothy McCarthy, Director of the Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and a cultural historian, told the HPR that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have become “place[s] where people would go to get their news because our politics ha[s] become so absurd and so…superficial and really all about a series of performances” that are themselves much like entertainment. Indeed, when asked if the shows ever push the envelope and become offensive, Stewart himself told Maureen Dowd, “I don’t understand how anyone can consider jokes about this stuff worse than the reality of it.”

“There’s no slander in an allowed fool” (Twelfth Night 1.5)

Arguably, an advantage Stewart and Colbert have over mainstream journalists is that, like the jesters and Shakespearian fools of old, they occupy a position outside the societal, or in this case, journalistic, mainstream from which they can tear into politicians and mainstream journalists without fear of pushback or accusations of bias. According to Paul Cantor, a culture critic and visiting professor of government at Harvard, they “share with a venerable satirical tradition,” a willingness and license to “speak truth to power.” Cantor told the HPR that he has been “struck by how many times particularly Stewart has brought up an issue that the mainstream media refused to deal with.”

Clearly, Stewart takes on powerful people and weighty issues, perhaps surprising for a self-described comedian. According to McCarthy, however, “we are in a political and cultural moment where the distinction between entertainment and political journalism is being blurred.” He traces this blurring of the line between journalism and entertainment to the 1996 emergence of Fox News and MSNBC, which offer a mix of news coverage, “explicitly partisan” commentary and entertainment segments like Chris Matthews’ “Hardball Sideshow” and Bill O’Reilly’s “Dumbest Things of the Week.” McCarthy believes that the emergence of Stewart and Colbert “even further complicates and blurs those lines of distinction” between journalism and entertainment.

At times, Stewart and Colbert have even flirted with activism, though with mixed results. Their joint “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” received less-than-glowing reviews. McCarthy says that he attended the rally but left early, finding it to be “politically bankrupt” and a tremendous missed opportunity to “cross over into a serious political space while bringing all the humor and absurdity.” Meanwhile, Colbert acknowledged on Meet the Press that “everyone was critical of” his testimony before a Congressional subcommittee, which was intended to shine a light on the plight of immigrant farm workers.

This suggests a possible limit to their influence. Ultimately, McCarthy concludes, Stewart and Colbert are quite able to “generate political energy and rile people up,” but they generally do not “determine political outcomes.” Similarly, Cantor argues that, in terms of elections, “their effect is marginal.” To be clear, Colbert and Stewart have emphasized that they are not attempting to influence political outcomes or, as Stewart told Maureen Dowd, be “warriors in anyone’s army.” Their real power lies in their capacity to question authority and show, in Cantor’s words, “that the emperor has no clothes.”

“Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own” – Jonathan Swift

Some would argue that with their present influence, whatever its extent, come certain ethical obligations. The Daily Show may claim to be “unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy,” but media experts Bruce A. Williams and Michael X. Delli Carpini write that even “fake news” shows should be held to some journalistic standards. Williams and Carpini complain that “The Daily Show does a much better job shining a light on the foibles of others than it does taking responsibility…for its own truth claims.”

It is difficult, though, to say exactly what sort of standards Stewart and Colbert should observe. Jeffrey Seglin, Director of the Communications Program at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, told the HPR that their “ethical standard is driven by the genre they’re working in.” Since that genre is satire, they should be afforded some “license to exaggerate and…embellish the news.” Seglin adds that the viewers, themselves, “have some responsibility to be more informed.” For example, a study published in The International Journal of Press/Politics suggested that at least some conservatives watch Colbert and fail to get the joke: they believe that he is a genuine conservative, rather than a satirist parodying conservative talk-show hosts. Seglin considers this “a problem with the viewers,” not Colbert, adding, “I don’t think there needs to be a disclaimer that says ‘this is fake news’” for a show on Comedy Central.

McCarthy broadly agrees: “I’m not sure that Stewart and Colbert should be held to the same kinds of standards as, say, New York Times journalists.” He notes that “we’re not holding the political pundits on MSNBC or Fox News, or CNN for that matter” to the traditional standards of “objectivity and ethics” either. McCarthy views this as further indication that, “the definition of what is journalism and what is entertainment [has] shifted” over the past 20 years.

Indeed, freedom from strict journalistic standards is central to the ability of Stewart and Colbert to do what they do best. Perhaps a more apt criticism is that they tend to use their comedic license as a shield as well as a sword. McCarthy notes that they, and especially Stewart, have a worrisome tendency, “when they get really sharply criticized,” to “pull back and say ‘I’m just a comedian.’” McCarthy calls this an “abdication of a certain kind of political responsibility” and argues that it is difficult for them to dodge criticism in this manner and still “be taken seriously as a political force.” Stewart and Colbert may benefit from the breakdown of distinctions between politics, journalism and entertainment, but that breakdown can be a double-edged sword: as McCarthy puts it, “it’s hard…to reestablish those lines of distinction once you’ve blurred them.”

“Satire is parody with a point” – Stephen Colbert

Heirs to a long tradition of political satire, Stewart and Colbert enjoy special license to expose the folly of society’s leaders. That said, they are also very much products of their times. Their prominence, not only as comedians but also as news sources, stands as a testament to widespread popular dissatisfaction with current politics and the mainstream journalists who cover it. They epitomize the breakdown of old distinctions between entertainment and political journalism. Even if they cannot shape political outcomes, they have considerable power to inform voters, expose and shame politicians, and increase political engagement.

With this power comes a responsibility: not a responsibility to adopt the strict and confining “balanced reporting” standards of mainstream journalists, but a duty to embrace their unique capacity to enhance political discourse without retreating, as Stewart sometimes does, behind the “I’m just a comedian” shield. Just a comedian?  When Comedy Central rivals mainstream network shows as a source of substantive news, perhaps Stewart would be better advised to shed the modesty and take a leaf from the in-character Colbert’s book. “I AM a comedian (and so can you!).”

Within the past month (all while UConn was out on break), Obama nominated Chuck Hagel to be the new Secretary of Defense, John Kerry to be the new Secretary of State and John Brennan to be the new Director of the CIA. All white males, true. But it is too early to claim that all of Obama’s second-term positions will continue that trend. For example, both the soon-to-be-vacant Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will have to be filled.

Obama claims his white male picks have been reflecting the people who are best fit for the job, which should surely be the most important qualification. Whether somebody is the “most” qualified person of all 315 million American citizens is nearly impossible to determine, of course, but his first three picks appear very qualified. Hagel was a U.S. senator and Vietnam War veteran, Kerry was also a U.S. Senator and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Brennan is the Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security.

Obama has had some racial and gender diversity in his first-term picks. Attorney General Eric Holder was black, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was female, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was female and black and Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Veterans’ Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki were both Asian. He also appointed two females to the highest judicial office in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Would a completely homogenous Cabinet be good for the nation? No, since a lack of diverse viewpoints could hinder the contemplation of all reasonable policy ideas. At the same time, diversity should not take a front seat over quality and intelligence. It should be a secondary consideration to how well somebody can do the job. And in that respect, Obama appears to be balancing Cabinet diversity (an ideal) with Cabinet meritocracy (a requirement).

As Jimmy Fallon noted on his television show, “Late Night,” last week, “Obama came under fire from the GOP over the lack of diversity in his cabinet. Obama was like, ‘You know I’ll be there too, right?’”

In my first “PR Presidency” class, we addressed this talk with a talk of our own. First, we talked about the many names rumored to be 2016 contenders, and then about just one of those names: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

My professor gingerly brought up the subject of Christie’s girth and then, as politely as possible, asked us, “Is Chris Christie too…fat…to be president?”

But, forgive me, this is my maiden editorial column in The Eagle, and I have neglected to introduce myself. My name is Ryan Migeed, I am a sophomore and I do not believe that Christie is too fat to be president.

The problem with the “Christie is too fat” arguments is that they are all preconceived. He and his team of savvy politicos can anticipate any claim and prepare for it. “Heart disease” is countered with “no history in the family.” “High blood pressure” is refuted with “What presidential candidate doesn’t have high blood pressure in such a fast-paced campaign?” And the surest answer to any query is a clean bill of health from his doctor, which is entirely possible. (Granted, that bill of health would include a scribbled note from the doctor saying, “Lose weight,” but let’s ignore that for a moment.)

The kicker, of course, would be an exercise regimen, and many argue that if Christie starts to lose weight, he is definitely running in 2016.

But I argue that Christie can be a contender – and quite possibly win – without ever dropping a pound from now until Election Day 2016. His weight will be an issue, but only a subconscious one. His opponents won’t bring it up out of courtesy, and only reporters and town hall-goers will dare to broach the subject.

To be sure, Christie will be asked about his weight. But if he has a ready-made answer that displays enough humor (without getting angry at the premise of the question or the questioner’s right to ask it), he can effectively turn his weight into a non-issue.

Remember Ronald Reagan’s famous 1984 one-liner? When asked a question about his age—he would become the oldest president elected—Reagan coolly responded, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” If Christie can have a similar “Reagan moment” (and he can), he will beat the “Christie is too fat” argument.

Not to mention, Christie’s weight simply plays into his devil-may-care attitude. It is as much a part of his character as his aggressive press conferences. And characters do well on national television.

What is most interesting about this whole “Is Christie too large?” debate is that it seems to be divided on generational lines. In my class, many, if not most, students dismissed Christie’s weight as an unimportant factor. Meanwhile, our professor (who is about our parents’ age), could not accept the idea that the American people would ignore such an obvious trait.

Perhaps the youngest voting generation is more willing to overlook physical differences in light of policy differences. After all, we were the ones who helped propel the first African-American into the presidency. Perhaps we’ll do it again with the first modern president who happens to be…big-boned.

9/The film opens with calls of 9/11 victims trapped in the tower with no accompanying image, sending the viewer back to a day perhaps too painful to witness. Bigelow doesn’t sensationalize the infamous day with the cheapness of an image, and instead humanizes it with a cacophony of desperate voices. This explosive opening prepares the rest of the film for a series of aftershocks: torture, misinformation, dead ends, suicide bombings and an indolent bureaucracy — unwelcomed fallout for a nation hell-bent on justice and revenge.

The manifestation of this national bloodlust is Maya (Jessica Chastain), a CIA agent who spends most of the film convincing a male-dominant bureaucracy to act on the accumulated evidence of Bin Laden’s whereabouts. The film falters after the midpoint, as Maya attempts to rally her government to attack Osama bin Laden’s stronghold. Writer Mark Boal includes a montage of Maya defiantly scribbling a count of the number of days that have gone by without attack on her superior’s glass pane. This is Boal’s desperate attempt to breathe some life into the mundane intelligence office sequence, but he doesn’t explore the bureaucratic process enough to make it worthwhile.

After this slow section, the audience is shaken awake with the film’s payoff: the raid on Osama’s stronghold. Bigelow exhibits her mastery of the war film in this dark, grungy attack laden with night-vision shots and sweat-inducing silence. The audience becomes complicit in Maya’s mission. The camera acts as her omniscient eye over the event — she is a woman with commanding vision and we live vicariously through her victorious moment, which takes on a greater meaning for all Americans.

While we follow Maya through the story, we get little insight to her background and, perhaps even more disturbingly, her motivation. But the opening of the film is her motivation — it’s the panic, doom, dread and suffering of those trapped in the twin towers that needs to be avenged. As critic Scott Foundas aptly points out, “She’s a fanatic hunting a fanatic.”

Indeed, Maya has her own Jihad or “religious crusade,” which leads one to ask: “on our quest to kill bin Laden, have we become just as fanatical and violent as our enemy?” This impersonal, nationalistic goal leaves our very human protagonist drained and purposeless once achieved. She parallels a suicide bomber, except she lives through her Jihad and finds nothing on the other side.

____

Zero Dark Thirty is a rare, significant film because it stirs up the socio-political war gauntlet while maintaining the focus on its human characters. Many critics have taken issue with the former aspect, especially in regard to the film’s portrayal of torture. Critics have problematized these scenes with an unimaginative, vehement outcry, with Rethink Review’s critic Jonathan Kim as their lead crusader. Many critics claim torture doesn’t work as a means for extracting useful information and that it didn’t contribute to the hunt for bin Laden — therefore its function in the plot, not its portrayal, is the point of contention.

After all, if we believe for an instant that the critic knows more about torture than we do, then the critic escapes with her contempt and ignorance unquestioned. I offer a new perspective: the torture sequence could arguably be a poetic summation of American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The body of the terrorist takes on the meaning of a larger Middle Eastern population — one America has invaded, bombed, accused and ravaged in its unflinching search for Osama.

Regardless, Kim brings up a considerable point: why does Bigelow claim this film is “based on firsthand accounts of actual events,” if parts of the film digress into fact-twisting and historical digressions?

Kim and many other critics fail to understand that the story subsumes events and acts committed by the military into a general narrative revolving around one character, thus inherently fictionalizing it. If the film didn’t do this, these same critics would be bemoaning an incoherent, scattered narrative unable to string together a causal chain leading to bin Laden’s killing. Furthermore, Bigelow has no obligation to tell her story as it exactly unfolded, even with the opening claim being based on firsthand accounts. Such a film would be inherently dull. Intelligence worked for eight years — enough time to assemble a staggering six million-page document — before finding bin Laden. Who wants to watch these preliminary intel-hunts unfold in three hours?

Critics bemoan Zero Dark Thirty’s use of torture as a means for inaccurately pushing the plot forward. They refer to a report from Diane Feinstein, head of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which claims torture did not directly lead to finding bin Laden. However, as CIA director Michael Morell states, “Some [information] came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques,” adding that “whether enhanced interrogation techniques were the only timely and effective way to obtain information from those detainees, as the film suggests, is a matter of debate that cannot and never will be definitively resolved.”

Film critics, government officials and any moral-do-gooders who found a comment box online have disregarded Morell’s statement (ironically, the person in the best position to see all sides of the issue) under the rhetoric of “discrepancies” and “potentially inconsistent,” desperate to affirm their anti-torture crusade.

When Kim contends that the plot from torture to bin Laden should be taken literally (and thus morally reprehensible), he reveals his severe ignorance to intelligence-gathering techniques. His own evidence laughs back at him: the six million-page intel document. Any effort to retrace causality from one clue to another would be futile.

Zero Dark Thirty uses torture as an expedient plot device with multiple functions: it takes on a wider poetic significance as the larger Middle East reveals Maya’s character and brings an American audience face to face with something ugly that did happen in the war effort. Unfortunately, the plot’s use of torture has become the major hang-up of critics missing the film’s more implicit significance. Perhaps Bigelow would’ve been wiser to muddy up the investigational timeline to dissipate the strong causality between torture and information.

___

Critics who claim the portrayal of torture in the film is immoral need to rethink the way torture serves the plot without thematizing or condoning it. At the end of the day, the US did torture detainees — whether by Maya’s hand or someone else’s – and the film presents that. Critics instead reveal contempt for the audience, determined to wave a warning flag crying, “it didn’t really happen like this!”

We get it — but it’s a movie and you’re a movie critic, not an intelligence officer. None of us know exactly how it happened and none of us wish to piece together every clue that got us there.

The real contention lies not in the how, but in whether or not Bigelow’s reductionist portrayal of intelligence gathering reveals her own misunderstanding or a conscious artistic decision to tell a complex revenge story. I’ll go with the latter.

After two years full of questions but absolutely no answers, the NCAA just dropped the figurative hammer on itself. Let’s review the facts, or lack thereof:

Nevin Shapiro, a perpetual liar and swindler with an inferiority complex that he took out on the Hurricanes, is in prison for a Ponzi scheme totaling nearly $1 billion. Shapiro poured his heart out to a Yahoo! Sports reporter who ran with his wild story of illicit gifts, yacht trips and strippers for UM athletes from 2002 to 2010.

The NCAA launched an investigation into this alleged rampant misconduct, benefited from full disclosure and cooperation on the university’s part, but still failed to produce results.

Our athletic department has remained poised, compliant and persistent in its own right, even shutting the football team out of two bowl games to lighten any forthcoming sanctions.

“I am frustrated, disappointed and concerned by President Mark Emmert’s announcement today that the integrity of the investigation may have been compromised by the NCAA staff,” President Donna E. Shalala said in a statement. “… we will continue to work with the NCAA and now with their outside investigator hoping for a swift resolution of the investigation and our case.”

NCAA’s statement on Wednesday was shocking, and borderline humorous. Emmert called out former members of the association’s enforcement staff for improperly obtaining information to use against UM.

Give that a second to sink in. The integrity police have abandoned their own rules. The administrative body tasked to investigate wrongdoing at Miami could not follow its own guidelines.

Everyone is guilty of the occasional unethical misstep. But something feels especially unsavory about this new development in our long-running case with the NCAA.

People always wonder whether the NCAA has a particular vendetta against Miami. Since the brand first exploded during the Jimmy Johnson era, there has been outrage over perceived unethical conduct at the U.

In 2011, Sports Illustrated’s Alexander Wolff wrote a follow-up to his infamous 1995 letter calling for Miami’s athletic program to be shut down. “Your football program has no regard for the rules and your administration has no ability to enforce them,” he said.

Two years and zero solutions later, it’s the NCAA that must look inward to investigate a blatant disregard for its protocol and its “ability to enforce” it.

Will the NCAA ban itself from bowl games? Reduce its scholarships to set the program back a few years? Or does this developing mess warrant the dreaded death penalty?

The Hurricanes’ future is still at stake. The longer this investigation drags on, the more of a hindrance it becomes. But even the NCAA can’t take away the legacy we’ve built, the pride we’ve established or our trust in this program.

We stand with the U.

To be sure, Likud Beitenu, a joint list of Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu, will walk away with the largest number of seats in the 19th Knesset: 31 out of 120, if the latest estimates hold. However, in light of the fact that the two parties entered the race with a combined 42, the results stand as nothing less than a severe drubbing. If they haven’t already, heads are expected to roll in the halls of Israel’s secular right-wing establishment. And far from the second-place finish for which they were angling—and which enthusiastic youth support suggested possible—Naftali Bennett’s high-tech, beardless brand of annexationism fared no better: 11 seats, something on the order of a tie for fourth place. In short: not including the ultra-Orthodox parties, which are mostly concerned with maintaining the state’s theocratic trappings and their own massive welfare allocations, the unsinkable Israeli right managed hardly more than a third of the total pie.

Having just returned from the unplanned bustle of Yesh Atid campaign headquarters, it is fair to say that the winner at Netanyahu’s expense is a strikingly handsome Yair Lapid, the son of the late secularist politician Tommy Lapid and a well-respected former news anchor at Israel’s Channel 2. Once written off as a mere personality cult, Lapid’s Yesh Atid (“There Is a Future”) party seems poised to pick up 19 seats, whose occupants would include a former Shin Bet chief, an American-born Hopkins-educated Orthodox rabbi, two Ethiopian immigrants, and as many women as men. Decidedly centrist and concerned mostly with a bevy of domestic issues (religion and state, equality in national service, education reform), Lapid’s party is now poised to make or break the prospect of a third term for Netanyahu—in the turn of a black swan event that only Yesh Atid’s on-the-ground operatives claim in hindsight to have predicted.

Despite the great surprise of tonight’s results, most pundits aver that the most likely path forward is a shakier, more compromise-ready Likud-led government. This is with good reason; but, I would urge against jumping to conclusions. First, it is important to note that the media story on Likud Beitenu’s collapse remains woefully understated: because the terms of the Likud-Yisrael Beitenu merger stipulate a parting of ways after election day, Netanyahu and Lieberman’s parties will be forced to split a grand total of 31 seats. In what appears to be the least-reported statistic of the night, this would leave the Likud at 20: the smallest predominant party in Israel’s history, holding 1/6 of the Knesset’s total seats and just barely edging Yesh Atid and Shelly Yachimovich’s center-left Labor as the largest faction.

More than just a testament to Israeli politics’ descent into schizophrenic hyper-pluralism over the course of the last eight years, this fact could induce President Shimon Peres, endowed with the power to choose which party gets to build a ruling coalition, to defy the odds and hand the job to Lapid or one of his center-left counterparts. While the mathematics and popular narrative suggest this an unlikely scenario, it is important to note that Peres—a peace-driven veteran of the Labor Party—might be looking for an excuse to intervene against a prime minister he believes to have badly fumbled the Palestinian issue. If Washington is serious about resuscitating the peace process, it is likely that President Obama will be spending the first few days of his new term in talks with Israel’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning elder statesman, figuring out a way to configure a government sans Netanyahu.

As you wade through the next few weeks of dense post-electoral coverage, the concept to follow will be coalition-building, the means by which every Israeli government since 1949 has come to be. In the likelier (author’s prediction: modestly, not overwhelmingly) case that Netanyahu is granted the opportunity to build a coalition, he will have to choose two of three constituencies to include: Yesh Atid’s secular centrists, the Jewish Home’s hard-right annexationists, and Shas’ ultra-Orthodox Mizrahi ethnics. Forced into diplomatically destructive territory by a newly-minted farther-right Likud list, it is generally understood that Netanyahu—an eternal pragmatist—would prefer to rebalance his coalition toward the center than to embrace the full weight of the right-religious bloc. In the less likely event that Lapid is called to form a coalition, it will require the full cooperation of the entire center-left bloc, as well as either the admission of either an ultra-Orthodox party or the unprecedented inclusion of Arab-Israeli factions. And finally, a shift in just a few seats from the current projections could shake up the entire map.

Whatever configuration comes into power, the story of tonight’s upset can be reduced to one word: turnout. As concerted campaigns by the left-wing NGO Peace Now and President Peres suggested, Israel’s democratic outcomes have a tendency to skew rightward because of turnout disparities between settlers and the ultra-religious on one hand, and secular urbanites and Arab citizens on the other. Conventional wisdom failed to account for the possibility that these efforts, which targeted young, urban audiences, might actually make a difference—something reflected in today’s turnout rates, the highest since 1999 and markedly high in secular urban strongholds. Conversely, turnout in the Arab sector appears to have hit rock bottom—somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%—a factor that very well might have narrowly prevented a total upset by the center-left bloc.

I urge you to stay tuned for more opinion and analysis as the 19th Knesset begins to take shape behind closed doors. At the least, expect me to argue that no Likud government, however tempered, can be expected to make serious overtures toward peace. In the mean time, enjoy the rush of an election result that, absent an Israeli Nate Silver, has thrown the entire Middle East punditocracy into chaos.

The phrase “higher-education bubble” was first popularized by Glenn Reynolds, a distinguished professor of law at U. Tennessee. In his book, “The Higher-Education Bubble,” he defines the term:

“Bubbles form when too many people expect values to go up forever.”

How do we properly value education against its cost? We all know that tuition prices across the nation are rising and have been for years.

Data from College Board’s Trends in Student Aid, one of the most comprehensive sources of statistics on college pricing, indicate that financial aid per student in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars has been consistently rising as well.

Because salaries for highly educated professionals have risen rapidly in recent years, an increase in college pricing is somewhat justified. Robert Archibald, chancellor professor of economics at the College of William and Mary, said this:

“Everyone has three objectives for higher education: lower tuition, higher quality, and less government spending on subsidies. The unfortunate truth is that we can have any two of these, but we can’t have all three. If we mandate low tuition, we have to give on one of the other two.”

Tamar Lewin of the New York Times takes a different position, attributing much of the rising education cost to unnecessary increases in administrative staff in colleges across the country.

Students have a responsibility to make smart decisions in order to sustain the value of education. College is still worth it; however, if we are not careful, we can make the mistake of overvaluing our education. Maximizing future benefit requires more than sitting through classes.

We are not entitled to a job offer or high salaries once we graduate. In order to deserve these things, we must continue to work hard in classes and focus on enriching ourselves outside the classroom, building time management and communication skills.

According to multiple studies, students at college spend less time studying today than 60 years ago. Social development is a crucial aspect of the college experience, but it is not the reason tax dollars are funding federal student loan and grant programs.

Nor is enrolling in college an automatic guarantee to future success. According to the American Enterprise Institute,

“Data from the National Center for Education Statistics show that only 58 percent of new college students who began in 2004 had graduated six years later.”

The 42 percent of students who dropped out (roughly 2/3 of which cited reasons not related to tuition prices) are left holding thousands in student loans with no diploma to show for it.

For these people, it may have been better if they had considered an alternative to college.

For those of us that are already here, we need to continually strive to merit the generosity we have been given and work to achieve the success we dream of.

Adam Lanza killed these children, and I will name each and every victim, because I refuse to give their murderer more attention here than I give them. And if we keep these victims in the spotlight, we will be motivated to continue our discussion of the event that killed them until measures are taken to prevent it from happening ever again. Charlotte Bacon, Daniel Barden, Rachel D’Avino, Olivia Engel, Josephine Gay, Dylan Hockley, Dawn Hochsprung, Madeleine Hsu, Catherine Hubbard, Chase Kowalski, Jesse Lewis, Ana Marquez-Greene, James Mattioli, Grace McDonnell, Anne Marie Murphy, Emilie Parker, Jack Pinto, Noah Pozner, Caroline Previdi, Jessica Rekos, Avielle Richman, Lauren Rousseau, Mary Sherlach, Victoria Soto, Benjamin Wheeler and Allison Wyatt died Dec. 14, 2012, in what should have been the second safest place for them on earth, after their homes.

The Sandy Hook tragedy brought increased attention to the issues of public shootings and violence in the United States. But too soon, the discussion shifted from matters of gun control to those of mental health and the cultural normalization of violence.

Forget about banning guns, people say. The real solution, many believe, is to improve mental health care. Others dismiss gun availability as the cause of mass shootings and instead blame popular culture — namely video games, rap music, television and film — for glamorizing violence. I agree that both inadequate health care for the mentally ill and our culture’s obsession with violence are key problems that often contribute to heartbreaking tragedies like that of Sandy Hook. But to fixate on these issues undermines the discussion and actions that could ultimately put a stop to mass shootings.

Let’s be frank. It is a given that even the best mental health care system is occasionally going to allow a sick person to slip through its cracks. And although we can strengthen regulations on games and movies and music, it is impossible to erase all violent aspects of popular culture, especially in a society that so deplores censorship of any kind. Remember that little thing called the First Amendment? It’s even more prominent than the Second.

No, the action that will make the most progress in ending public, large-scale shootings is banning automatic- and semiautomatic-style weapons for good. Forget poor health care and a violent society. Fixing these problems does nothing so long as these kinds of weapons are legal. Because even that one mentally ill person who slides by the best mental health experts can’t kill 20 children in a matter of seconds without one.

Maybe if Lanza’s weapon had been a knife, or even a non-automatic pistol or rifle, more of the Sandy Hook victims would have survived. It would not have been possible for him to burst through doors, there would have been more time for teachers and children to hide, and there would have been more time for the police to arrive. But when he was wielding a semiautomatic? Those children and their teachers did not stand a chance.

Though I personally believe it is possible to make a case for banning all guns, I’m not sure it’s prudent to argue for that at this time. But no civilian citizen needs an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. These weapons are not necessary to fulfill the requirements of gun supporters, because they are not necessary for hunting or self-protection and should not be protected by the Second Amendment right to bear arms. These kinds of weapons did not exist when the Second Amendment was passed. And I would challenge the commonly held notion that the Second Amendment legitimizes gun ownership — a person’s right to bear arms does not surpass a child’s right to grow up. Yet, regardless of how one interprets the Right to Arms Clause, there is simply no viable argument against banning the types of weapons that killed the victims listed above.

As a nation, we are certainly talking about the tragedies of the past year. Photographs of the victims — and, unfortunately, of their murderers — are everywhere. Donations continue to pour in for the families and friends of the Sandy Hook victims, and for those of the victims of similar events all over the country. But it is not enough. Yes, we can bemoan the losses and cry and shake our heads. We can complete 26 acts of kindness in honor of the victims, and we can rant about whatever cause we blame for the massacre. But until we seriously advocate a nation-wide ban on automatic-style weapons, and until we pass the necessary legislation, the deaths of the past year occurred in vain. We will have to live with the knowledge that, while the self-indulgent cling to their supposed rights, children will lose their lives.

The U.S. is a strategic and economic ally of Saudi Arabia and has failed to speak out against human rights abuses in the country

In a country that has outlawed protests, citizens’ reaction to the arrests was shocking. In the incredibly conservative city of Buraidah, where the women were arrested, men took to the streets to protest their arrest and detention.

The protest by a small group of women sparked a rare expression of political dissent.

After the strong reaction, the government released the women and children but did not comment on the condition of their loved ones.

These protests are especially important given the Saudi Arabia’s guardianship laws that legally define women as children under the care of their husbands or fathers.

Women, who are not allowed to travel without a male companion, risked torture and imprisonment to ask for simple information regarding detained relatives.

In October 2010, local journalist Fahd al-Jukhaidib, was arrested and lashed merely for reporting on a protest. Many others have been detained for years for participating in peaceful protests.

The U.S. has not taken direct diplomatic action to support the protests, despite being active in recent human rights efforts in Egypt and Syria. Ignoring violations in Saudi Arabia undermines our efforts in other Arab countries because we are seen as playing favorites with our allies.

The relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia has been strained by oil concerns and human rights violations. President Barack Obama took significant steps in advocating for greater human rights in the region during the Arab Spring.

In early 2011, Obama publicly called for the resignation of Egypt’s leader Hosni Mubarak and recently recognized Syria’s revolutionary government.

But Obama is in a dilemma over Saudi Arabia. As the kingdom is one of our trading partners, the U.S. has been wary of criticizing the Saudi regime and calling for increases in human rights.

We cannot afford to be passive any longer. When the people of a repressed nation call out for the most basic access to political and judicial liberties, it is our duty to join the call.

As weeks pass, the country’s mood has turned from mourning to alert. Advocates of gun control view the shooting as another reason why legalization of guns is dangerous and why the Second Amendment needs to be eradicated and, honestly, I can understand that. We have massacres that involve deadly weapons; naturally, the solution would be to ban such weapons.

But there’s more to the story than that. Perhaps the solution is not to ban guns, but to give more leniency to carrying the weapons. The fact of the matter is that guns, being able to deal death, work as protection as well because everyone fears of being on that receiving end.

The worst shootings in our nation’s history have been in gun-free zones. These are designated areas in which registered concealed weapons are not allowed. Shooters, however (as nice and honorable as they might seem), are not likely to obey laws and regulations as they prepare to take lives. While gun-free zones seem like they would provide safety, they only disarm American citizens — the ones not planning on murder.

On Dec. 17, a theater shooting occurred in San Antonio. But it was not widely circulated by the mainstream media, and it’s rather clear why. In this instance the shooter was stopped before many could be injured. The theatre (in a non-gun-free zone) happened to be in the company of an off-duty cop (carrying a concealed weapon) who shot the shooter before more harm could befall movie goers.

Another recent news story not widely circulated involved a mother of two shooting a home invader in order to protect her family. When the man attempted to break into their home, the woman hid in a crawl space with her children and shot the intruder once he found their hiding place.

Had these citizens not been in the possession of guns, their lives may have turned out very differently. More would have been injured or killed in the San Antonio shooting, and a family could have been destroyed.

So while guns can kill, the proof is right there in front of us that their ability to kill is also what keeps many Americans safe and allows them to feel secure. Taking guns away from all American citizens will not keep guns out of everyone’s hands. Criminals and murderers who plan shootings and the like will not read the paper “Guns now banned” and think, “Oh my! Well I guess I’m out of luck then.” They will always find a way to obtain such weapons — but with guns banned, they now are released against an unarmed and defenseless populace.

I know, I know, we’re not defenseless! We have police! The San Luis Obispo Police Department has a goal of a four-minute response time — and they meet that 95 percent of the time, according to their own measures. That’s a speedy arrival, I will surely give them that, but four minutes when faced with imminent danger is awfully long.

The guns don’t even have to be fired; announcing that you carry one to an intruder or mugger is enough to soon see them dashing out your window or fleeing to the nearest crowded area. Their own tactics are turned against them — and man, how they hate it when the tables are turned and they’re the ones watching their lives flash before their eyes.

Gun-free zones and even complete eradication of the Second Amendment will not result in a safer America but a vulnerable and less free one. There’s a reason the Aurora Batman shooter drove past countless theaters to get to the one in a gun-free zone: so he alone carried a gun and had the potential to kill.

That’s the future of America if we give up our right to bear arms — a fundamental right. With our ability to freely pursuit happiness and justice, we surely too have the freedom to feel safe in our own homes.

And so here’s to hoping there won’t soon be a South Park episode featuring our favorite rednecks shouting “They took our guns!”

Since Barack Obama took office as president, the national debt has increased by almost $6 trillion. During President George W. Bush’s time in office the national debt increased by more than $5 trillion. In amassing for us and our posterity such large financial obligations, the programs mentioned above give higher priority to the personal benefit of individuals than they do to the health of the United States of America.

I used to think this crisis of debt, along with all the other misguided policy initiatives, stemmed from a failure of Americans to follow President John F. Kennedy’s exhortation, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” Put in the language of one Anti-Federalist contributor — probably Robert Yates of New York, writing as “Brutus” — to the constitutional ratification debates in 1787, “The object of every free government is the public good, and all lesser interests yield to it. That of every tyrannical government, is the happiness and aggrandisement of one, or a few, and to this the public felicity, and every other interest must submit.”

The problem, however, is misunderstanding of what “country” actually is.

Citizens of republics direct their patriotism toward the republic that existed before them and, if they are good stewards of it, will exist after them. Citizens of democracies direct their patriotism toward their country’s citizens. The United States is a republic, and the country of the United States is composed of the institutions of its constitution and the understandings in which those institutions and that constitution were formed. The United States does not consist of the people who live in it or pay taxes to its government; they are mere biological organisms that live and die. And although the United States is nothing without its citizens, the people who live within its boundaries are not Americans without the United States’ institutions.

Politics and government should deal with the ties that hold people together, not the people themselves. Indeed, politicians should act in the same way that chemists concern themselves not with alchemy, trying to convert one element into another, but with discovery of new elements and ways in which elements bind to one another in their various permutations.

An analogy aptly articulates my argument.

Consider an apartment building. This apartment building represents all of society. Each member of society owns a unit in the building. For the same purposes as the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 gathered — “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” — the inhabitants of the apartment create a government for it.

That government ought to confine itself to maintaining the building’s exterior walls, the walls between the units that separate the private lives of the people who live in it, and the spaces in which the inhabitants have an opportunity to interact with one another — hallways, elevators, stairwells, laundry rooms, etc.

Whatever goes on within individual units and does not threaten to affect the spaces between the units, should be of no concern to the building’s government. Whatever threatens to affect those spaces — say, a fire — deserves the government’s attention, but unless it actually does damage to those meeting points, the government should not act.

It may be nice or moral or ethical for the individual inhabitants to come to the aid of their neighbor, but personal, private assistance is something a government — which uses force to carry out its judgments — should never pursue.

An adage often repeated to children is some variation on the maxim, “Just because everybody does it, doesn’t mean it’s right, and just because nobody does it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.” Politics and government should operate on the same basic principle. The fact that a problem is common — that many people have the same problem — does not mean the problem is held in common. The grass between the houses of Boston and the streets of Boston might be equal in size to that of the Boston Common, but that does not mean the city’s residents have just as much right to spend their leisure hours in your front yard as they do in the country’s oldest public space.

For most people, Myspace is a distant memory of a prototypical social network that was basically a glorified blog with an obnoxious amount of customizability.

Now, years after Facebook and Twitter forced Myspace into obscurity, musician and actor Justin Timberlake has released a new version of the site. Despite the name, the site is nearly unrecognizable. Gone are the glittery backgrounds and annoying automatic profile songs. Instead, the new Myspace is going for a simplistic profile style, which asks for very little besides name, age, sex and a brief description of yourself. In fact, you can sign into the website with the click of a button using your Facebook or Twitter account, something that would seem insane to someone living through the social network wars of the early 2000s.

Myspace isn’t trying to compete with other social networks anymore. It’s trying to be “one more thing” instead of “the next thing.” As Google+ proved a few years ago, it is extremely difficult to convince people to jump ship to another system when they are so deeply invested in something else already.

The new Myspace homepage is made up of large tiles, each one representing a news story, band, movie trailer or music video. The tiles change depending on the user’s interests. The goal is to help users “discover” new things that they may like instead of simply viewing the things they already enjoy.

Timberlake has not been focusing on his music as much as he used to, but it is very clear that the new Myspace is music-oriented and hopes to compete with streaming options such as Spotify and Pandora.

The site aims to make sharing and discovering new music a social activity. Users create their own mixes and playlists that can be shared with their friends, while also being shown new artists and songs that may interest them. This is an interesting middle ground between Spotify, which primarily streams music that the users choose themselves, and Pandora, which plays music randomly based on a theme that the user chooses.

However, the big question here is whether or not people want to add another tab to their online social activity. With Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Spotify, Youtube, Pandora and more, it is likely that web users are already over-saturated with social options.

For now, it will be most useful to fans of the indie music scene, who can follow and discover lesser known bands easily and add and share new music to their “mix.” Indie bands may also have more success connecting with an audience if this format becomes a success.

We will have to wait and see if Myspace can really return from the grave as another website to check every day, or even take over for one we’ve already grown accustomed to. For now, it’s just another pretty time waster to click around while you’re supposed to be working.

It’s back — in hallways, bathrooms, classrooms, gyms, cafeterias and just about every other place in America. And, it’s probably going to kill you.

Just kidding, it probably won’t, unless you are really young or old, or you have a weak immune system. But the flu will make you sick, like it could every other year. Yet every “flu season”, health organizations and many media organizations hoot and holler about “the flu epidemic” and put fear in the hearts of every Joe and Jill Schmo in America.

With that said, health organizations and media organizations should disseminate important flu-related information to the public. In fact, the Daily is running a flu story today in order to inform the public of important campus-related information regarding the flu. However, it often seems as if some media organizations spread flu-related information in a sensationalized way.

For instance, a Daily Beast headline on Google read “A Bad Flu Season, and Worse to Come.” However, the article explicitly stated, “This year influenza looks serious, but it’s still nothing like what a really lethal influenza season can be.” Of course, a headline stating, “Flu Season Not History’s Worst” is not nearly as eye-catching as the former headline.

Additionally, quite a few media outlets have related this year’s flu epidemic to the worst flu pandemics in history. The problem is that an epidemic and a pandemic differ drastically in severity.

According to WebMD, an example of an epidemic is the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic that occurred in 2002 and 2003, which killed about 800 people. An example of a pandemic is HIV/AIDS, which kills almost 2 million people on average each year.

Some media organizations compare the effects of epidemics to those of pandemics, which is like comparing the bite of a domestic cat to that of a lion. Although they are similar, one is much worse than the other and the lesser one must become much larger in scale for a proper comparison.

Furthermore, many media organizations focus on flu-related mortalities. For instance, a NBCNews article reported six deaths have occurred from flu-related causes in San Diego. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated 3,140,069 people lived in San Diego in 2011, meaning if the population is similar now, .000019 percent of San Diego’s population has died from the flu this year. The news article did not mention that small percentage.

The CDC does not track flu-related deaths, but it does estimate the number of people who die from flu-related causes each year. From the 1976-1977 season to the 2006-2007 season, the CDC’s estimated flu-related deaths ranged from 3,000 to 49,000.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are more than 315 million people living in the United States. Using the CDC’s estimates, anywhere from .000095 percent to .0016 percent of people in the United States died from flu-related causes from the 1976-1977 season to the 2006-2007 season.

What all these numbers and percentages say is that the flu does kill Americans, but it does not kill nearly as many as some media organizations may cause the public to worry. People should know about the flu and how to prevent it. However, it is equally important for them to know they aren’t destined to die from it this season.

When it comes to the flu and other infectious diseases, common sense goes a long way. Wash your hands, cover your cough, avoid high populated areas and remember this flu season will be over soon. Do all that and before you know it, the next flu season will be here, wreaking havoc and making us think we’re one step closer to the zombie apocalypse.

I have come to notice that many people advocating for gun control know precious little about gun policy or even the subject in question: guns. Only hours after the massacre, I read a Facebook post by a Dartmouth student who hoped that the U.S. would “finally address the major issue of automatic weapons in this country.” The post was “liked” by quite a few people, including other Dartmouth students. However, automatic weapons are not a major issue and the Newtown shootings had nothing to do with automatic weapons. These kinds of knee-jerk responses actually harm the debate on gun control because anyone who knows a thing or two about weapons will quickly write these poorly informed critics off as imbeciles.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a similar gaffe in an interview with ABC News correspondent Cynthia McFadden when he equated assault weapons with automatic weapons. When McFadden politely corrected Bloomberg, the mayor did not acknowledge his ignorance but instead changed the subject to high-capacity magazines. The head of a media empire and of the largest city in the U.S., who funds gun policy studies at Johns Hopkins University did not know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an automatic weapon. How can you advocate policy for a subject you really have no knowledge about?

Yet the media keeps fueling the hype. The Los Angeles Times easily wins the prize for the most ridiculous piece of feigned outrage. When the Los Angeles Police Department held a gun buyback program in the wake of the Newtown shootings, the paper ran an article about two rocket launchers being bought at a gun buyback program. As part of the program, people could bring in their guns and receive $100 to $200 gift cards in exchange for their weapons. Apparently, two inspired entrepreneurs even brought in the spent tubes of an AT-4 anti-tank weapon. To be clear, these are military arms that once fired can never, under any circumstances, be reloaded or used again. However, the LAPD happily paid for both tubes, which is the equivalent of buying bullet casings and celebrating the guns you took off the street.

Seriously, in Afghanistan, AT-4 tubes are used as makeshift poles. Furthermore, it is illegal to own an AT-4. Even if these weapons had been live, their resale was not the consequence of loose gun laws, but rather a serious crime.

Stirring up outrage or advocating policy with woeful ignorance of the subject is detrimental to the debate on gun control. Gun loyalists view these gaffes with the same disdain most liberals would a birther. This fuels the idea among the gun crowd that there must be something more at play — the government is coming for their guns or there’s some sort of conspiracy at work. The gun lobby, with its “over my dead body” rhetoric, also hurts the debate, as most discussion of gun control is interpreted as a gun ban.

Yet gun control does not equal gun prohibition, and I fail to see the harm in waiting periods or registering a weapon as one would a car. Ultimately, both sides of the divide prevent meaningful discussion: one by viewing the subject as a totalitarian takeover and the other by demanding action with a stunning lack of awareness about the subject.

The student loan debt tally is soaring higher and higher and seemingly has no end in sight. Colleges and universities have little incentive to truly control prices because there are so many people willing to finance enormous amounts of money to get a degree.

We have been socialized to believe and think that everyone should get a college degree. Student loans exist to make that reality.

We thought the same about owning a home and sub-prime lending made that a possibility. The end result was and still is a huge disaster. Borrowers could borrow far more money than their home was worth with little correlation to their ability to repay. Financing a college education is no different.

Federal student loans are not based on your ability to repay. You can borrow the same amount of money for a degree that could land you a job making $35,000 as you could for one that could allow you to earn $75,000.

We should put the blame on the university for charging the same price for those two degrees because they don’t have the same economic value. We all decide what we want to study and I’m not suggesting that one is better or more important than the other; I mention that only because we need to make smart financial decisions about our future.

According to the university, the cost of attending U. Toledo with no grants or scholarships with living on campus is $23,108 per year. That is $93,432 for a four year degree. That is an enormous monthly payment to make after graduation, whether you are working or not. And that debt isn’t like other debts you have or will incur later – you own it forever.

It is almost impossible to discharge a student loan in bankruptcy and the lenders don’t play by the same rules as other creditors. They can garnish your wages, take your tax refunds, take a portion of your social security or the social security of your cosigner, and the list goes on.

The good news is that federal student loans have far more options for help than their private counterparts, so please avoid private loans if at all possible. One of the biggest advantages is loan forgiveness (not for private loans) if you work in public service. This option allows for graduates to take jobs in the public sector that typically don’t pay as well as private sector jobs, and have the balance of their loans forgiven after meeting certain requirements. You can read all the details at http://www.finaid.org/loans/publicservice.phtml.

As a bankruptcy attorney, the number of people I see with unmanageable student loan debt is staggering and frightening. In almost every case, they have borrowed far more money than they could ever possibly repay given the field they have chosen. I’m not talking just about artists, film, or liberal arts majors. I am talking about teachers, attorneys, accountants and even doctors and engineers. Even if they are lucky enough to get a job with a high salary, the student loan payment is equally as high. And filing bankruptcy isn’t as easy as it used to be, so now they may not qualify even if student loans were dischargeable.

Do yourself and your family a huge favor and borrow responsibly. Don’t borrow more than you have to. Work part time and use that money for rent and spring break, not student loan money. You have options; do some research before you sign any loan documents. Talk to someone in the financial aid office. Talk with your parents or someone you trust that understands finance and money to help you understand what you are getting yourself into. Your education is the door to a bright and successful futur,e and being as responsible as possible now will make sure that paying for that education doesn’t devastate your future.  Good luck!

Troy M. Hawkins is a Toledo bankruptcy lawyer who graduated from UT with his Juris Doctorate in 2008.

But as the world reacts to Armstrong’s confession, the question remains as to how the world should view the man once considered the most influential athlete in the world and the legacy he leaves behind — which includes the Livestrong Foundation, which has raised more than $470 million to fight cancer.

There is no denying the despicable reality of Armstrong’s actions, even more so his emphatic dedication to lying about them. Armstrong cheated and lied about doing it under oath during a court deposition in 2005 and in the media multiple times after that. Armstrong will have to face many people regarding his actions — the World Anti-Doping Agency, all of his past sponsors, all of his past team mates all of the people who claimed that he was doping before and all of his fans.

But nobody understands the seriousness of his actions more than Armstrong himself.

More than anything that Armstrong has accomplished, recovering from his reputation will turn out to be the second most trying fete he will ever face.

Regardless of the implications that doping will bring, Armstrong’s influence extends far beyond his accomplishments as an athlete. When he was 25, he was diagnosed with stage three testicular cancer that spread to his lungs and brain.

Armstrong battled through cancer, got back on his bike and won the Tour de France seven times in a row. It made for an inspirational story and Armstrong lived the life of a celebrity and hero for years after that, starting Livestrong Foundation in 1997. Armstrong reportedly apologized to Livestrong before taping the interview.

He was one of the few bicyclists who were a household name and an inspiration to those affected by cancer.

His story forces the public to question the standards that we place on athletes and the pedestal we put them on just to watch as they notoriously fall.

While there is no sense or humility in rationalizing Armstrong’s actions, there is humility in allowing Armstrong — and his foundation — the chance at a normal and vitriol-free life as long as he tells the truth.

Armstrong, like the majority of people, was prone to the inevitable cadence of feats and failures that define the human condition. Despite how much he may have disappointed those who looked up to him, it would be unwise for us to overlook his contributions outside of professional cycling and his storied battle against cancer.

The death of Aaron Swartz hit MIT hard. The Institute suddenly finds itself confronted with deep and important questions: What kind of role did MIT play in the prosecution of the 26-year-old prodigy? Is there something MIT could have — or should have — done that would have averted such a tragic outcome?

At 8 p.m, on January 12^th, Beijing’s Air Quality Index was recorded to be 755, more than 200 points above the supposed maximum of 500.

China’s environmental woes are no secret. The 2008 Olympics turned the global spotlight onto China’s pollution problems when concerns where raised as to whether or not the athletes participating would be able to perform at their usual levels due to the overwhelming levels of air pollution in Beijing. The World Wildlife Fund reports that in addition to severe air pollution, around 40 percent of the rivers in China contain water unfit for human consumption. Nearly 30 percent of China’s land has suffered from desertification, the environmental phenomenon in which dry land loses water, wildlife, and vegetation. In 2006, China passed the United States to become, by volume, the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases.

The country has, of course, taken steps to mitigate the environmental issues it faces. In November of last year, China announced the introduction of a mandatory “social risk assessment” for all major industrial projects as a method of gaging the environmental impact of new developments. On a smaller scale, the government of Guangzhou, one of the biggest automobile manufacturing cities in China, announced that it would begin to limit the number of vehicles on the road with lotteries and auctions for license plates for new cars, thus cutting down the amount of new cars on the city’s street by roughly half.

But the news coming out of Beijing this weekend signals that the country’s pollution problem has escalated to a new level. The index, which is established upon the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards, marks an air pollution rating of 400 or above as “hazardous for all.” The level recorded in China on Saturday night was nearly double that. By contrast, on the same day, using the same standards, New York City received an air quality rating of 19. The rising levels of pollution in China are a testament to the fact that the steps taken by the Chinese government are neither dramatic nor intense enough to seriously combat the issue.

By virtue of the ecological structures of our planet, climate change isn’t just China’s problem; it’s the world’s. Higher greenhouse emission levels from China means increased levels of climate change globally. Water pollution in China translates to lower water quality worldwide. Scientists across the United States have pointed to climate change as one of the chief causes for the severity of weather disasters such as Hurricane Sandy. 2012 was the hottest year ever recorded.

Hence, climate change is, by nature, an international issue. Ultimately, this means the United States has less control over this issue than issues such as gun control or the debt ceiling. The United States acting unilaterally in the eleventh hour will bring no solution to this problem. Furthermore, that same international aspect of the issue means that the actions of any and every country around the globe have repercussions in the U.S. However, the United States is and, for the foreseeable future, will be a superpower. In terms of environmental issues, this means the responsibility of seriously tackling the issue lies with the U.S. Only once we begin to do so, will China and other countries follow in step. We must show a commitment to putting an end to man-made climate change before we can expect other nations to do the same. Moreover, the scale of the issue means that there exists no quick fix, no silver bullet. Instead, solutions to the problem must be multi-faceted and must be based around a long-term plan. All of these factors point to the fact that the time for action is now.

In roughly a week, President Obama will be inaugurated for his second term. During the next four years, he will have to address gun control, the debt ceiling, and tax policy. All of these issues are pressing and deserve attention. However, time spent focusing on these problems cannot become time lost addressing climate change. President Obama mounted both his campaigns on the slogan, “Change We Can Believe In.” And whether you believe it or not, climate change’s consequences will be severe.

The scenes of the CIA water-boarding prisoners were hard enough to watch, but what was harder to watch was the way the movie was filmed and told. It was filmed documentary style, showing the director’s point of view of what life is like in Pakistan and Afghanistan when U.S. forces and the CIA were present. Most people sat there complacent, accepting this view face value. Many people, including myself, do not know what life is really like there. Some would rather just accept this view even though it may not be accurate. Original phone calls from the Sept. 11 attacks were played, and a wave of sadness and unrest hit me and the rest of the room suddenly. This is when I realized that Zero Dark Thirty might become a catalyst for hatred and further violence involving racism on both the American side and the Middle East.

My thoughts raced as I remembered how the Middle East reacted to the anti-Islam film in September. Zero Dark Thirty could upset the Middle East with its graphic scenes of their men and women being killed by U.S. soldiers. We are often so quick to buy into the hype of movies that are “based on a true story” that we don’t often question the consequences of their wide spread popularity unless it directly affects us. To Americans, seeing people being murdered or killed is quite the norm in Hollywood movies, but to more conservative countries this may not be the case.

Many Americans who will watch this movie will possibly feel hatred towards those who attacked us as they listen to the frantic 911 calls from those trapped in the towers on 9/11. I did; it was impossible not to. Is it actually healthy for our country to essentially rehash what happened in a graphic, documentary style movie? We should always remember what happened and honor the victims and families of 9/11 and those who fought in the Iraq war, but Hollywood should be careful not to cross a fine line. Where I just felt angry and sad during the movie, another normal citizen may act upon their perpetuated hatred and take it out on innocent people, as events have shown quite recently in the United States.

Hollywood is not the reason violence occurs, but we cannot deny it may be a catalyst. When something as delicate as the relationship, or lack of, between Americans and people of the Middle East is depicted in Hollywood, there is of course going to be discussion on either side or possibly violence.

I have consistently heard those around me call people who may look or act like they are from the Middle East derogatory names or worse, say they are probably “terrorists”. Zero Dark Thirty may possibly reinforce this racism, because it is in fact racism. Some will leave the movie feeling hopeful for the future and others will be leaving with more hatred for the Middle East and Al Qaeda than ever before.

To fix the perception of average Americans from a Middle East standpoint, and to fix the perception of the Middle East from an American standpoint since 9/11 may be impossible. However, movies, literature and television can educate both sides and stop reinforcing biases. Not every person from the Middle East is in Al Qaeda and agrees with terrorism, which many Americans do not understand. Imagine someone with this ideology being essentially armed with a Hollywood movie like Zero Dark Thirty; it is a recipe for further discrimination and hatred.

There is also a clear difference between a documentary, and a movie filmed like it is a documentary. Though the filmmakers were in contact with the CIA, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is completely accurate. Mike Morell, acting director of the CIA, released a statement on the agency’s website stating that the “CIA interacted with the filmmakers through our Office of Public Affairs but, as is true with any entertainment project with which we interact, we do not control the final product,” according to a TIME Magazine article.

Movies like Zero Dark Thirty will not stop being produced, but what Americans can do is research and educate themselves on such topics beforehand to decrease discrimination and realize what is true and what isn’t. As citizens, it is our responsibility what we do with the media that is presented to us. By asking questions and doing formative research this may help eliminate biases, discrimination, and essentially inform consumers of what they should expect from the media and what they shouldn’t.

Facebook has the ability to, and should make money for itself, but not at the expense of the average user.

On Dec. 20, 2012 Newsroom.fb.com was updated with a post letting users know that it is testing out yet another way to turn a profit from its product. Some users soon will have to pay a fee of $1 to message other users that aren’t on their friends list.

Facebook claims this new messaging system is to cut down on the amount of fraudulent messages, known as spam, from reaching the everyday user, but this is just another attempt in a long line of schemes to rescue its IPO, which has had a lackluster performance since it went public last May. While this update to the Facebook messaging system may curb spam, it also puts a price on open communication between average Facebook users.

In the past, Facebook has attempted to make revenue off of its users by adding paid features, such as “promote,” which allows users to pay a fee to have their post placed higher up on their friends newsfeed.

I was shocked to find out that not only has Facebook put a price on communication between users, but it’s also put a price tag on messaging Facebook founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, this is where it gets really absurd. It’ll cost you $100 to message Mr.Zuckerberg… that’s right, $100, and this doesn’t even guarantee he’ll read your message. All it will do is make sure your little message doesn’t get placed in his other(junk) folder.

So even after you foolishly throw away a hundred bucks, you still won’t get Zuckerberg to “like” you.

The proposed messaging fee affects several aspects of the site used daily and certainly will be a burden on Sooner sports fans.

If you ever check the “football tickets” section of OU’s student Facebook you may know that quite often when you want to buy a ticket to a game you may have to message the seller in order to get a price. I would hazard a guess that most people don’t in fact know the seller, so it’s entirely possible that users would have to pay a Facebook “ticket tax” in order to buy a football ticket, or stop using the OU ticket section all together.

To be fair, I think this is a pretty interesting way to combat the spam messages that wind up in my message box far too often, and according to Facebook, “Several commentators and researchers have noted that imposing a financial cost on the sender may be the most effective way to discourage unwanted messages and facilitate delivery of messages that are relevant and useful,” though they don’t cite where any of this information comes from in their article.

Facebook understandably has to find a way to generate money, but the last several attempts at doing so have left users feeling sore and used. Facebook should be profiting off its mobile platform and impose usage fees on large companies, but the everyday user shouldn’t fall victim to ridiculous user fees, or Facebook may find many of its users flocking back to Myspace or Friendster.

Boehner alluded to the looming debt crisis in the speech he delivered Nov. 7, 2012, — the day after the election — saying the best solution to the cliff is “an agreement that begins to pave the way for the long-term growth that is essential if we want to lift the cloud of debt hanging over our country.” However, Boehner quickly moved on to reiterate a commitment not to an issue that the United States faces, but an issue that individual members of the United States face. Throughout his speech, Boehner touted his vision of a plan that would strengthen the economy. In turn, a strengthened, growing economy would lead to more revenues that would allow us to pay off the debt.

Obama replied in a speech two days later, on Nov. 9, 2012.  The American people elected the victorious politicians, including himself, he said, “to focus on your jobs, not ours” — to focus on the jobs of the voting population. “Our top priority,” he said, “has to be jobs and [economic] growth.” He and Congress should work to avoid the fiscal cliff because “It would be bad for the economy and it would hit families that are already struggling to make ends meet.”

As the Jan. 1 deadline for enacting a solution to the cliff loomed, Obama delivered another speech in which he did not prioritized debt reduction but job security for jobs, government benefits and a few thousand dollars per year per family. He said the best solution was “a balanced plan that would … above all, protect our middle class and everybody who’s striving to get into the middle class.”

But the magnitude of our indebtedness is so looming now that we cannot afford to wait for our economy to grow. Taking out debt might be a prudent investment in the future, but allowing it to accumulate and shrugging it off is nothing less than reckless abandon.

Debt is more than a rain cloud hanging over the heads of those who owe money to others, especially when it is so large that paying it off in the foreseeable future (i.e. within the lifetimes of those Congressmen and women who voted for it) is next to impossible. Yet, the enormity of how difficult it would be to pay down the debt at this point in time, makes such payment all the more necessary.

Reducing the national debt is more important than creating pro-business or pro-consumer tax policy because, to the extent that a person — or a country — owes more money than it can immediately pay to its creditors, he coexists with them in the same relationship as a chattel slave exists to his or her master. In a country with a gross domestic product of $15 trillion that collects $2.57 trillion in revenue, our national debt clearly limits us.

Why is it so acceptable for us to live outside our means? For, clearly, that is what we are doing, in pledging away our national fortune. From Rome’s dealings with barbarian hordes to Great Britain’s relations with the United States in her desperate struggle to beat back Hitler’s Germany, taking on debt and paying tribute have been the ruin of nations.

Republics and democracies — of which the United States is one, I am told — are ruled by the people. Before John Adams became president, he defined a republic as “a government of laws, and not of men.” In our plan of government, no man or woman is above the law.

As the people live, so the government will live. And if indebtedness is a condition individuals should seek to avoid — think of how eager your parents are to pay off the mortgages on their houses, or how proud your grandparents were that they rarely used credit or how excited you are to pay off your car and student loans (and how much noise is given to reducing student debt, from student body presidents to the president of the United States) — why is it not a condition the whole country should seek to avoid?

I suggest that it is because we have failed to maintain a rigid discipline in what is, and is not, the purpose of government and politics.

After the smoke cleared, people wanted answers. Some politicians wanted to score political points by pinning the tragedy on whatever issue happened to rub them the wrong way. And chief among the scapegoats some politicians and talking heads proffered is that old timeworn hobbyhorse that they have been riding for years: video games.

It began immediately after the shooting, of course, in a bout of what one can only describe as the worst journalism in recent memory. Fox News and CNN reported the shooter’s identity incorrectly, naming him as Ryan Lanza rather than Adam Lanza. Ryan is Adam’s older brother. The two networks also used Ryan’s Facebook photo as the photo of the shooter. This immediately led to a firestorm of hatred being posted to an innocent man’s Facebook wall, with death threats and the whole nine yards. Of course, he deleted his Facebook almost immediately to escape the rolling tide of misinformed hatred.

But the damage had been done. Because before it went down, some folks saw that Ryan liked Mass Effect on Facebook. Now for those folks who don’t closely follow every ridiculous claim that Fox News makes, this may not ring a bell, but there was a time when Fox had a nice long segment decrying Mass Effect as the most repulsive, tawdry piece of entertainment to ever hit the market. Of course, their charges against the game were defamatory at best and delusional by any measure, but that didn’t stop them for one moment. When your research on a topic consists of clicking around on that thing’s website 15 minutes before your segment, you need rethink your life.

And now their craziness has come full circle with people seizing the misinformation that Fox itself had sown in the past to demonize an industry in the future. I would accuse Fox News of being a puppet master in control of our nation’s most fervently overzealous reactionaries, but I think I’d be giving the outfit a bit too much credit. Lord knows they’ve chummed the waters enough over the years; it’s about time one of their clunkers bears fruit.

Violent video games have been a contentious issue ever since Columbine. The whole thing has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum. Naturally, Capitol Hill’s resident mercenary Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has jumped right on the bandwagon to demonize game developers and called for a commission to “examine the effect the entertainment industry has on our culture.”

“Very often, these young men have had an almost hypnotic involvement in some form of violence in our entertainment culture, particularly violent video games, and then they obtain guns and become not just troubled young men but mass murderers,” Lieberman said during his screed against video games.

To boot, various news outlets’ shock that the shooter was a big fan of Call of Duty has saturated the blogosphere. Unfortunately, Call of Duty games routinely sell more than six million copies in their launch months alone, so I suppose that’s a truckload of latent psychos out there getting ready to strike. It’s either that, or someone shooting a person in real life isn’t related to enjoying a popular war game in the slightest, and reporting that someone liked Call of Duty isn’t a bombshell at all. Do you think if Chesley Sullenberger, the pilot who landed the airplane safely in the Hudson, was revealed to play Microsoft Flight Simulator, people would be in a rush to credit video games with his amazing accomplishment? Of course not.

At the deepest circle of this sideshow is none other than the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, who began bleating his fervent, convenient cry of outrage to anyone who would listen.

“There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against its own people,” LaPierre said during a press conference after the shooting.

He went on to name Mortal Kombat, Grand Theft Auto and Bulletstorm as some of the chief titles in this alleged fount of unchecked, distasteful violence. He also referenced a game called Kindergarten Killers as a reprehensible violent video game responsible for this sort of tragedy. Problematically, trotting out an old Flash game which was taken down four years ago as damning evidence of the video game industry’s perfidy isn’t exactly a bulletproof argument. The game was made by some guy from the U.K. That’s like saying that all art is awful because your neighbor’s 5-year-old made a crappy painting.

But LaPierre wasn’t happy to just blame the tragedy on video games and move on down the road. No, he opened his press conference by attempting to usurp the moral high ground for the NRA’s own purposes.

“While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent,” LaPierre told reporters at the press conference. “Now, we must speak for the safety of our children.”

LaPierre seems to imply he wasn’t trying to deflect the growing chorus of outrage directed at the NRA or anything by ham-handedly repurposing the murder of elementary school kids to serve as an indictment of video games, thereby redirecting any calls for gun control into potential regulations of “violent video games.” I’m sure that thought never crossed his mind. It’s all about the children for LaPierre and the NRA.

At the time of his death, he faced unnecessarily harsh felony charges entailing a possible 35-year sentence and a $1 million fine. His crime? The theft of some scholarly articles from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology JSTOR digital library with the intent to distribute the papers to the public. MIT announced yesterday that they were investigating its role in his death.

The issue of online piracy has incited passionate debate since the creation of the World Wide Web. Aside from the ethical issues of using another person’s property without their permission, U.S. Congressmen have recently argued that online piracy is severely detrimental to the American economy and is destructive to individual businesses.

Both of these claims are misleading.

Recent articles have indicated that online piracy has little to no effect on businesses, and that the restriction of free, public information sharing could actually work against the favor of the economy. Moreover, these restrictions stifle creativity, encourage censorship and are a disservice to the budding social entrepreneurs of the 21st century.

The emphasis of the U.S. government on prosecuting and restricting “information-sharers” such as Swartz is unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive. In the past year, Congressional bills such as the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act, known as SOPA and PIPA, have invoked uproar in the online community because of their intent to restrict and limit the flow of information flow on the Internet, essentially censoring online interactions.

Though neither bill passed, Congress continues to contend that online piracy costs the U.S. economy between $200 and $250 billion per year, resulting in a loss of around 750,000 jobs.

If those figures sound too high to be true, it’s because they are. Julian Sanchez, a research fellow from the Cato Institute, investigated those claims last year and found they “[could not] be substantiated or traced back to an underlying data source or methodology,” suggesting that the U.S. government might have just made them up. In fact, Sanchez argued that it was virtually impossible to measure the effects of online piracy on the economy, because of the variable nature of its economic effects. Any attempt to do so, Sanchez argues, is misleading and most likely exaggerated.

Instead, research suggests that music and entertainment businesses, which are most likely to be affected by online piracy, have done better in recent economic crises than similar businesses in other industries.

Despite this evidence, threats of legal action against illegal downloads continue to escalate. Most common are the pre-movie advertisements that ominously send the message that piracy is a social evil. “Would you steal a purse? Would you steal a car?” the advertisements ask viewers, implying that clicking a button to download a song or a movie is the legal equivalent of petty theft. It’s, of course, not as simple as that.

Unlike the theft of a car, the illegal downloading of a song does not necessarily imply tangible loss or harm to another. Equally compelling is the increasingly obvious truth that online piracy restrictions are difficult to enforce. Illegal downloading has become a norm for the Millennial Generation. We would all be hard-pressed to find someone who hasn’t downloaded something off the Internet without permission.

The openness and anonymity of the Internet has afforded the Millennial Generation enormous advantages, enabling individuals access to music, entertainment, information and community where they otherwise might be deprived.

The resources of the U.S. government could perhaps be better spent by enacting policies that will actually benefit the economy and potential business leaders. Losses caused by piracy are far outweighed by the benefits of a free, unrestricted flow of information. In the case of Swartz, the real loss is the incalculable tragedy of an inspirational and influential talent gone too soon.

As Swartz said, “It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral — it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.”

Tragically, it may indeed have been greed that led the U.S. government to its decisions.

As people struggle to react, the media must also find the proper way to report such a delicate story. Regardless of the underlying ethics of giving the media such immense power, the tone of media coverage heavily dictates national opinion. While most coverage of the tragedy itself is respectful and informative, there is a small portion of news stories that serves to fuel and perpetuate a twisted interest in the killer himself. Where is he from? Who is he? What is his family like? Articles that aim to answer questions like this give the killer exactly what he wants — fame — and undermines the evil of the incident.

Many pro-gun supporters such as conservative strategist Grover Norquist strongly condemned calls for gun control. “We have got to calm down and not take tragedies like this, crimes like this, and use them for political purposes,” Norquist said. This backlash under the guise of being respectful and tasteful actually masks a fear of confronting the nation’s most pressing issues. Oddly, this expectation of tact seems to be absent when it comes to sensationalist stories about Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza. This conventional sensitivity sadly prevents people from fully addressing the politics at the heart of tragedies involving mental illness and, especially, gun control, but it also prevents the media from indulging in the nation’s perverse fascination with the killer.

After the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., film critic Roger Ebert wrote an editorial for The New York Times criticizing the media for its shameless obsession with the shooter, James Holmes. “I don’t know if James Holmes cared deeply about Batman. I suspect he cared deeply about seeing himself on the news,” Ebert wrote. He argued that the media gives shooters the exact notoriety and fame that they crave, as most killers become household names. Ebert urged the public to address the root problems behind the issue. Instead of focusing on the killer’s identity, his past, family, motives and so on, the victims and the media should focus on the underlying causes, such as the lack of proper mental health care and the accessibility of assault weapons.

We can talk about Holmes or Lanza as minor celebrities, men so horrible that a careful investigation into their histories and psyches must be launched, but it only elevates them to the notoriety they desire. This media obsession with the killer plays right into the hands of other potential shooters. Not only is this disrespectful to the victims of school shootings, whose names are often forgotten long before that of the shooter, but it also is counterproductive. Realistically, the only way to enact permanent change is to foster political dialogues regardless of the taboo of “politicizing” a tragedy.

If the media focused on the victims and the controversies regarding mental health and gun control as opposed to emphasizing the killer and his backstory, not only would more intelligent dialogue result, but a clear message would also be sent to other shooters that their plan would not get them the national infamy they may desire. When major media outlets accidentally pander to the murderer by fact-mongering for any sort of particularly salacious piece of information about his tumultuous family life, recent job loss or divorce, they throw the real issues to the wayside. The proper way to honor the victims would be to actually have the gumption to address these inflammatory political conflicts that are inseparable from cause of these national tragedies. Trying to enact permanent change that could prevent these shootings is not disrespectful — in fact, it is more disrespectful to ignore these issues.

The fact that the ATRA was passed with almost 90 votes in the Senate is indicative of the political unpalatability of potentially allowing the consequences of diving over the fiscal cliff to occur. While the fiscal cliff was designed as a measure to reduce the ever-ballooning national debt, the occurrence of its provisions would have, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, led to a mild recession and an increase in the unemployment rate. Obviously, this was not an option for Congress, even in a non-election year. The economy, after spending several years mired in the sewer, is showing signs of cautious improvement. Unemployment has slowly declined and home sales have increased. A reversal of these already-fragile gains, apart from tangibly harming the American public, would have turned an unpopular Congress into a loathed one. And so, the men and women on the Hill were faced with two options — find true compromise and enact difficult yet meaningful budget reform, or push through an ineffectual measure and act satisfied. Unsurprisingly, they chose the latter path, and the nation will, in the long run, hurt for it.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the revenue raised by tax increases in the ATRA is 41 times greater than the revenue saved by spending cuts. The figure should seem strange and alarming even to those who have no knowledge of economics or fiscal policy. Such an imbalance can be only explained by the fact that the real dollar amounts analogous to this ratio are comparatively small, thus the underwhelming nature of the law. The new taxes will raise approximately $60 billion per year for the next 10 years, a token figure in the context of a trillion-dollar budget deficit. Most of the new tax revenue is derived from an increase in the income tax for those making over $400,000 per year and an increase in the payroll tax. The latter measure is a two percent tax increase on everyone; the former, while not totally objectionable, is little more than a bone thrown to the sizeable segment of the population that wrongly believes that the nation’s problems can be solved by putting the screws to the rich. Since the revenues raised by such measures pale in comparison to the future cost of America’s entitlement programs, the actual potency of these new taxes towards reducing the debt is near-zero.

And so, Congress conveniently ignored solutions that, while tricky, would have provided for lasting reform. These potential solutions are well-known and are neither innovative nor new — Social Security reform and more efficient defense spending are two examples. These expenditures are deeply entrenched in the Washington status quo, and tackling them would be hard. However, the difficulty of such action does not change the necessity of it. The spectre of a United States with an ever-reddening balance sheet and the consequences of such a situation are far graver than the potential threat of a temporarily recessed economy. In theory, legislators would understand the importance of providing for the future, even at the possible expense of the present. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. However, as college students who necessarily have to look towards the future, this is indeed a lesson that we need to understand.

Last week marked the 11th anniversary of the facility’s use as a torture and detention facility in the U.S.’s never-ending “war on terror.” Less noticed, it was also the four-year anniversary of President Obama’s inaugural pledge to close the prison in less than a year.

With hindsight, we might be less inclined to trust Obama’s words. The president who came into office proclaiming a sunshine transparency policy has classified more documents than any other in history. The candidate who unequivocally vowed to filibuster any bill protecting illegal Bush-era wiretapping later voted for precisely such a bill—the 2008 FISA Amendments—and as president insists upon the right of warrantless eavesdropping.

Obama’s signing of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act now ensures he cannot legally fulfill his long overdue pledge to close Guantánamo any time soon. Meanwhile, 166 prisoners remain locked up at the camp, many developing the debilitating physical and psychological conditions of indefinite detention and extreme isolation. Egregiously, 86 of them, who have been unanimously cleared for release by relevant federal agencies, remain imprisoned.

We were once chastised by Obama to look “forward,” not backward, on the U.S.’s crimes of torture, but the men at Guantánamo are allowed neither luxury. Their personal histories as well as futures have been forsaken. At the prison camp’s sham tribunals, evidentiary disclosure of torture is blocked from the public, throwing a dark veil over the CIA’s storied abuses.

But the stories are there. Journalist Sami al-Hajj, wrongfully held at Guantánamo for six years and released only after a 438-day hunger strike, recalls being tortured, attacked by dogs and hung shackled from ceilings. Brandon Neely, a former Guantánamo guard, watched as a medic beat an inmate he was supposed to treat.

Further troubling, Guantánamo has become only the barely-visible tip of the U.S.’s sprawling secret torture regime. Although in the fantasyland of 2008 rhetoric Obama claimed, “We don’t farm out torture,” referring to the CIA’s practice of “rendering” terror suspects out to torture contractors, he has since embraced the policy. The European Court of Human Rights last year revealed that CIA agents wrongfully shackled, sodomized and beat a car salesman named Khaled El-Masri. Picked up on a case of mistaken identity, he was later dumped on the side of an Albanian road. A similar fate—down to the gruesome extreme of ritualized rape—befell Suleiman Abdullah, wrongfully detained at several foreign U.S. detention facilities, including Bagram Air Force Base, for five years and later released with no compensation. In 2010, an American-born teenager named Gulet Mohamed sobbed to reporters on the phone, unable to understand why the Obama administration had arranged to have him beaten and tortured while on a visit to Kuwait.

Basic human compassion demands we contend with these individuals so heinously wronged by our legacy of torture. Looking forward, we must also ensure such grievous mistakes are never again repeated.

Yet our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president seems incapable or unwilling to express remorse. The Justice Department has definitively indicated that no Bush-era war criminals, even in the case of death-by-torture, will ever be prosecuted. John Kiriakou, meanwhile, an ex-CIA official who refused torture training and was the first to publicly admit the torture program’s existence, received a neat jail sentence. He now holds the dubious distinction of being the only person against whom the U.S. has pressed any charges with regard to post-9/11 torture.

John Brennan, a vocal advocate of Bush-era wiretapping and torture (even beyond waterboarding), has now been awarded with a nomination for the CIA directorship. In 2008, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for the same post amid these precise concerns, but they have since been forgiven. As Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, Brennan is best known for leading the extrajudicial drone assassination campaign and accompanying para-militarization of the executive branch. In that capacity he was also caught outright lying about the civilian casualties of drone strikes, claiming there were none despite glaring contrary evidence.

The brutal contrast between Brennan and Kiriakou’s treatment by the Obama administration showcases its true values—unabashed secrecy, militarism and dishonesty—far more clearly than any statement ever issued by an official.

Policies once controversial under a Republican president in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack have thus been superseded and cemented by his Democratic successor. Perhaps we should add to the oft-repeated truism “only Nixon [avowed Cold Warrior] could go to China” a slogan for our era’s false progressive hope: “only Obama could spy, torture and assassinate.”

It would be hard to state our favorite movie of the 1980s. A leading contender on any list, however, surely is “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” That classic of American comedy lays out the adventures of the eponymous hero, Ferris, and two of his friends as they skip one of their last days of high school. Now, as college students, we can all fondly look back on such days of our own.

The movie even engages in a kind of juxtaposition, setting the hand-holding of high school, with an activist principal who will break into our homes to make sure we’re actually on our death beds and not faking, alongside the promises of an adult life filled with liberation and responsibility together. One thing we looked forward to leaving in high school, as surely as Ferris and his pals did, was the low resonation of “Bueller…Bueller…Bueller…?” as our teachers take attendance.

And yet, instances of attendance counting for 5 or 10 percent of a class grade are not unheard of. We would have thought that since the vast, overwhelming majority of college students are adults, such parent-style monitoring of our activities would pass into the sunset of adolescence. If college should be a time of discovery before we head out into the “real world,” we should also have to discover responsibility in addition to new cultures, world views, ideas, languages, and all the other horizon-broadening aspects of university life that get sold to high school juniors and seniors in the postcards and prospectuses sent out by admissions and recruitment offices.

When attendance-based grading occurs, the distinction between high school and college — a distinction that ought to be as visible as it is large —vanishes. Since there ought to be a clear difference between high school and college, that is unfortunate. Both institutions have the goal of preparing their students for adulthood, with one difference that has far-reaching implications.

College students are at least 18 years old, or will be for most of the time it takes to earn their degrees. In the eyes of the law, they are adults. Without their parents’ permission (although of course, we cannot say anything about their parents’ approval) they can vote, get married, rent apartments, buy cars, have abortions, file for bankruptcy, enlist in the armed forces and do pretty much anything. At the very least, they can take out thousands of dollars in loans — for which they are responsible — to pay tuition, since they are consumers of the product that America’s universities sell.

Occasionally, an attendance grade gets rolled in with participation, or in-class quizzes, or a select number of test questions that the professor will draw from material that only appeared in lecture. Given that grading must account for attendance somehow, those options — as opposed to grading based outright on whether your derriere is in your seat — are preferable.

Indeed, attendance should affect students’ grades. But it should only do so indirectly. If students are to be penalized or rewarded for showing up at class, that penalty or reward should be apparent in the quality of work the student turns in.

Perhaps our final thought should take the shape of a question: Is an attendance component of a grade an opportunity for students to gain points through focused, deliberate work, or is it an opportunity to lose them through carelessness that in the end has no bearing on the quality of the essays, quizzes and tests we turn in?

The South China Sea has long been a flashpoint for regional rivalries and tensions. Subject to a range of competing territorial claims—including from Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan, the South China Sea is at the nexus of competing and converging interests. Through these contested waters flows over one-third of world trade, and within it lies a plethora of natural resources—including oil, natural gas, and fishing reserves. Here too, a seemingly inane but critical distinction for the claimants has been the difference between a “rock” and an “island,” the latter of which must be able to support human habitation. This is a concept subject to contention, as various tenuous outposts have been established, often overlying reefs that would otherwise be submerged. While a rock only commands a 12 nautical mile expanse of territorial waters, an island may be the basis for a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that grants rights over the resources within. Recent developments—including an estimate by the Chinese oil company CNOOC that the disputed areas could contain up to 17 billion tons of oil as well as 498 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—have raised the stakes.

Beyond the relevant regional players, the United States too has much at stake. At the July 2010 meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Vietnam, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton articulated the United States’ “national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea.” As the U.S. now ‘pivots’ to the Pacific, it has sought a more active role in this dispute. This past July, at an ASEAN forum in Cambodia, following “intense” and inconclusive discussions on the South China Sea, Clinton warned, “None of us can fail to be concerned by the increase in tensions, the uptick in confrontational rhetoric and disagreements over resource exploitation.” The trajectory of this longstanding dispute may prove to be a test for the development and potential stability of the region.

Equilibrium and Interdependence?

One paradox at the heart of the South China Sea is the uneasy equilibrium that has largely been maintained. Despite the occasional confrontation and frequent diplomatic squabbling, the situation has never escalated into full-blown physical conflict. The main stabilizing factor has been that the countries involved have too much to lose form turmoil, and so much to gain from tranquility. Andrew Ring—former Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Fellow—emphasized that “With respect to the South China Sea, we all have the same goals” in terms of regional stability and development. With regional trade flows and interdependence critical to the region’s growing economies, conflict could be devastating. Even for China—the actor with by far the most to gain from such a dispute—taking unilateral action would irreparably tarnish its image in the eyes of the international community. With the predominant narrative of a “rising” and “assertive China”—referred to as a potential adversary by President Obama in the third presidential debate—China’s behavior in the South China Sea may be sometimes exaggerated or sensationalized. Dr. Auer, former Naval officer and currently Director of the Center for U.S.-Japan Studies and Cooperation at the Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies, told the HPR that “China has not indicated any willingness to negotiate multilaterally” and remains “very uncooperative.” Across its maritime territorial disputes—particularly through recent tensions with Japan in the East China Sea—Auer sees China as having taken a very aggressive stance, and he claims that “Chinese behavior is not understandable or clear.”

Nonetheless, in recent incidents, such as a standoff between China and the Philippines over the Scarborough Shoal this past April, as Bonnie Glaser, Senior Adviser for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, emphasized, “this is not an either or.” Multiple parties are responsible for the tensions, yet the cycle of action and reaction is often obscured. Nonetheless, Glaser believes that “The Chinese have in every one of these cases overreacted—they have sought to take advantage of the missteps of other countries,” responding with disproportionate coercion. In addition, China has begun to use methods of “economic coercion” to assert its interests against trade partners.

A Tipping Point?

Has the dynamic in the South China Sea shifted recently? Perhaps not in a fundamental sense. But with the regional military buildup, governments have developed a greater capacity to pursue longstanding objectives. According to Peter Dutton, Director of the China Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College,  “China’s recent behavior in the East China Sea and assertive policy in the South China Sea” is “a serious concern.” He believes that China’s willingness to resort to force in defense of its territorial claims has been increasing over time, partially as a consequence of its rising power. As such, Dutton sees the situation as reaching a “tipping point in which China is…no longer satisfied with shelving the dispute.” Is confrontation or resolution imminent? Worryingly, Dutton observes, “the international dynamic in the region is motivated largely by fear and anger.” However, the use of unilateral military force would be a lose-lose for China,” particularly in terms of its credibility, both among its neighbors and in the international community.

The Pivot in the South China Sea

From a U.S. perspective, a sustained American presence in the region has long been the underpinning of peace and stability. However, excessive U.S. intervention could disrupt the delicate balance that has been established. Although the U.S. has always sought to maintain a position of neutrality in territorial disputes, remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that referred to the South China Sea as the “West Philippine Sea” led China to challenge U.S. impartiality. If the U.S. engages with its regional allies without seeking enhanced engagement with China, then U.S. actions in the region may be perceived by China as efforts at containment. Moreover, as the U.S. strengthens ties to partners in the region, there is risk of entanglement if conflict were to break out.

There has long been an undercurrent of tension between the Philippines and China—most recently displayed in the standoff over the Scarborough Shoal in May 2012. Shortly thereafter, in a visit to Washington D.C., President Aquino sought U.S. commitment to military support of the Philippines in the event of conflict with China on the basis of the 1952 Mutual Defense Treaty. However, despite providing further military and naval support, the U.S. has refrained from making concrete commitments. Although the U.S. would not necessarily be dragged into a dispute, if a confrontation did break out, it might feel compelled to respond militarily to maintain the credibility of commitments to allies and partners in the region. Strong ties to the U.S. and enhanced military capacity could also provoke more confrontational behavior from U.S. partners. Yet, Ring emphasizes that the U.S. navy and military are also unique in the “ability to facilitate military cooperation and communication among all of the claimants” and particularly to “be that bridge…uniquely situated to build some flows of communication” that could facilitate a peaceful resolution to future incidents.

Long-term Options

Beyond these tensions and speculations, one must also consider the long-term prospects of a viable solution. Speaking on the record at a Weatherhead Center seminar at Harvard, Michael Dukakis raised the question, “Why isn’t the United States urging that these disputes be resolved in the International Court of Justice? Isn’t that what it’s for?” However, in addition to U.S. ambivalence, China and other main players would also oppose such a step. Traditionally, in cases of territorial disputes, the ICJ has tended to privilege longstanding administrative presence. China’s claims to over 80 percent of the South China Sea, on the other hand, have been framed in terms of a historical narrative—expressed in the “nine-dashed line” first drawn on a map in 1947 by the Kuomintang government then exiled to Taiwan—rather than the rules and norms established through UNCLOS. According to Dutton, “China is abrogating these principles [of international law]…and pursuing its own version of history in the region [with] frankly coercive policies in order to press its neighbors.”

In the adjudication of this patchwork of competing claims, ASEAN has long played a mediating role, as through its issuance of a “Declaration of Conduct” in 2002. According to Ring, “ASEAN is the key” to resolving this dispute and “one of the few organizations that has the pedigree” to serve as a legitimate mediator, with its foundational norms of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and freedom from external intervention. However, ASEAN, which relies on full consensus, is unlikely to move quickly. The next chairs of the bloc—Brunei as of 2013—are unlikely to press this issue. Moreover, China has tended to resist settlement of the territorial disputes in a multilateral forum and instead has sought direct bilateral negotiations, which would maximize its relative leverage.

Although a long-term solution and the protracted process of redrawing the map could take years yet, with mounting economic pressures and a voracious appetite for natural resources, economic factors may induce the establishment of some sort of profit-sharing mechanism in the short-term. For instance, Taiwan suggested in the 1990s that a joint development company for the South China Sea be established.

Looking to the Future

The South China Sea will likely remain a focal point of tension for years to come. China’s increased naval power may make a more assertive stance natural and inevitable. In this environment, Glaser sees that “the U.S. is more welcome in the region today than it has ever been.” The United States must find a balance between accepting this welcome and not overreaching—maintaining a stabilizing presence without provoking further suspicion from China or arousing concerns among regional partners. All in all, the South China Sea may prove to be a test, not only of whether China will be a “responsible stakeholder” in its own neighborhood but also of American strategy as it relates to a rising China.

Then six distinct claps echoed and were coming closer — someone was shooting a gun. Shoppers began running, chairs hit the ground. I stood up slowly. Looking around, I remember not really reacting the way I should. It was as if someone had told me there was a water balloon fight going on in the downstairs lobby. A voice came over the intercom announcing the obvious.

“There’s a gunman in the building,” the voice announced. “We’re on lockdown.”

People streamed into nearby stores as security gates were drawn down. Several customers and employees, including myself, headed into the back storage area of Nordstrom, waiting for the intercom to say something other than “There’s a shooter.”
Nordstrom’s security then led us into the café in the back of the store, where we would wait for the next three hours until police had swept the mall and assured the gunman was in custody — or dead. It’s funny the things a person remembers about a time like that. I wondered why, in all the chaos, I was still holding my empty coffee cup, not realizing it was in my hand until I felt the hot liquid on my skin.

It’s an obvious statement that we all come from different backgrounds. That day, in that room, none of that mattered — not politics or age or finances. We were all scared and angry. We all desperately wanted to go home.

Those shots didn’t sound like the ones from the movies when John Wayne chases the bad guy. It sounded like shattering glass. Other things are so loud, like the screaming voices and scrambling footsteps of people running. Confused children wondered why they had to go anywhere. The shots grew closer.

When Jacob Tyler Roberts walked into the Mall on Monday, Dec. 10, he carried a stolen semiautomatic AR–15 across his chest and wore a white hockey mask to hide his face. He walked into the JCPenny, past a family with young children and a Salvation Army Santa.

“I am the shooter,” he shouted when he reached the food court, according to the people who were there. Then he unloaded more than 40 rounds.

Steven Mathew Forsyth was 45; he worked at a kiosk and was from my hometown of West Linn.

Cindy Yullie was 54; she was finishing her Christmas shopping.

Both of them were killed.

Kristina Shevchenko was 15. The bullet that tore through her chest missed vital organs and her ribs, according to a post on her sister’s Facebook page.

Jacob Tyler Roberts was 22. And after he killed two grown-ups and shot one teenage girl, he turned the gun on himself.

I think about those people who tried to hide under chairs or tables. While inside the shuttered café, a little girl next to me asked her mom, “What’s going to happen to Santa?”

In the days following the shooting I sat curled on the couch with my little dog, Geffin, listening to press conferences and media analysis. Reporters described Roberts’ strained relationship with his aunt and lack of relationship with his mother. Friends talked about how his personality changed in early December. Everyone tried to make sense of something that made no sense.

Just five days later it was Friday and another young man 3,000 miles away in Connecticut shot his gun too, killing 20 children and 7 adults.

I never saw Roberts that day, but when I saw his picture on TV, it made my chest get tight and my stomach fill with an irrational fear that rose clear to my throat.

Take Richard Nixon for example. Although he infamously left Washington with his reputation in tatters, his influence was seen on the Supreme Court for the next thirty years. Nixon’s four appointees—Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, William Rehnquist, and Lewis Powell—included two consecutive chief justices (Burger and Rehnquist) and included the famous ruling in Roe v. Wade (where both Burger and Blackmun were in the assenting majority that women had a right to an abortion). Rehnquist’s longevity on the court arguably paved the way for the appointment of John Roberts – Rehnquist served through eight years of the Clinton administration and through George W. Bush’s first term before passing away, enabling a Republican president to nominate his successor.

In replacing Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor with Samuel Alito and John Roberts, George W. Bush cemented his own judicial legacy by moving the Court farther to the right. He replaced a moderate who sided with liberals on key cases like Casey and Grutter with Alito, whose votes have been solidly in line with originalist thinkers Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. The younger Bush famously uttered that he expected judges to “strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench” and established a clear judicial theory for his administration. In addition to Alito and Roberts,  Bush appointed 62 judges to United States Circuit Courts of Appeals and 261 judges to United States district courts over the course of his presidency.

The Obama Administration’s position on the issue has been a stark departure from his predecessor. Historically, Republicans have been more active in appointing judges to the courts than Democrats, prioritizing it as a means of advancing their policy agenda. Through his first term, Obama had appointed two members to the Supreme Court (Sonia Sotamayor and Elena Kagan) but only 30 to circuit courts and 141 to district courts. By this time in their presidencies, Bush and Clinton had appointed 169 and 167 judges to circuit courts, respectively. Obama has pursued the common practice of allowing senators in states with vacant openings to nominate individuals before reviewing or nominating his own, something that Bush disregarded while in office. Also unlike Bush, Obama has waited for the American Bar Association to vet each nominee in advance of nomination to the Senate. Bush, who preferred to have his nominees approved by the independent Federalist Society—whose criteria were more aligned with Bush’s own legal philosophies—could often push nominees through the appointment process quicker and was very successful during his presidency in this regard.

As he heads into his second term in office, one of the more puzzling parts of Obama’s presidency has been his position on legal issues. Despite being a constitutional heavyweight in many regards—the President was the editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review in law school before going on to teach at the University of Chicago Law School—Obama has yet to issue a definitive judicial philosophy. Perhaps the most notable of his achievements is the diversity of his nominations. He is the first to nominate an openly gay black man (William Thomas) and nearly half of his nominees have been women, with 19 percent being African-American (versus 23 and seven percent, respectively, for Bush). He talks about ‘judicial empathy’ and the need for judges of all walks of life to be in the courthouse in order to consider the effect of their rulings on everyday citizens, yet the meaning of ‘judicial empathy’ is ill-defined and unclear. Senator Orrin Hatch derogatorily referred to Obama’s philosophies as a “code” for liberal activism.

As Jeffrey Toobin notes in The New Yorker, there are currently 74 open spots on the district and circuit courts and the Obama Administration has only submitted names for 32 of those. While there has been increased resistance to the nomination process, and according to the Federal Judicial Center, Obama’s confirmation percentage of 80% is lower than either of the previous two Presidents, it is also true that Obama’s unusual means of nomination has scuttled many a nominee. Obama was reluctant to nominate during the initial stages of his Presidency—during which he held majorities in both houses of Congress—because he wanted to keep the legislative focus on his crown jewel, the Affordable Care Act. Greg Craig, Obama’s legal counsel during that time, said, “We were looking for mainstream, noncontroversial candidates to nominate.” Obama’s nominations have similarly been on average four years older than Bush’s, limiting their influence on American legislation in positions where they hold lifetime terms. The American Bar Association has torpedoed the candidacy of 14 different candidates, further slowing the process.

Obama enters his second term without the security blanket in Congress with which he entered his first and any nominee to the Senate will be a source of contention. The polarization of the appointment process—especially to the Supreme Court—has led to constant filibusters over nominees and divisions on the Senate floor along party lines. ‘Borking’ a candidate – the name given to the process of dismissing a candidate because of extremist political or legal views – has become more and more common and even Harriet Miers, a Bush candidate for the vacancy later filled with the Alito, was dismissed by Republican leadership for not being firmly conservative enough.

The past two appointments to the Supreme Court faced a new source of opposition—the NRA. In ‘scoring’ the nomination, the organization made it extremely clear to senators that they would receive low marks on the NRA’s personal scoring sheet by voting for either Kagan or Sotamayor. This, despite Kagan never having voiced any opposition to gun control in her career as a litigator and as dean of Harvard Law School. After hunting for the first time with Antonin Scalia, Kagan commented that she found it “kind of fun.”

Kagan’s case is a good illustration of the faults inherent in the current nomination process and the polarization of what should be the appointment of independent legislative minds to the nation’s highest court. With Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 79) likely to retire this term, and Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia into their late 70s (both are 76), Obama may have the opportunity to make two or three nominees to the Supreme Court before this term is up. Names like Diane Wood, who was considered twice for the earlier appointments but both times dismissed from consideration, will return to the national spotlight. It is important that in the years to come that Obama clearly articulate his legal philosophy; it is key for the Democratic Party that he put a greater emphasis on the appointment of judicial nominees in his second term. With the eight years of Clinton and now a second term for Obama, Democrats can make it 16 of 24 years of presidential appointments to the legal system. With the current composition of the federal courts (before Clinton, 12 of the previous 16 years saw a Republican in the Oval Office), Obama’s selection of nominees will be key in shaping legislative policy for years to come. The current division of the Supreme Court—two four-justice liberal and conservative coalitions with Anthony Kennedy leaning to the right in the middle—could be changed drastically with the appointment of two or three young liberal justices, who would join the 52-year old Kagan and 58-year old Sotamayor for the next two or three decades. If the Affordable Care Act decision this summer reminded America of the power of the American judicial system, perhaps the beginning of the new term will cement a Democratic commitment to it.

The most recently adjourned Congressional body, steeped in fringe politics and partisan interests, could barely perform its most fundamental civic duty of voting on and passing laws. It was the most inefficient and unproductive Congress ever, compromising the least to consider the fewest bills, while enacting even fewer — many of which were routine or mundane matters like reapproving administrative procedures or formally naming post offices. Meanwhile, the U.S. Postal Service hangs on the brink of bankruptcy.

A Senate that is constitutionally sanctioned to form its own rules and procedures has embraced obstructionism to influence lawmaking in the form of the filibuster. So long as someone keeps talking — and boy do these senators ever love to hear themselves talk — no one has to worry about actually passing laws. The Senate does not have to do its job.

Congress allegedly serves ordinary citizens in matters of law, but our representatives have focused mostly on promoting themselves, kowtowing to deep pockets and special interests in a perpetual effort to stay in office. Lobbying has become a $3 billion-a-year industry with a revolving door plainly situated between the public and private sectors.

Even if a cabal of billionaires were ultimately unable to purchase the presidency for their fanatical free-market darling, it is no less assuring that President Barack Obama’s greatest financial supporters — including Hollywood and the banking industry — benefited from considerable tax breaks embedded in the recent band-aid legislation addressing the fiscal cliff. Meanwhile, taxes increased for just about everyone, while essentially nothing was done to curb an unsustainable, decade-long federal spending spree. (Congress says they will sort all that out in two months. What reason could we possibly have not to believe them?)

Tax breaks for corporations are one thing, but exoneration for clear criminal activity is another entirely. I could face life in prison for distributing cocaine just once at Dartmouth. British bank HSBC knowingly helped Mexican drug cartels launder billions of dollars through the U.S. banking system over the course of a decade. The Department of Justice slapped the bank with a hefty fine but refused to pursue criminal charges, citing fears of destabilizing the global financial system. First they were too big to fail. Now they are too big to jail.

While innocent moviegoers and schoolchildren are gunned down, our nation defers to a vaguely-worded passage in a 200-year-old document, as if our nation’s founders had prophesized the development and proliferation of lethally accurate, high-powered hunting rifles when crafting the Bill of Rights. A similarly reflexive concession to the preceding amendment prompted our most powerful judicial body to sanction unlimited, anonymous campaign donations and to defend the Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful spew over the privacy and respect of fallen soldiers.

If our legislative framework is failing us, Constitutional chicanery has often served as our primary mode of societal progress. The federal government was entirely powerless against nefarious private interests until it used a liberal reading of the commerce and elastic clauses to justify an expansion of powers. And while we surely require a formal framework to organize an American polity, maybe it’s time, after more than two centuries, that we reevaluate or even renovate that framework. Maybe instead of jury-rigging legal arguments to stay in line with some constitutional precedent, we need to reconsider the Constitution itself.

I acknowledge that mine is an audacious suggestion. To be clear, I fully appreciate the ingenuity of our Founders’ creation and do not propose a complete overhaul. But the idea that the social, cultural and political environment in which our Constitution was created would yield solutions that remain eternally relevant in an increasingly complex and interconnected world is absurd. The Founders may have known this — Article V allows for the ratification of individual constitutional amendments and more radically, the formation of a Constitutional Convention to propose and enact multiple amendments at once.

The need for such a convention and a comprehensive reformulation of a systemically problematic political system is inevitable. That may come two or two thousand years in the future, but in light of recent events, the conversation is warranted right now.

The stigma of steroid use that has plagued a once-valiant American pastime, has left the fans, the players, the writers and the aspiring players without a hero. 

Whether through actual admission, hearsay or public opinion, none of the members on the list of players, who performed at the highest echelon of their sport, will have their achievements on the field etched in baseball’s history book.

While Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are often seen as the face of the Steroids Era of baseball, it is disheartening just how easy it was for steroids to infect an entire institution that was once so admired. 

With names like Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams, who inspired so many young people to dream of baseball stardom, it is sad that all of the qualified names are now replaced with an asterisk. 

There is no getting around the fact that steroid use is cheating. 

Every player that admitted or was caught using steroids knew what the drugs would do and they should have known the consequences. 

The problem is, to what extent do we question whether any player’s accomplishments in baseball were products of mere athleticism and dedication or products of steroid use? Now that steroids have become as much a part of the game as peanuts and cracker jacks, is it right to ostracize any one who reached greatness between 1990 and the present? 

One thing that we should remember is that steroids can only do so much. 

If a person off the street took steroids, they would not magically be able to hit 762 homeruns like Barry Bonds did. They would not be able to reach 3,060 hits like Craig Biggio nor would they come close to the 354 wins and seven Cy Young awards that Roger Clemens reached during his 23-year career. 

Of the top five names that were eligible to be inducted, every one of them made multiple All-Star appearances. There were 10 league MVP awards between them, seven Cy Young awards, 12 Gold Glove awards and more than 2,000 homeruns. The talent and the statistics that this group put up are unquestionable. 

The only caveat is that they played during a time when the threat of steroid use was a greater story than accomplishments on the field.

If we let the steroid era of baseball deter us from appreciating the accomplishments that the players reached because popular opinion dictates they cheated, then it will have ruined the game forever. We cannot allow the cynicism of assumptions and accusations to cloud the fact that this group of players performed at an astonishing level.

In grade school, there were fewer social niches to inhabit, and accruing popularity points was a full-time job. In middle and high school, everyone was keenly aware of where everyone else fit in the social landscape, and they were lying if they told you otherwise. Everyone was dying to reach an imaginary social ideal built by the students. Perception was everything.

College has been a breath of fresh air for me. I have many friends who classify themselves as nerds, and they all seem to report the same feelings: The majority of grade school was a criminal waste of time and a frustrating crapshoot. College is less isolating, more rewarding, and generally a better place to be. Of course, there was the occasional teacher who made things worthwhile but, in general, the monotony of American schools brings no end in misery for the classic nerd.

For the nerd, self-achievement is everything. In his 2003 essay “Why Nerds are Unpopular,” Paul Graham explains that nerds don’t just want to be smart and do well in school. “[I wanted] to design beautiful rockets, or to write well, or to understand how to program computers. In general, to make great things.”

“You have no idea the hell I climbed out of to come here,” an acquaintance humored me on his admission to the Computer-Based Honors Program at Alabama. He was a quirky, intelligent guy whom I often spotted eating alone in the dining halls my freshman year. He was a natural introvert, and he liked it. He could do what he pleased in college, pursuing a major he loved within a culture that rewarded difference and ingenuity.

There is more of an incentive to be a hard-working, motivated, intellectually engaged, self-directed student in college. “Nerd” is no longer a derogatory term. Preferring knowledge to social dominance is not a bad thing. For the nerds, it does get better. You just have to wait it out and have enough self-confidence to find your niche.

Last November, right before the break, we published an editorial offering our two cents on weapons. In reflection — on the shootings in the Clackamas Town Center in Happy Valley, in Newtown, Conn., at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and in New York where firefighters were lured to a burning house and car only to be shot upon — we still agree with what we said.

Guns have a place and time, people have the right to own them, but crazy people will be crazy. The guns aren’t the problem; the people behind them are. So naturally, we should outlaw people — or something realistic.

It’s true, President Obama is prepared to use executive orders to apply restrictions on weapons in this country — if he has to. It’s also true the plans being discussed limit which guns are accessible to civilians, decreasing the amount a magazine holds, banning Internet sales of ammunition and mandating federal background checks. Though, like everything left up to our elected officials, nothing has been decided on a countrywide level.

Although Congress is taking their sweet-potato time, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo made a plea to the Congress on Wednesday to step it up. He’s also pushing for New York to be the first state to reform laws on gun control.

But why is it so difficult for our nation to come together and work on this very serious issue?

On Tuesday, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart made the point that we can’t come together on this issue because gun advocates are afraid the government will extend their sticky fingers into our homes and take away our guns. Like Gov. Cuomo said, this is not about the government taking away our guns.

We own guns. We have gone shooting and hunting. We like our guns, and we don’t want anyone to take them away. These facts, however, do not inhibit our ability to see what’s in front of us. Americans need to understand there are unstable people willing to march into a shopping mall, lure firefighters to a fire or even barge into an elementary school with deadly intent.

We don’t believe taking all guns away will help — that would only lead to drawn out regulations on bows, knives or hammers. A free-for-all, however, isn’t the answer either.

We don’t have a plan of action, or a solution better than what our Congress has put out there. We do agree civilians don’t need a semi-automatic AR-15. We do agree more intensive background checks shouldn’t be fought. We do agree limiting a magazine to fewer than 10 bullets is a fair idea.

No, none of this will stop gun violence, because there will always be crazies. Just like prohibiting alcohol wouldn’t stop drunk driving. However, little things like a drinking age and a campaign to promote alcohol awareness has helped reduce drunk driving fatalities by 52 percent since 1982, according to The Century Council.

Just saying.

The article revealed the NCAA’s drug-testing, which is conducted by an external company, Drug Free Sport, in the interest of transparency, has some less than savory elements to it that do not serve the organization if deterring drugs among student athletes is something they truly value.

Drug Free Sport, which conducts drug testing for the NFL and NBA, was founded by a former NCAA employee. According to the New York Times, the company now receives about $4.6 million every year from the NCAA for their drug tests, yet the article stated “since the company began running the NCAA’s drug-testing program in 1999 … the rate of positive tests has been no higher than 1 percent in any year despite an NCAA survey of student-athletes that indicated at least 1 in 5 used marijuana, a banned substance.”

The stench of conflicts of interest reeks.

Furthermore, unlike other drug-testing agencies which often require drug-testing to be completed within 90 minutes of its announcement, the article stated that college athletes are often given as much as a day’s notice in advance before the tests were administered. In other cases, the colleges were allowed to administer their own tests — making tampering with and skewing test results hard to trace.

While the article itself states that college athletics is not where doping scandals typically take place, if the NCAA places any value in its athletes being drug-free, this form of testing for the sake of testing is certainly not the best way of achieving this.

According to a 2007 study, college athletes are more likely than the average college students to face more pressure to do drugs.

For an organization like the NCAA, so vast in size, it is indeed difficult to find an effective solution that can test the hundreds of thousands of athletes, but the existing policy seems to advocate that it is all right to turn a blind eye. For athletes starting their careers, this should not be the idea they take away.

Though the article does not point to evidence of abuse of the system, the holes in the system should be closed to prevent opportunities for such abuse.

With the approval of the bill, taxes increased for married couples making more than $450,000 a year, and unmarried citizens making more than $400,000. These increases are reminiscent of the tax rates of the Clinton era.

Under the bill unemployment was also extended, which helped 2 million out-of-work Americans, and tax credits for college tuition created by the 2009 stimulus package were also extended for five years, which aided 25 million low-income families. The House also approved to revoke the $900 congressional pay raise.

A major benefit point for students with the approval of the bill is the tax credit for college tuition extension. With tuition increases becoming commonplace, and the price of education rising as textbooks and materials become more expensive, this credit is a small nod to the plight of the student — a relief of sorts for many, especially the low-income families mentioned above.

Although the benefits we reap for this deal are important, the hysteria the deal has cultivated cannot be ignored. The fiscal cliff, and the possibility of reaching it, has been a talking point ever since the election.

People have been fretting over possible hikes in taxes and the next time a major deal needs to be made; there needs to be open negotiation and more visibility and public discussion to, “not scare the heck out of folks quite as much,” as President Barack Obama stated in the White House briefing room after the deal passed.

For Congress to take until the last possible moment to reach a resolution shows a major flaw in the legislative system of our nation. Party affiliated actions have too much power and too much prevalence within the system. Legislators don’t take what is best for the country into account anymore. Rather, they take what is best for their political party. A legislator’s job is to be a voice for their constituents, not of corporate sponsors or to garner political popularity and enjoy perks associated with it. Power and influence are dangerous things. Those who use it for themselves instead of others don’t deserve it. Sadly, in Washington, that doesn’t seem to be a widely held principle.

While it’s important to note that some individuals did cross party lines when voting on the deal, it’s also important to point out desperation was the main factor in the legislators doing so. Compromise was not made for the sake of fairness and a just resolution for all. Compromise was made to distance themselves from blame if things did not resolve in a timely manner. Fear motivated this compromise, not honor. Forced compromise is not compromise. Although the fiscal cliff was avoided, large problems and limits with the legislative system still need to be addressed if Congress is to serve its public adequately and fairly. And if they are unable to do this, their chief task, then their purpose is moot.

Ensconced, encased, and engrossed within the chokehold of mob rule do we find in this most dire of dilemmas — the “fiscal cliff” — both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Opinions from The Atlantic, Huffington Post and The New York Times suggest that President Barack Obama ought to take a democratic, “I won the election” attitude to working with Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives. Indeed, he did win the election. Nevertheless, he faces divided government. In the same election, Republicans retained their majority in the House. In the face of such divided election returns, no mandate exists.

For all their posturing for and pandering to the folks back home, for all their use of their bully pulpits to replace rather than supplement their interactions with one another, no member of Congress has an obligation to pay any heed to the public opinion polls that say that most Americans support tax increases. Barely more than 500 Americans have a direct say on the language of bills or whether they become law. It is time for the president, senators and representatives to start dealing with one another rather than agitating their intellectual dependents like a bunch of bums.

The source of the fiscal dilemma is none other than the majoritarian reductionism with which we have been infected for decades, if not centuries — first, by amending the Constitution so that presidents and vice presidents are elected as tickets; second, by amending it so that senators are elected by popular majorities rather than the legislatures of the states from which they hail; and third, by requiring the members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for president and vice president in accordance with their states’ popular vote returns.

At the core of the problem is the conflation of what is best for the United States of America with what is best for a certain class of Americans in their personal capacities. How else could Obama advocate a plan that “asks the wealthiest Americans to pay more, … will strengthen the middle class over the long haul, and grow our economy over the long haul”?

In his statement following a last-minute meeting with Congressional leaders, Obama reiterated such dedication to a solution that would “above all protect our middle class and everybody who’s striving to get into the middle class.”

Haggling over tax brackets and rates demonstrates this conflation as much as anything else. Initially, Obama wanted to allow taxes to rise on family income above $250,000 per year. Boehner’s so-called “Plan B” would have raised taxes on incomes of more than $1 million per year. Obama countered with a proposal that taxes rise on incomes of more than $400,000 per year.

It is time for everyone — including the “middle class” which, in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, is “the backbone of this country;” which, according to the Pew Research Center, is an income bracket made up of 51 percent (a majority) of Americans — to pay more. If the middle class truly is the backbone of America and its ideal class, it has just as much an obligation to contribute to its coffers as the richest among us.

Focusing so much attention on the taxes of the rich, which would bring in so little more, makes us look like vindictive perpetrators of class warfare in the mold of the Roman Gracchi, the English Levelers, or the French and Russian revolutionaries. If we shoulder them with responsibilities disproportionate to their equal citizenship, the rich Atlases of the world will begin to shrug, unsettling us all.

President Abraham Lincoln said in his famous Gettysburg Address that the United States is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Each of those words — of, by and for — forms one corner of a triangle. If one of them ceases to exist, the triangle crashes down. The rich are the most prominent among us, but they are not the only Americans. Even the poorest have civic obligations and must share in the governing “by the people.”

Politicians of all stripes like to flaunt and campaign on their patriotism. At the end of the day, however, patriotism belongs to the men and women who will pay the ransom, who will flinch in the game of chicken.

One Biblical story comes to mind. Once, two women confronted King Solomon, each claiming to be the mother of a baby. Since each woman was insistent, Solomon proposed that the baby be cut in half and that each woman receive half of it. One woman acquiesced. The other, however, exclaimed that the baby should be kept whole, and given to the other. Solomon concluded that the desperate woman was the child’s mother, and gave it to her. American politicians should have the same desperation to save the object of their trust.

At the dawn of each new year, most of us select one goal to achieve in the next 365 days. Whether you’ve buckled down for days trying to compile a strict list or will end up making some last-minute decision as the clock strikes 12, New Year’s resolutions are a tradition we have a hard time dismissing. Maybe someone will give up smoking, or try to drink less, or perhaps vow to lose 20 pounds in the coming months. Your resolution could be as strange as trying to laugh more often or cutting your ramen noodle consumption to three times per week. However, as hard as it may be to conjure up ideas for resolutions, by far the most difficult part is sticking to them.

Everyone’s problem with their New Year’s Eve promise is that it is often entirely unachievable. Let’s say you have a typical college student dependency on caffeine and you vow, as the ball drops in New York City, that you are going to stop drinking coffee forever, cold turkey. However, if you know that this really isn’t something you can do in the long run, you’re going to reach a critical point. It will be that moment when you are crossing central campus on your way to class after pulling an all-nighter, and you start eyeballing the Caribou Coffee at the Hub. You’ll probably be able to smell the rich cafe scent, and pretty soon, all you can think about is getting that glorious caffeine in your body. And in that moment when the immediate benefits overrule that New Year’s resolution in the distant past, you will break.

As well as being measurable, your goals for your New Year’s resolution need to be amendable. The best way to do it is to start off with a small but extremely achievable objective. If you can manage to pull that off for a month or two, make your goals more strict and exact. If you are cutting calories, perhaps take 200 off of your daily diet for a month. During the next month, cut back another 200. If you feel that your fun weekend life is seeping into your education and damaging your schoolwork, have one drink less or stay at home studying one night more. It may seem like these adjustments are too small, but they are manageable and will, over time, make a difference. Similarly, if the goals that you have set for yourself are way out of reach, change them instead of giving them up entirely.

To many, a New Year’s resolution may just be a ridiculous tradition with no significance other than as an excuse to get crazy on the last night of 2012. However, if there is something that you truly want to change, New Year’s Eve can be a perfect time to attempt to start fresh. Spend your last few days of 2012 doing whatever you wish and see the year out with all due glory. But think a moment about how you want 2013 to turn out and what you can do to make it happen. It could be just another normal year, but it could also be much more than that. Whether you are trying to be more daring, or happier, or learn a new language, you have the ability to make 2013 very exciting. Change isn’t easy for anyone, but with the new year comes endless potential for a new, or at least slightly different, life.

But maybe you really don’t think there is a resolution you can stick to. Or maybe you really don’t need to change. In any case, I’ve found that the easiest way to not break any resolutions is to not make them at all.

Last year, guns killed 31,347 American civilians. Only forty died in mass shootings, and the most liberal estimates available claim only a few thousand gun-related deaths were a result of assault weapons. (These weapons most likely account for less than 1% of gun violence.) Even in the recent Newtown tragedy, the shooter had more than enough guns to use if his Bushmaster .223 rifle had not been available. Renewing some version of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban would be a great start towards preventing certain kinds of gun violence, but let’s not consider it anything beyond a start.

What else has been proposed? Some Republicans have called for more guns; the likes of Ann Coulter have regularly noted that more concealed carry permits would lead to fewer mass shootings, and that’s right. If the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary had a gun, priceless lives could have been saved. The same goes for those present in the Aurora theater, the Sikh temple, and the Tucson “Congress on Your Corner” event. This view, however, ignores the more important studies that find a positive relationship between gun ownership and gun violence in the United States; saving ten lives in a mass murder isn’t worth losing fifteen lives in a dark alley.

America might be better served if politicians heeded the oft-uttered mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” International evidence confirms many countries, unlike the United States, have lots of guns and relatively few murders and vice versa. (Look at Switzerland.) While there may not be a correlation between some nations’ gun ownership rates and their gun violence, there seems to be a common cause that increases the lethality of this combination in America: culture. The issue is not easy access to guns, but instead our desire to obtain and use them. This is the root of the issue, and any attempt to limit gun ownership merely provides a temporary, patchwork solution. At the same time, there’s a lot we can do to reduce gun violence—we don’t simply have to throw our hands in the air and accept it.

Criminologists have identified a number of factors that noticeably increase violent crime: racism, gender inequality, bad parenting, poor schooling, bullying, alcohol use, religious involvement, lack of mental health treatment, income inequality, and so on. In relation to the rest of the industrialized world, America scores quite poorly on many of these indicators; not surprisingly, our firearm-related deaths are much higher than Europe’s.

The government cannot play Big Brother and try to fix all of these issues—many are beyond its scope or ability to fix. But let’s stop pretending guns are the main issue. Anyone truly interested in reducing gun violence shouldn’t write their congresspeople asking for gun control, but instead should request universal healthcare, better public schools, more progressive taxes, less public worship, expanded welfare programs, an Equal Rights Amendment, etc. Rarely, if ever, do advocates of a safer society bring these issues to the forefront; they seem undoubtedly partisan and unrelated to the problem.

America has developed a culture of fear and violence. To steal an example from Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, Canada has gun laws as lax as ours, yet they have significantly lower rates of gun violence. Some cultural differences may remain forever embedded in American society, but following Canada’s lead in addressing the needs of the underprivileged could do more than any increase in gun control. Though another assault weapons ban is probably a good idea, it won’t go far enough towards solving the real issue. We cannot end violence with one bill, but we can begin to address gun violence by recognizing our societal flaws and pushing for broader public policy changes.

From Touré to Traoré

The March coup d’état in Mali spurred the resignation of president Amadou Toumani Touré a month before the scheduled presidential election in which he vowed not to participate. The coup was largely led by the disgruntled Mali army, which was critical of Touré’s handling of the Islamist-lead insurgency in the northern parts of the country.  Touré was forced to resign and hand over the presidency to the army captain and leader of the National Committee for Recovering Democracy and Restoring the State, Amadou Sanogo. After stringent economic and political sanctions from the United States, the African Union, and the Economic Community of West African States, Sanogo ultimately allowed the democratic process to take its course, leaving Dioncounda Traoré, the president of Mali’s national assembly, to act as the interim president.

The insurgency in Northern Mali, which ultimately led to the political coup, was precipitated by the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad and by Ansar Dine, a suspected Al-Qaeda affiliate. The main objective of the two groups is to achieve independence for the northern region of Azawad. The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad is a secularist group lead by the Tuareg people, an indigenous and nomadic ethnic group with a population in Mali exceeding 400,000. Ansar Dine, on the other hand, is a jihadist group that intends to implement sharia law in Mali.

In the midst of the instability created by the coup, another group, the Islamic Maghreb, has created a stronghold in the region and intends to spread a stringent version of sharia law throughout the country. The group has seized power in three major cities in the north, Kidal, Gao, and Timbuktu. The group is also accused of committing serious human rights violations, of propagating terror amongst the local population, and of desecrating important cultural monuments.

The President Emeritus of the World Peace Foundation, Robert Roberg, stressed in an interview with the HPR that the international community “cannot let the people of northern Mali cut off hands and stone adulterers for much longer,” without suffering great consequences. Likewise, advocacy groups, foreign governments, and even the United Nations have expressed concern over the growing humanitarian crisis in Mali.

France Leads the Charge

In response to the Islamic Maghreb’s threats to execute six French hostages it currently has under its control, French President François Hollande is emerging as a leading force encouraging military action in the region. Although this initiative is encouraging, recent comments by Jean-Yves Le Drian, France’s defense minister point to a slight change of tone from France, with a stronger emphasis on prudence and caution. Mali’s long collaborative history with France, a legacy of its former status as a French colony, explain France’s responsive attitude with regards to the Islamic Maghreb’s rapid ascent to regional dominance.

The UN Security Council’s decision to grant Mali and the Economic Community of West African States, its principal continental ally, forty-five days to present a credible and detailed military plan to reclaim the northern Mali exemplifies a bilateral effort designed to grant more authority to the African leadership. However, doubts still remain about the intervention. Algeria, the predominant military force in the region, favors a diplomatic solution to a military one, as evidenced by a reported meeting with Ansar Dine on Algerian soil. The prospect of a military intervention without Algeria’s support seems unlikely. Additionally, the fragile political situation in the Ivory Coast and the internal conflict created by Boko Horan, another jihadist organization, in Nigeria further weakens the coalition. The logistical and material limitations of Mali’s military limit Mali’s ability to act on its own.

America’s Role

As a global leader advocating peace and democratic stability, the U.S. would do well to mark the current situation in Northern Mali as a top foreign policy priority. Rotberg emphasized that “any destabilization of even a remote part of Africa is of concern to the United States’ program to encourage peace and stability everywhere.” Before the recent instability, Mali’s democratic governance was seen as a model of development in the region. Particularly concerning to the United States, Mali is a member of the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership, a program led by the United States to fight terrorism in Northern Africa. While the American public has generally devoted most of its attention to terrorist groups in the Middle East, failing to diversify its efforts to prevent the next wave of extremist movements could be a grave mistake. Strong logistical and intelligence support in Africa could symbolize a lasting statement of U.S. support on a continent whose development and security could be put at risk by Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.

With a rapidly growing population that boasts a median age of roughly twenty years old, the continent’s human resource wealth should not be underestimated. In addition, the continent’s remarkable economic growth, as evidenced by the presence of African countries such as Angola, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Ghana amongst the fastest-growing economies in the world, highlights the continent’s economic importance. However, such development is not possible without a stable political atmosphere, an area that the United States must focus on. Collaborating with the continent’s leaders and supporting regional antiterrorism efforts exemplifies a course of action that could guarantee multilateral success.

But I know Newtown, Conn. It’s my home. It’s where I grew up and attended elementary and middle school. It’s where I’ll be going home to by the end of the week. And I know that it’s more than this tragedy. It’s more than the images you’re going to see on TV and on the front page of The Washington Post or The New York Times. Newtown is more than the aerial views of Sandy Hook Elementary School you’ll continue to see. It’s more than the SWAT teams that lined our streets on Friday. It’s more than what Brian Williams will tell you on NBC Nightly News. Newtown is more than the ultra-politicized and sensationalized news stories you’ll continue to hear.

Newtown is a place where Fr. Bob would surprise every class in my grade school with a trip across the street to The Ice Cream Shop. It’s a place where Eunice from Bagel Man would tell you not to worry about that last 50 cents or dollar you were missing on your order of bagels. It’s a place where the Paproski family would spend months designing and creating a gigantic corn maze at their family’s farm so that, every fall, children could come and get lost for hours with their friends. Newtown is a place where, every Halloween, the historic homes on Main Street decorate their porches with cob webs and scarecrows for the trick-or-treaters. Newtown is a place where, every summer, St. Rose of Lima Parish pulls together an entire community effort to host the Summer Carnival in the parking lot and field. And Newtown is a place where our parents, teachers, priests, ministers and rabbis love our children so passionately that there would be no keeping them from the sidelines of our soccer or lacrosse games or from being our volunteer coaches or field trip leaders.

If I could meet anyone from Columbine, Aurora, Oak Creek, Tuscon or Virginia Tech, I’d ask them about their communities. I’d want to hear stories like this. I’d want to know what they love most about home. Because we are more than this.

It saddens me so deeply to know that my family, my best friends from grade school and my whole community are not the only ones who know this grief. Within the past 10 years, we’ve watched as this epidemic of violence has spread through our country. We’ve watched as young kids of my own generation have become subjected to a culture where plastic guns are acceptable toys and you only win video games if you’ve killed enough of “the enemy.” And we’ve watched as mental and social disorders have left people so isolated they are essentially alone.

The problem is deep. It’s cultural, it’s social and it will take generations to fix. But the change needs to start right now. And while beginning this change will make our schools, malls, temples and movie theaters safer places for my generation’s, or the next generation’s, children to be, it will not save the town that this may happen in tomorrow, or next week, or next month. We need to take action right now. Our “right to bear arms” was something given to us by a generation who fought revolutions in their backyards. We don’t have that war anymore. We have a different kind of war now, a war where arming ourselves will only spread the fear and the violence. It hurts me to know that these pleas and demands for change get slowed down by lobbyists, politics and legislation because this isn’t about what party is dominant in the House or Senate: This is about our lives and our children’s lives. To me, there is an easy solution in front of us. We take away the violence and we take away the guns. But Washington won’t hear these pleas until we can all put our politics — or who we voted for in November — aside and realize that, every day, we are losing children, mothers and fathers. We are losing our communities.

When you hear “Newtown, Connecticut,” please do think of those 20 children and seven adults who lost their lives on Friday. Please do remember the images you saw on the news and the pictures of grief that spread across the country. Don’t forget about what happened on Friday. But please, also remember that Newtown is a home that will not stop growing.

The current governance voting system was established in 2009 to allow users to essentially have veto power over Facebook’s attempts to revise its privacy policy or terms of service, though the company designed it to be very inaccessible from the start. For a vote to even be triggered, there have to be at least 7,000 comments on the post describing the relevant changes on the Site Governance page. Even then, the 30-percent requirement — about 230 million users — needed to veto the changes is a very high number to overcome, and changes that are vetoed could probably be quietly enacted later anyway. The entire idea of the governance voting system seems like a prolonged public-relations stunt to make Facebook appear receptive to user feedback when, in reality, the company has little interest in its users other than making money off their personal information. There is a reason that Facebook is free — in fact, it really isn’t free because someone somewhere is paying for the access to your personal information so they can set up ads that specifically target you and your particular interests. The new proposed changes would allow Facebook to share your data with its “affiliates” — Instagram and Spotify are probably two of the more well-known ones. Facebook will be moving to a question-submission system, with occasional webcasts, but that seems even less accessible than the voting system — it would be like deciding an election based solely on questions asked by viewers during debates.

None of this would be important if Facebook weren’t such a widely used product, but it has become nearly obligatory to have an account these days. Here at Princeton, most of the student events that I hear about — performances, parties, study breaks — all appear as invites to Facebook events before I see a poster on a lamp post or a bulletin board, certainly before I hear about them by word of mouth. Facebook has so many users that it would be the world’s third or fourth most populous country. Yes, nobody is being forced to join Facebook, but the social pressure to join Facebook is unavoidable and overwhelming for most college students, to the point that letting other people know you don’t have a Facebook account is a faux pas of sorts. One of my friends here has never owned a cell phone, yet he has a Facebook account that he regularly uses.

Facebook is now basically a requirement to have a social life of any kind, especially in college or high school, and it has a user base in the hundreds of millions. The company can start making drastic, fundamental changes to its business model, knowing that not enough people will probably even notice, let alone be able to do something about it. A few weeks ago, that ridiculous paragraph declaring privacy rights began to appear in my Facebook news feed in many of my friends’ statuses. It worries me that people actually think this will have an effect — using Facebook is still a personal choice, and the check box next to “I agree to the terms of service” means you’ve signed away some of your rights to privacy. I am not saying Facebook is evil or that nobody should use Facebook, but I do think we need to be more informed about what goes on behind closed doors. Facebook is still a business, and it exists to sell a product. When that product is our personal information, we should be even more wary of how that business is conducted.

Since the state does not offer alternative, pro-choice plates, the Choose Life plates “constitute viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment,” the judge wrote in the court ruling Friday, according to CNN.

Choose Life is a nonprofit that assists states that want to sell the specialty plates and currently, 29 states sell Choose Life plates.

In 2011, the bill making Choose Life license plates available in North Carolina was passed. At the same time, amendments to create alternative pro-choice license plates were shut down.

The judge’s ruling makes sense. License plates are distributed by the state. By passing out plates that represent only one side of an issue, the state gives members of that side an unfair advantage. If license plates addressing the abortion issue are going to be offered at all, they should be designed to reflect all sides of the issue. Residents should have equal opportunities to express themselves. Denying some residents that opportunity is unconstitutional.

The effectiveness of these plates is also something that should be addressed. Are these plates worth the hassle? Perhaps not. If the initiative behind the plates is to sway other drivers to adopt a pro-life or pro-choice stance, this seems like an ineffective way of doing so. A few words on a piece of metal hardly seem convincing. Initiating talks on the subject seem like a more effective way to encouragesomeone to take one side over another.

Also, who says pro-life or pro-choice messages can only be displayed on license plates? If residents are intent on displaying these messages on their cars, they can purchase on bumper stickers or other items that are not issued by the state and are subject to their restrictions.

The state seems to have shot itself in the foot here. Measures to provide alternative pro-choice license plates were proposed and shut down. While the court has confirmed their error, it is something that the state should have realized earlier on.

The recent Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations General Assembly encapsulates everything wrong with Netanyahu’s government, a coalition of religious nationalists and out-and-out racists led by his right-wing Likud Party. With significant European backing, the resolution to make Palestine a non-member observer state passed overwhelming despite objections from the United States, Israel, and seven other countries. The Jewish state had a right to be angry: The UN bid arguably violated the Oslo Accords, which prohibit unilateral action by either Israelis or Palestinians. That said, this was an avoidable embarrassment. Last year, the Palestinians attempted the same thing at the UN Security Council, a request nixed by the U.S. Between then and now, the Netanyahu government could have returned in earnest to the negotiating table, if it only had agreed to a halt to settlement-building, an offer that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, made repeatedly.

In remarks at the Begin Center in Jerusalem, Bibi Netanyahu struck a sanctimonious tone. “It doesn’t matter how many hands will be raised against it,” he said, “there is no force in the world that would cause me to compromise Israel’s security.” Writing off the international community wasn’t enough. He had to double down on the behavior that has paralyzed the peace process, announcing plans the next day to build 3,000 new housing units in the E1 corridor between Jerusalem and the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, which would bifurcate the West Bank between north and south, further entrenching the Israeli occupation. As the left-leaning daily Haaretz wrote, this was “a step that, first and foremost, punishe[d] Israel.” The U.S., which had proven itself a true friend to Israel, issued a stinging condemnation. Five European nations summoned Israeli ambassadors to protest the Jewish state’s actions. Further recriminations are in the offing.

Some commentators conjectured that Bibi’s move was designed to gin up his base ahead of the election, after which he would cut a deal. This runs deeper than that, though. Bibi is heir to an expansionist and exclusivist Zionist vision of a Greater Israel that encompasses the occupied territories—and perhaps other lands. While he endorsed a two-state solution three years ago, his government’s settlement binge and legitimization of arguably illegal outposts indicate that he is not a true convert. An ability to overcome the past is the mark of the peacemaker. Menachen Begin and Anwar Sadat had it. Abbas might have it. Bibi probably doesn’t.

And that’s where the election comes in. Right now, Likud, which merged with the Arab-hating Yisrael Beiteinu party, is poised to rout a dispirited left beset by infighting. For its part, the Israeli electorate has grown more hawkish since the second intifada. But voters could be won over to the left if Netanyahu is seen as having damaged American-Israeli relations, a matter that bears heavily on their minds.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert accused Bibi of hurting Israel by breaking for Romney. Former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the peace camp’s last, best hope, said Netanyahu “poked Obama in the eye” by approving settlement construction in E1. President Obama could give credence to both those arguments, and it would be just deserts for a government that thinks friendship is a one-way street.

U.S. action should be targeted at settlement-building, the biggest roadblock to peace. In 2010, The New York Times reported that $200 million in tax-deductible donations were funneled to the settlements by American charities. Removing that deduction would not make a big dent monetarily, but it would send a powerful signal. To ratchet things up, America could condition its loan guarantees to the Jewish state, $3.8 billion of which will be disbursed through 2016, on a cessation of settlement activity, subtracting the amount Israel spends on building from the sum of its guarantees, an idea occasionally floated. Finally, Obama could announce that military aid to Israel—in excess of $3 billion annually—is under review because of E1 construction, a development that would earn Netanyahu brickbats from across the political spectrum.

Such a decision would ignite a firestorm in America, but it might be the only way to rescue the Israeli left and win the peace. Plus, Obama’s already been re-elected.

Breaking news here folks! A recent study discovered that sex/making love is the most pleasurable, meaningful, engaging and happy thing for people.

But seriously, a study at U. Canterbury joined the small but meaningful ranks of researchers attempting to track and measure the happiness and well-being of relationships in day-to-day life.

The areas of distinction paint an interesting picture of what a “full life” could be described as. Granted, the means of gathering results — achieved through text-messaging — might not seem like the most reliable of methods, but hey, this is the new millennium, and our robot phones are almost an extension of our bodies.

Drinking alcohol/partying came in second in the “pleasure” category, but only 10th in “meaning,” while still hitting fifth in “engagement” and second in “happiness.” Again, not a big surprise given that drinking alcohol/partying tends to lead to sex/making love.

There are oodles of fun activities, or not so fun activities, to peruse at leisure, but when the fun of that has dwindled, take a moment to look at what all of this might mean.

Could this be a fair representation of the times? There are, of course, outliers to the generalizations of folks finding sex to be the pinnacle of happiness, but despite the comical obviousness, the sex result along with the other rankings could really tell us a lot about how to operate in life.

Think about the results of the study in terms of marketing. Such information makes the crafting of commercials or other gimmicks to get a person to buy something a far cry easier if it is agreed upon that making a person happy will sell more things.

And political campaigning or policy formation gets a nice leg up as well. With information measuring and tracking how to achieve a “full life,” issues can be tailored or addressed with specifications that otherwise might have been cast aside in favor of those wacky “traditional” notions a lot of older generations subscribed to.

Not that traditional views of “full life” are not worthwhile, but that the current 35-and-under crowd, the “younger” generations, might really be serious when they say to their parents — as spoken by “da Dawson” himself, James Van Der Beek, in “Varsity Blues” — “But I don’t want your life.”

The applications could do some good with assessing psychological hurdles challenging some, or cause restructuring of jobs to account for what makes people happier, and hence more productive. Who knows how far you can stretch the information for application?

Research that examines what people really want also opens the door to potentially kicking in certain taboos in talking points. There are still some folks uncomfortable with certain topics — sex for example — and as such avoid learning about aspects for what could very likely be the most fulfilling thing in their lives.

There will be people arguing that the results don’t represent them, or that will deny the “validity” of some of the rankings, but that’s opinions for ya. Everybody has to be special, or have some distinction. Meh.

The reality remains: The results do seem to be a reasonable assessment of folks. Well, of the younger generations at least, as we tend to have this whole “new” outlook on life due to our global village upbringings; that and our adoration of sharing every detail of our lives, compared to the less “out there for all” outlook of many previous generations.

Before you scoff, or maybe have a chuckle at the sex “revelation,” and move on with your day, think about what you learned. In fact, you were probably already pondering what things you find in your life to be fulfilling, what make your life have a cherry on top, and ranking them.

And that is the beauty of studies like the one under discussion; those studies let you look inward and think. And if a study — no matter how dubious the methods might seem or how potentially skewed you might consider the results — makes you think and let you learn a little more about yourself, well, doesn’t that make it worth looking into a bit more?

The group uses its collective expertise to manipulate the system in a way that, to its followers, is morally right.

Despite working for human rights, a valiant cause, the tactics of the group are ethically wrong. Yet they have created important dialogue that needs to be considered as technology improves and the borders of our society change with further globalization.

When Tunisia sparked the Arab Spring movement in 2010, demonstrations and protests ensued that threatened the tenure of long-time president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. The Tunisian government tried to block Internet communications in and out of the country. Disturbed, the Anonymous hactivists sprung to action by hacking the Tunisian government’s servers and showing the rebellion how to go around the government’s ploy, according to Al Jazeera.

More recently, Anonymous has hacked Israeli government websites, leaving messages saying “Stop bombing Gaza!! We Anonymous will not sit back and watch a cowardly Zionist State demolish innocent people’s lives.”

Perhaps its greatest trait, Anonymous does not have a leader. It does not have a headquarters and it seems nearly impossible to know for sure who is in the group. The only thing that connects the group of hackers is that they collect intelligence of wrongdoing and combine their forces to try and eradicate it.

Their adage, “we are anonymous, we are legion, we do not forgive, we do not forget, expect us,” sends a clear message of their intentions towards those they deem a threat to society.

Despite its work against these enemies, its tactics are intimidating and unconventional in that the group does not wish physical harm on perpetrators of rights violations; only a revelation of a hidden truth in need of exposure.

What makes Anonymous strikingly intimidating is that it uses tactics that are ethically wrong to achieve goals that are morally right. The ethical dilemma of whether or not to condone this type of vigilantism begs to question the reasons the vigilante acts are conducted.

To just play devil’s advocate would undermine the serious consequences that borderline lawlessness can create. If the system of checks and balances that Anonymous is trying to put in place becomes too strong, it raises the concern of who would be able to stand up to the power that the group gained through working outside of the law.

There are evils in this world. For every tragedy and transgression that occurs, there is a tendency to question whether something could have been done. Anonymous has gained our attention in ousting those who they believe to be evil and it can only continue as long as their “Robin Hood” mentality does not escalate to anything more nefarious.

As the specifics of gun laws will likely always be in contention, the more important aspect — the emotional and psychological state of the person who commits gun crimes — should garner a lot more attention both before and after these of tragedies occur.

During his halftime segment on Sunday Night Football, NBC broadcaster Bob Costas quoted a piece from Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock, who wrote, “‘In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows? But here,’ wrote Whitlock, ‘is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.’”

Costas received criticism for his report on social media from Second Amendment supporters who thought his comments were misinformed and that he should not have used the broadcast medium to express his opinions. But the point that both Whitlock and Costas tried to make should not be the main concern regarding this or other crimes like it.

The statements only serve to polarize the climate in the aftermath of tragedy and detract from the legitimacy of the arguments.

The problem in solving the gun violence dilemma is that both sides of the argument have inherently valid points. Guns are just objects, paper weights if you will, that only result in devastation when the user has the psychological determination to aim and pull the trigger.

However, guns serve only one purpose: to shoot a projectile with a potentially dangerous force. Whether individuals use this power to cause harm or prevent it is based solely on the emotional and psychological stability of the user.

Whenever tragedies like the one in Kansas City occur, it is far too easy to shift the blame to the availability of guns, getting us so caught up in that debate that we forget about the underlining cause. We did the same thing when news broke regarding the Aurora, Colorado shooter James Holmes and even more so after the Columbine High shooting in 1999. In both instances the gunman’s emotional stability was questioned but the continual rhetoric afterwards concerned how to stop gun violence rather than how we, as a culture, could alleviate the emotional volatility of the perpetrator.
It will never be easy to delve into the mind of someone who could take another human beings life. It is almost easier to forego the uneasiness and push the blame onto something else. But before we rush to blame a piece of machinery we need to fully understand the most powerful weapon that humans can wield — the mind.

Presently, there is a 35 percent rate on inheritance above $5 million. However, as a part of the fiscal cliff, the estate tax is in for an automatic increase on Jan. 1. The $5 million threshold will drop to $1 million, and the rate will jump from 35 to 55 percent. If on Dec. 31 you happen to be on your deathbed with a $5 million inheritance set aside, surviving one more day will cost $2.3 million dollars in taxes. That’s quite the predicament if you’re on life support.

The argument in favor of a higher estate tax is easy to see. Advocates argue on moral grounds that it is an easy way to help level the playing field of equal opportunity between the rich and the poor. However, opponents argue against it on the grounds of economic efficiency and, surprise, even morality.

For example, consider two individuals, Bob and Joe, who each started businesses and sold them at retirement for $10 million. Bob spent his retirement gambling away his money, but Joe invested his, living modestly while his savings financed new businesses and economic development. Is it fair that Joe be penalized for his financial choice? Moral arguments alone make for a difficult method of justification.

So what of the economics of the death tax, as it is sometimes pejoratively nicknamed? Many economists, such as former University of Minnesota professor and Nobel Laureate Edward Prescott, favor a complete repeal of the estate tax. Like any good ol’ American tax, it is full of loopholes.

This results in a plethora of inefficiencies and distortions in decision making. Because the estate tax raises very little revenue, about 0.2 percent of gross domestic product, some economists express doubt that the revenue exceeds the opportunity cost of all those lawyers, accountants, government administrators, IRS agents and the drag on economic growth.

The estate tax is another form of capital taxation, widely believed to be a harmful way to raise revenue. This brings to mind another hot topic in the public eye: capital gains, the tax on investment income. For the ultra-rich who make most of their income on investments, this can make for a lower tax rate than many Americans deem fair. Currently at 15 percent, President Barack Obama favors raising capital gains to 20 percent. One caveat is in order; he will have already raised it for high earners by 3.8 percent through the Affordable Care Act.

In reality, the capital gains rate can be much higher than 23.8 percent, as it will become on Jan. 1. Suppose you make an investment of $1,000 and it grows by 10 percent, however, in that same time there is 10 percent inflation. Thus, the real value of your investment is unchanged. Despite having no increase in wealth, you still pay taxes on the nominal gain of $100. That’s a tax rate of infinity! Because capital gains also tax inflation, the real rate is almost never as low as it looks on paper.

Suppose you make your investment in the stock market. The fruits of your investment — the retained earnings of the company — are already getting taxed through corporate income taxes; your investment is taxed twice. Since you have already paid taxes on the wage income that gave you money to invest, your income is subject to taxation three separate times.

Last week Warren Buffett wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled “A Minumum Tax for the Wealthy” in which he scoffed at the notion that a higher capital gains rate would discourage the wealthy from pursuing investments. “In the years from 1956 to 1969… the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.”

In addition, and without any constructive solutions, he criticized tax maneuvering by the wealthy to the Cayman Islands as “sickening.” What Mr. Buffett ignores is that a higher capital gains tax is a major contributing factor to the use of foreign tax havens and offshore accounts.

In fact, there is a wealth of economic literature suggesting the optimal capital gains tax rate is at or very near zero. This literature has found ample evidence that capital taxation is overly burdensome on the growth of the economy. While economic inequality is a large concern for many Americans, policies that seek to address the issue still affect everyone. The more the economic pie is redistributed, the more the pie shrinks. When the economy fails to grow, those who suffer most are the poor.

It should be mutually agreed that economic growth is fair and beneficial to everyone. As John F. Kennedy famously quipped, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” While it is a noble position to advocate the rich paying more through estate and capital gains taxation, the drain on the growth of the economy is a cost paid by all.

The morals of society and what it collectively decides is fair are virtues which cannot and should not be divorced from policy making. Neither can we let objective economic arguments, which are intimately linked with fairness, be separated from the rationale behind the policies we endorse.

Three major events happened over the last month in Palestine: Gaza and Israel waged an eight-day battle, Palestine became a non-member observer state at the United Nations, and Israel simultaneously cut their aid to the Palestinian Authority and expanded the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem. Collectively, these actions symbolize another lost generation on the never-ending path to peace and Palestinian statehood.

Let’s look at each event individually.

There are a couple of very bad ways to understand the conflict in Gaza. Unfortunately, these are also the most popular ways. The first one is to count dead bodies and then use them to make an argument about “ethics.” If you are seeking the laziest moral standard possible, just remember, whichever side had the lowest number of people die is automatically the bad guy!

Another fallacious way to understand the conflict is to ask who started it. Israel technically broke a peace agreement when it killed Al-Jabari, Hamas’s military commander. But Hamas is officially committed to Israel’s destruction, so all peace deals are temporary. Al-Jabari himself led an operation that smuggled hundreds of rockets from Iran into Gaza through Sudan and Egypt.

The latest battle between Gaza and Israel really revolves around the development of military technology over the last 10 years, not to mention Iran’s pivotal role in that development. Whereas Gaza’s rockets in the 2008 engagement with Israel were highly inaccurate and faulty, often with a range under 10 miles, the new Fajr-5 rockets weigh more than 2,000 pounds and are capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Although Israel and Gaza arrived at some sort of peace agreement, Hamas’s new access to high-level Iranian military technology raises the stakes both within Palestine and across the region.

Unlike the conflict in Gaza, the “achievement” of non-member observer state status by Palestine’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, could probably be described as a charade. Crowds in the West Bank greeted Abbas like a conquering hero, which a cynical observer could describe as the only concrete goal of the vote at the United Nations.

Abbas claimed that his effort to receive non-member observer state status for Palestine was motivated by the stalled status of peace negotiations with Israel and the continued developments of settlements. That’s half nonsense. The Palestinian Authority’s long-time president desperately sought public support as Gaza slipped further from his sphere of influence and he appeared helpless in the face of Israeli settlement construction. Regardless of whether one wants to attribute Abbas’s move to Israeli intransigence or his own motivation to stay in power, the move unequivocally sets back the peace process.

Regardless, Abbas will need all the public support he can garner in the West Bank, too, if the International Monetary Fund’s economic predictions are correct. The IMF’s mission chief for the West Bank, Oussama Kanaan, predicted in September that the Palestinian economy would soon experience an economic slump and a spike in unemployment. He blamed Israel’s limits on Palestinian trade and a severe drawback in donor money from the Arab world.

This brings us to the latest event. In the aftermath of the vote at the United Nations, Israel quickly responded. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu authorized the planning and zoning for construction in the area of West Bank town, Ma’ale Adumim. Building in that area would “make it nearly impossible to create a contiguous Palestinian state.”

Yesterday, Israel chose to withhold its transfer of tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, accusing them of violating peace deals by upgrading their status at the United Nations. This will only exacerbate the social unrest engendered by the West Bank’s economic slump.

In the coming decades, observers will ask themselves how the region slid from the promise of the Oslo Accords to these lows. They may discover that this last month’s events were the watershed moment when both sides committed their next generation of youth to the never-ending conflict.

As someone with close Israeli and Palestinian friends, I sincerely hope that the passing of time will prove me wrong. History may prove once again that pundits should avoid the prediction-making business.

UN recognition of Palestine should be an important step forward to finally establishing a secure state for the Palestinians. But Israel’s approach to the “Palestinian problem” is outdated and requires re-evaluation in light of the recent U.N. vote. For a long time, Israel has used brute force to agitate the Palestinian territories and used the dysfunction caused by Israeli meddling as an excuse to not bring any realistic demands to the negotiating table. The Israeli embargo on the Gaza Strip, which prevents goods like construction materials from passing in to the area, only convinces Palestinians that peaceful diplomatic efforts are failing and that violence is the only way to defend Palestinian interests. The Israeli government has used the separation wall and Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank to prevent a geographically coherent potential Palestinian state. Israel does this under the guise of security. However, the Israeli government needs to understand that the best way to promote its country’s security is to convince the rest of the world that they are no longer oppressing Palestinians and rather intend to live alongside them in peace.

Unfortunately, Israel’s actions after the UN vote demonstrate that the hawkish Netanyahu administration cares little for a two-state solution. In fact, Israel revealed on Friday that it would commence with construction plans for 3,000 settler homes in a highly contentious area known as E1 in the West Bank, a move that was immediately condemned by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. Israel then announced that it would withhold $120 million in tax revenues that it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

These moves come on the heels of a bloody Israeli military operation on the Gaza Strip, which killed more than 150 Palestinians, including many women and children. This was an extreme response to a Hamas operation that killed only a few Israelis. The deaths of innocent Palestinians do nothing but increase support for Hamas’ terrorist activities in the West Bank, weakening the non-violent Palestinian Authority that currently governs the West Bank. If Israel ever wants peace, it must stop antagonizing the Palestinians. The rest of the world has spoken, and overwhelming international support for the creation of a Palestinian state is clear. It is time for Israel to get on board, too.

The United States, too, is on the wrong side of history. Just a year ago, President Obama threatened to veto Palestine’s bid to achieve full member status of the United Nations. Recently, he pledged support for the recent occupation of the Gaza Strip, despite news of IDF soldiers killing entire Palestinian families in Gaza and shooting dead Palestinians protesting against the IDF in the West Bank. Israel has long been an important ally to the United States, but unwavering U.S. support for Israeli belligerency is unacceptable in light of the death of innocents. American support for Israel has long been unpopular in the Middle East and has proven to be a major diplomatic obstacle between newly democratic Arab countries such as Egypt. It is time for America to do the right thing and work toward establishing a state of Palestine, even if that means ignoring the more aggressive demands of Israel.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated shortly after the UN vote, “The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly: enough of aggression, settlements and occupation…[and] issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine.” I hope that we can continue to talk about the “State of Palestine” and “the Palestinian government” rather than “the occupied territories.” But perhaps this is too hopeful: Today, Israel holds all the cards in its Likud-ruled hands and has America’s indefatigable support as the ace up its sleeve. The history books have yet to be written, and I can only hope that the political tide in Israel will turn and future Israeli governments will show a gentler hand in the coming years.

The lowering of drug prices for those with Medicare is a plus, but where are the other benefits? With a decrease of $716 billion for Medicare, President Barack Obama is using a double-edged sword on senior citizens, as hospitals have to downsize staffs to afford budget and salary cuts. This does allow senior citizens in hospitals and nursing homes to have the same benefits with lower costs and deductibles. However, there will not be enough staff to attend to the sick and ill, which in the end will fuel the two main causes of incidents in nursing homes right now — the transferring of patients to different facilitations, as well as abuse and neglect.

One of the most recent problems for sick and disabled senior citizens is their treatment in nursing homes. Florida has come under fire during the past few years due to many investigative reports revealing the true nature of these facilities and lack of care being provided.

Brian Lee, the former long-term care ombudsman for Florida and current head of Families for Better Care, a nursing reform advocacy group, explained the need for reform to untangle the massive nursing corporation conglomerate that subcontracts the task of running these facilities and to provide transparency. Facilities need to stop sacrificing quality, trained staff members for profits.

“I’ve seen more neglect in my lifetime than anyone ever should: Elderly people beaten, slapped around, dehydration, bedsores,” Lee said to Take Part. “There’s no end in sight unless nursing homes are accountable with their money. And the way to do that is through transparency.”

What will become of these rampantly neglected nursing homes providing subpar care when budget and staffing is cut even more?
Gov. Rick Scott has failed to acknowledge the effect it will have on the Florida nursing facility system, and major counties have reported various adverse incidents, incidents in which facility staff or personnel could have exercised control, but occurred as a result of the resident’s condition.

According to the Agency for Health Care Administration, there was a total of 2,090 adverse incidents from 2007-2008, with 37 percent of these cases resulting from neglect and abuse. Counties with the most incidents are concentrated in South Florida (Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties), Orange County and Pinellas County, where 44 percent of the population is more than 55 years old.

The Miami Herald featured a three-part series investigative report about nursing homes in Florida. The series investigated the causes of deaths, leading to the exposure of many horrible truths about conditions in nursing homes.

The articles discuss various patients who died due to preventable circumstances had there been a better and more attentive staff. According to the Miami Herald, the Agency for Health Care Administration has failed to properly oversee Florida’s 2,850 nursing homes and operators, investigate dangerous practices or act on notifications submitted by its own inspectors about possible instances of neglect and abuse.

One incident included a 71-year-old patient who died from burn injuries. The mentally ill patient was left in a bathtub with scalding water in a Hialeah nursing home. In 2011 alone, police made roughly 13,250 calls to assisted living facilities in Broward County. This averages out to about one call every four hours. The signs of possible nursing home neglect and abuse also include dehydration, frequent infections and also overmedication/sedation.

In 1980, Miami Congressman Claude Pepper passed the Residents Bill of Rights to protect and uphold the quality of conditions and lifestyle present in these facilities, but it seems as though Florida has digressed in recent years.

Will the new cuts to Medicaid and Medicare under Obamacare aid our senior citizens, especially those in nursing homes? With the requirement of health insurance, yet less funding to provide the benefits and funding to the programs, there is a correlation between the continued poor care of these patients, especially in the conglomerate that the nursing facilitation industry has become.

But in a generation where quality is sacrificed for quantity, we must ask ourselves does the state government really care at all about these senior citizens, the nursing homes and the growing issue of the sublevel quality of life in these institutions? The answer is clear.

Yes, I know it sounds insane. But despite the equivocating, fear-mongering and hysterics occurring on Capitol Hill, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is not the financial apocalypse Democrats are trying to claim. By their own standards, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts should be a good thing for the country.

Why? It’s merely a return to the Clinton rates. And as we’re constantly reminded, the Clinton years were economic Valhalla.

There’s certainly a growing financial crisis, but it has nothing to do with the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts and automatic budget cuts.

It has everything to do with Obama’s hypocrisy on spending and deficit levels.

When Obama was merely a candidate, he called Bush’s spending, which led to a $9 trillion deficit, “unpatriotic.” Apparently, pushing that number to $16 trillion in less than four years isn’t.

And as if that burgeoning number wasn’t enough, Obama’s serious solution unveiled this week to pull us from the economic brink is $1.6 trillion in tax increases on “millionaires and billionaires” over the next 10 years. Let’s not forget those evil $250,000 a year millionaires who just won’t pay their fair share. This number is double what he proposed during the campaign. What’s worse about this grand bargain is that it makes no concessions to spending cuts — merely a promise of looking for future savings of a paltry $400 billion in Medicare and other entitlement programs. Remind me how well that promise worked for Ronald Reagan? Oh, that’s right; it didn’t.

Apparently those numbers are acceptable because, as Nancy Pelosi reminded us this week, Congress worked to institute utterly draconian cuts of .07 percent last year. How could we possibly cut any more?

Finally, showing a blatant disregard for federalism, the deal gives Obama virtually unlimited power over the debt ceiling. He proposes to ban limits on the debt ceiling. Now, in his benevolence, he allows Congress to pass a resolution blocking debt ceiling increases, but gives himself the power to veto that resolution, which can only be overridden by a two-thirds Congressional override.

That’s not unconstitutional in the slightest.

Yes, raising taxes on the super wealthy polls well. But don’t be deceived by the bromides; this isn’t just an income tax raise. Obama’s plan also includes a hike of the inheritance tax on estates over $3.5 million — which even some Democrats have been hesitant about — and a tax on regular-income dividends. Again, this is a measure the Senate did not even consider. Obama has also proposed getting rid of the charitable tax donation.

So yes, maybe letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high income earners isn’t that bad.

But that’s not the whole deal.

There are massive tax increases hidden in this proposal, and they don’t just affect upper income earners. Because trickle down economics is indeed more than just “fairy dust,” this will affect everyone: business owners may be forced to lay off workers in order to keep their doors open, consumers’ dollars won’t go as far, charities, etc.

Historically, revenues increase when taxes are lowered; It happened when Kennedy and Reagan lowered tax rates. And yes, even when Bush — whose only concern was lining the pockets of his fat-cat Wall Street pals — instituted his tax cuts, and the tax base expanded.

It’s the fiscal cliff, or Tax-maggedon. Either way, the result is pretty grim unless serious budget cuts are worked out. And Obama’s laughable deal — which includes more stimulus spending and axing the debt ceiling — shows just how seriously he’s taking the budget crisis, which is not at all, hence the market crash that followed this election.

And that’s why Republicans need to hold firm and go over the cliff, proving once and for all just how reckless the Democrats are when it comes to economic policy. Remember, in the past they praised the economic policies under Clinton. Now their return is  being painted as a sort of doomsday scenario.

It is Obama who is responsible for this showdown. Republicans have put forth serious proposal after serious proposal, have been shot down and met with asinine proposals. Now is not the time to back down on principles.

Despite challenges combating a disease that continuously changes and adapts within the host cells of patients, recent research indicates that it may be possible to control the transmission of HIV. The HPTN 052 study, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, used a randomized clinical trial to understand whether antiretroviral treatment, a combination of drugs already used to treat HIV, could prevent sexual transmission of HIV among couples in which one member was HIV-positive. Remarkably, the study demonstrated that ATRVs as a form of treatment is actually a form of prevention: The uninfected partner does not contract the virus. By providing patients with treatment, transmission of the virus can be stopped.

As a result of Congress’ failed attempt to come up with a fiscal solution to last year’s debt-ceiling crisis, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was enacted to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the next decade (starting this January). Different sectors will be impacted differently by the cuts, but all will be hurt, and small programs will get hit the hardest. For example, sequestration will be disastrous to health research, an area that already struggles with receiving adequate funding. A 7.8 percent sequester is to be enacted for agencies such as the National Institute of Health, which will lose $2.4 billion, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ($444 million), and the National Science Foundation ($538 million). On the whole, discretionary funding is projected to decline by $39 billion. In addition, global health funding will be slashed by 8.4 percent across the board. This reduction is estimated to result in an increase of global AIDS-related deaths by more than 60,000. Nearly 275,000 people will be left without AIDS treatment and services. Although the Budget Control Act was presented last year, there is still the possibility for Congress to enact another solution by January—a solution that would not put lives at risk.

The fight against HIV/AIDS is perhaps the single bipartisan issue of our time. Lauded by Bill Clinton as a legacy of the Bush administration, U.S. efforts to combat AIDS both at home and abroad must continue, even in the most pressing of economic times. Congress should take decisive steps to ensure that the U.S. remains an undisputed leader in the fight against AIDS. The fiscal challenge cannot be used as an excuse to slash domestic and global programs that are keeping patients alive. In the U.S. alone, the onslaught of devastating sequestration would bring life-saving research to a halt and leave thousands of people without the medicine they depend on for survival.

The time to fight the AIDS epidemic is now. In recent years, tremendous progress has resuted from research, prevention, and treatment initiatives funded by the federal budget. These allowances comprise a tiny portion of the federal budget relative to defense spending and tax breaks. As of September 30, the U.S. directly supported nearly 5.1 million people on antiretroviral treatment through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. This is a three-fold increase in four years, up from 1.7 million in 2008. We cannot afford to undercut this progress by defunding domestic and global programs.

This Saturday at 11:30 a.m., members of the Harvard Global Health and AIDS Coalition and ACT UP Boston, an AIDS advocacy organization, will meet outside of Senator John Kerry’s home to demand that funding for HIV/AIDS treatment programs be protected. As a member of the congressional debt super committee, he can significantly influence the outcome of the federal budget. GHAC will also be hosting a screening of “How to Survive a Plague,” a powerful documentary about the history of the AIDS movement and where it stands today. The screening will be followed with remarks from guest speaker Gregg Gonsalves, an activist featured in the film. This is the time. We invite you to stand with us on December 1 as we call on Congress to save lives.

According to a Sept. 21 TechRadar article by Gary Marshall, the new software is “much more social than before.” Not everyone is happy with the upgrade, however, because of glitches and other issues.

iOS 6 upgrades iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch with more than 200 new features, including new versions of Maps, Camera and FaceTime, Siri, Phone and Safari applications.

Before the new update, Maps was as simple as its name. The user received directions and did their best to get to their destination. Maps is now vector based, keeps the streets and places in their real locations, zooms in and out smoothly and has voice navigation and real-time traffic updates.

These features were added, however, at the cost of longtime partner Google. Apple has used Google Maps in the past, but because of disagreements between the companies, Apple decided to create their own app. This has several loyal Apple costumers upset because the new version of Maps is less reliable and has more glitches than Google Maps ever did.

Although some costumers dislike iOS 6, others praise the new technology of the Camera and FaceTime application. iPhone cameras now have the ability to take photos in panoramic view. Also, the FaceTime application can now work over 3G provided that you have the correct hardware and calling plan. It will work with the iPhone 4S but not the iPhone 4.

The Phone system and Safari also needed a necessary update due to complications in past versions. iPhone users now have the ability to put off a phone call with just a few swift motions. The iOS 6 software allows users to instantly reply with a text message, set a callback reminder when they decline an incoming call, or put their phone in “Do Not Disturb” mode.

Safari now lets users save web pages and open up their most recent tabs even when not connected to the Internet. Users can also read while offline and then switch to another device to read the same article from the place they left off.

Apple also made improvements to Siri. Siri can now understand more languages, work in more countries, provide updates on the scores of the latest games, find the best restaurants and give the user the dates and times of nearby movie theaters.

With all the new updates, you’d think people would be excited, but this was not the case upon the software’s release. An Oct. 1 Fox News article by Jeremy A. Kaplan stated that over 183 million out of 283 million eligible users — that’s more than half — did not update to iOS 6.

By Nov. 9, Northern Voices Online reported that about one-third of iPhone customers in the U.S. and Canada had still not upgraded. Why? Some users choose not to update due to technological issues, having the wrong version of the iPhone or because they wanted to buy the iPhone 5.

Being an iPhone 4S user myself, I do not believe upgrading to the new iOS 6 system is critical. I have updated my phone, and I find that I have hardly used any of the new software updates. TechRadar said it best, stating that the new iOS 6 software is “the refinement of something that already works extremely well.”

The book began with a quote from English statesman Edmund Burke: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Today, there is an epidemic of lawmakers sacrificing their judgment not to public opinion, but only one man: Grover Norquist.

You may be asking yourself, as President George H.W. Bush did in an interview with Parade Magazine, “Who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?” He is a colorful anti-tax crusader whose group Americans for Tax Reform maintains a “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” Washington’s version of a blood oath. Any politician who signs it risks the wrath of Norquist and his extensive network of allies if he votes to raise tax rates or eliminate deductions at all for the rest of his career. It sounds more like a mafia hit list than a tool for tax reform.

After decades of skulking in the back alleys of Washington with shady characters like lobbyist Jack Abramoff, he burst on the national stage with the debt-ceiling crisis of last year. His pact, signed by almost every Republican in Congress, almost prevented the United States from paying their debts. Now he’s back in the spotlight again with the coming “fiscal cliff” of tax increases and spending cuts, which is about to hit the economy hard.

His obstruction of a potential deal has brought anti-Norquist sentiment to a head. Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson said he wanted Norquist to drown in a bathtub. That’s a reference to Norquist’s idea that government should be “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” Peter King, one of the Republicans who has denounced the pledge, said this of Norquist in response to his insults against King’s wife: “He better hope he doesn’t (meet my wife). She’ll knock his head off.” Clearly, things are getting ugly.

Amidst all the ugliness, Republicans are slowly beginning to back away from Norquist and his ilk. They do this despite the threat of being “primaried” by more conservative opponents and the all-powerful Norquist. Seven prominent congressional Republicans — Sens. Tom Coburn, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander, and Reps. Peter King and Tom Cole, among others — have come out against the pledge in recent days. They offer a modern-day profile in courage, willing to stand up against their party and this hooligan and do the right thing for the country.

Norquist maintains that he’s not worried; after all, he’s been Washington’s chief obstructionist for 20 years and has a pretty good success rate. Take his response to Lindsey Graham: “If you had a pink unicorn, how many dollars in taxes would you raise to trade for the pink unicorn? Since pink unicorns do not exist in the real world, it’s never occurred to me to worry about the senator from South Carolina.”

These courageous congressmen can’t do it alone. Neither can President Barack Obama, who said on Wednesday: “I can only do it with the help of the American people. … Do what it takes to communicate a sense of urgency.” He requested that people call their congressman, just as they did last summer.

Let’s get on it. Let’s mobilize in support of these profiles in courage and show Mr. Norquist that he should be really worried. Let’s show him pink unicorns are real.

Unless both sides of the political aisle can agree on a deficit plan to prevent the federal government from going over the metaphorical cliff, the country will face automatic budget cuts to the defense budget and programs such as Medicare and the Federal Pell Grant Program — an important issue for students to pay attention to. These changes are a direct result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 going into effect — the congressional response to the country nearing the debt ceiling and not coming to a compromise on whether to raise it or not — and the expiration of tax cuts passed during George W. Bush’s time in office.

Just as tempers raged in the months leading up to the election, lawmakers continue to prove that bipartisan antics hindering productivity have just as much of a stronghold on the political landscape afterward — even in the face of economic turmoil.

The primary issue is how the government plans to raise revenue, and definitions of revenue generation differ across the political spectrum. To do this, our lawmakers are faced with a choice. On one side, the tax rates can be raised for those who make more than $250,000, and tax loopholes can be closed to increase revenue, leaving the amount of spending the same. On the other side is the notion that cutting spending on government programs and extending Bush-era tax cuts would be the best solution.

Both of the ideologies make logical sense. The only question is which plan is easier for the U.S. to predict the turnout of after it is implemented. Lawmakers should be working together to find a solution, instead of making “Taxpayer Protection Pledges” to not raise rates, a tactic spearheaded by conservative figure Grover Norquist. This pledge is a childish way for legislators to go about avoiding a compromise.

Regardless, the fate of the country’s economy and the lives of students relies on the ability of Congress and the president to come to a compromise which is literally impossible if the climate of bipartisan arguing continues.

During orientation for the program, the director of the Council on International Education Exchange Beijing gave us an easy comparison to put things in perspective. If you take your parents’ income and divide it by five; take your house size and put five times as many people in it; take your public transit system and put five times as many people in it; and take the difficulty of getting into college and make it five times harder, then you have China.

The thing that perhaps has gnawed at me most since coming to China is the lack of awareness about making and keeping lines. You could say I was in a state of unconscious incompetence when I arrived in Beijing. I was waiting in line at one of the restaurants on campus one morning to grab some 包子 (baozi, steamed buns) before class. The building was pretty packed and people were struggling to push their way through the door, trying to get closer to the front of the line. To be honest, I was a bit shocked. I passed it off as a busy morning or thought there must have been a massive event or something going on. At this point, I had progressed to conscious incompetence. I refused to form a negative view of Chinese culture.

A few days later, it happened at a bus stop. There was a large group of people trying to get on a packed bus, and people began running from the back and shoving their way onto it. I told myself it was rush hour and people needed to get home, but something felt somewhat off. It wasn’t until people began attempting to push in front of me at the ticket office that I realized that is how things are done here. I did some research and we talked about the event in class. At this point, I reached a level of conscious competence.

It turns out there was a massive pre-Olympic campaign to prevent this from happening in the face of the world’s tourists and the global audience. There were slogans, such as “我排队，我文明。我礼让，我快乐,” (“I wait in line and am cultured, I display courtesy and am happy”) that Beijing used to campaign, along with a national 排队日 (lineup day) held on the 11th of every month leading up to the Olympics. Four years later, the inability to queue still seems pretty prevalent. I am told, however, this is only a fraction of how bad it was in the past.

I have learned a few less rude ways to say, “Please stay in line.” These include: “请排队，好吗？” (Please line up, OK?), “不要插队” (“Don’t butt!”), “后面去” (“Get to the back!”), and my personal favorite “你丫怎么插队啊?” (“Why do you jump the line?”) I feel it is as much a problem of overcrowding as it is a problem of scarcity, despite there being only a slight difference between the two. If there are 250 people attempting to take a 100-person bus, it is inevitable there will be commotion trying to get on board. I have no doubt that this would be true in any society on Earth. I’ve witnessed it during rush hour in New York. I think because much of China needs to do it so often, it has permeated into every location: pools, workout rooms, stores, bars and security lines.

I’ve tried to keep an incredibly open mind and have learned to appreciate how different everything here really is. I feel understanding these cultural differences and learning to embrace them has already begun to benefit me and is something nearly everyone needs to accomplish at some point in his life.

After all, why support local businesses and pay more for a slightly higher-quality good when we can just go to Walmart? Why bother about the plight of the Walmart workers? If these workers find the conditions so difficult, can’t they just leave their jobs and let others who are more willing fill in for them? In the end, Walmart’s just a store, right?

These arguments fuel the Walmart machine. The perennial top dog of the Fortune 500, Walmart reaps profits of approximately $50 million each day and would rank among the world’s 25 largest economies if it were a country. These statistics are the result of Americans’ begrudging acceptance of Walmart as necessary to maintain their standards of living. The obvious reason why people shop at Walmart is to obtain everything they need in one place at low prices.

But local businesses aren’t the only ones hurt by the perpetuation of this cycle. Employees are made to work unreasonable hours without overtime pay, especially during days like Black Friday. Workers’ health benefits are nearly useless, and their market-driven wages make it impossible for them to support themselves or their families. As a result, many workers who depend on their jobs at Walmart for sustenance and cannot quit are forced to go on government welfare programs. The Winning Words Project estimates that with a dollar increase in wages for Walmart workers, millions of tax dollars could be saved.

If left unchecked, Walmart will continue to stem local business growth and eventually stamp out the unique characteristics of the places where it sets up shop. Recent failed nationwide strikes against Walmart indicate that nothing short of a massive consumer exodus from Walmart or government intervention will have any impact on its unchecked growth and dominance. It actually isn’t an extreme thought to conceive of Walmart as a monopoly, similar to Standard Oil in the early 20th century. We find no legitimate reason as to why one family can amass the same wealth as the bottom 41.5 percent of U.S. families combined. Each heir of the Walton fortune would need to spend more than $350 million a year for the next 40 years to exhaust the family’s $89.5 billion net worth.

Every member of society has an inalienable right to opportunity and life. But Walmart doesn’t actually do society a service. It does society a convenience, and it’s time that we learned that convenience sometimes comes at a cost.

Hopefully Walmart can learn from Jim Sinegal, the chief executive officer of Costco, who takes prides in the retailer’s policy of paying an average hourly wage of $17 and the fact that it boasts one of the lowest rates of employee turnover for a retail store. Sinegal doesn’t even claim that Costco’s treatment of employees is motivated by “altruistic” reasons. Rather, he said it is simply “good business.” Walmart, by wielding such outsized power, would do society more than enough good by reaching out to the less fortunate and paying their workers a decent wage.

I am doing all those things I previously presumed impossible now because I found the motivation to learn English, spent long  hours working through grammar rules and vocabulary and worked as hard as I could when other people asked for a bit more than what I thought was capable of.

In America, being fluent in two or three languages is extraordinary. In Germany, it’s average. So what is it that American students lack? Do they lack motivation? Are they unwilling to do the hard work it takes to become fluent in a foreign language? Or is there just no one who pushes them?

Motivation to learn a foreign language is indeed higher in Germany — and in Europe in general — because large populations speaking different languages reside so much closer. Within a 12-hour drive from Germany you can easily pass through five or six countries and read road signs in seven or eight different languages — an experience difficult to replicate in North America.

But that’s not the only reason why Germans and Europeans learn more languages than their American counterparts. In German universities, unlike at UT, where even majors in popular languages like French start with a beginner course, students enter college-level language courses more or less fluent. They acquired their language skills in primary and secondary schools. Studying French at the college level in Germany means studying French linguistics or literature; it means gaining an understanding of the language and the culture that goes far beyond a fluent coffee shop conversation.

At university in Germany, the languages that are not taught in the earlier grades start with very tough introductory courses. Language courses are two hours a week, which is just enough to cover grammar topics. Learning vocabulary, practicing speech and writing are things you either do at home voluntarily or you don’t. Failing to do so, however, means that you won’t make it to the second year.

So the biggest difference between learning a foreign language in Germany and in the United States is not the level of motivation but the quality and style of teaching in grade school and at universities.

In Austin, I have taught German to pupils at a middle school and I have experienced language instruction at the University as a student. Both groups seemed motivated to learn a foreign language. At the elementary school where I taught, the nine- or ten- year-olds were at the perfect age to acquire a language. But the advantages of their age and their motivation were wasted because the teaching lasted only a week. Those students probably won’t hear or read any more German until college, if ever. And longer-term attempts to teach language in grade schools in the United States appear ineffective too. I’ve met many Americans here who studied French or Spanish for years in school but can now barely remember how to order a coffee. They readily admit that the language programs at their primary and secondary schools were ineffective.

Things seem a bit better at the university level. I’ve met quite a number of people who study a foreign language in college and, within two or three years, have gained a decent knowledge of that language. Unfortunately, I ended up in a less effective department.

I wanted to continue my study of Portuguese — a language that I had started to study in Germany — and the intermediate Portuguese class I am taking offered promise. It’s a small class with a motivated professor. When the semester began, most students were equipped with a sound knowledge of grammar and vocabulary, and I was quite optimistic that this course would help me improve. I was wrong.

Rather than moving on, the course repeated introductory grammar topics. We’re not improving; we’re just chewing on bits of knowledge most of us had already digested last year.

Learning a foreign language is hard work, and there are moments when I hated every language I’ve learned so far because I was afraid that I would never get it, or because I thought my head was too full to learn a single word more. But in these moments of self-doubt, I had teachers who said, “Yes, you’re good, but you can be better.” The Portuguese class doesn’t challenge like that. This is not the teacher’s fault, she just follows through with the curriculum the department has decided upon. It’s not the students’ fault either. It’s the fault of the department’s curriculum, which does not adequately challenge the students. UT’s Department of Spanish and Portuguese has good equipment and good teachers, but rather than asking that their students go the extra mile, which is necessary in order that they really make progress, they demand far too little.

Schools and universities that don’t make use of their students’ motivation waste their talent, time and so much potential. They miss out on equipping young people with the tools they need to successfully go out into the world, communicate, understand and come back with a broadened horizon. I entered the world of the English language a long time ago, and at some point I discovered the beauty of it. I am still walking around in it today and so far it has never ceased to amaze me.

Since then, drone use has been on the rise and has diversified to include other countries, and drone operations are targeting various terrorist groups.

According to a recent article in The New York Times, there have been more than 300 drone strikes and 2,500 people killed by those drone attacks since Barack Obama took office. The Obama administration and the American people need to think carefully and critically about the ethical implications of drone use, as well as what the United States’ use of drones says about our country’s philosophy and global agenda moving forward.

It is unfortunate that President Obama has taken the stance he has regarding the use of drones in military action. As a man who champions himself and is lauded by a good deal of the American people as a supporter of human and civil rights, Obama’s backing of drones doesn’t jive with his ethos.

Obama has sold himself as a President who has concerns for minorities and the weak. Does the use of a remote controlled killing device that sometimes kills children fit Obama’s character? Does it comply with what we want America to be?

Many say the use of unmanned drones is a necessary evil to protect the American homeland. Others will roughly guffaw that President Obama and the government who support drone use aren’t letting down the American people, but keeping them safe. A United States that believes civilian life in Pakistan is less valuable than civilian life in Maryland is not a United States I am proud to be a part of.

While some might groan at the prospect of an increasingly global world community, it is happening and is irreversible. We would be good to embrace the changes, rather than try and fight them. We don’t have a very good track record of attempting to deny cultural shifts.

The legality of drone use has been continually questioned by American and global leaders. A UN specialist on extrajudicial killings, Christof Heyns, has suggested that some drone strikes constitute “war crimes.” Other experts like Ian Seiderman, the director of the International Commission of Jurists, have said that because of drone use, “immense damage was being done to the fabric of international law.” Experts are indeed worried US drone use might be doing more harm than good, encouraging terrorists to act out and possibly provoking other countries to violate laws set up by events like the Geneva Convention.

The ethics of drone use is probably the most challenging argument, as has already been mentioned with the loss of civilian life. A joint 2012 report done by law school researchers at NYU and Stanford titled “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan” details the terrorizing effects drones are having on people in the affected areas.

According to the report, “their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings or anything that involves gathering in groups.” Obviously drones are not just sniping out evil individuals – they are destroying cultures and innocent lives.

One of the most defeating moments of the 2012 presidential elections came in the last debate when both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama refused to deliberate over the use of drones, both basically conceding that what was happening was working for the country and didn’t need a change. When asked about Obama’s drone policy, Romney said, “I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.” No discussion about the ethical implications or civilian deaths caused by drone use ensued.

While American drone attacks have indeed killed terrorists, legal ramifications and human rights violations must be reconsidered. Like any technology, continued analysis and questioning must be done as America and other countries navigate toward finding peace on the earth. President Obama would do better to reassess his position under the lens of his human rights campaigns.

The American people need to look outside themselves and view all civilian lives as valuable, not just ones with whom we share citizenship. Those things we deem as necessary evils are still exactly that: evil.

But the fate of the Palestinian people living in Gaza is unfortunately at the mercy of Hamas.

Israel is attempting to give the Palestinian people aid and end the horrendous treatment that Hamas provides to the innocent Palestinians living in Gaza.

The history of Hamas is one of violence, a direct quote from Article 7 of the Hamas Charter states.

“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them,” it said. “Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out, ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”

This reaffirms that Hamas’ mission is not to create lasting peace with the Israelis, but to kill the Jews.

The conflict that is now arising in the Middle East is in response to rockets being fired from the Gaza Strip into the state of Israel. Hamas has been indiscriminately firing them for the last 12 years, paying no heed to what — or whom — they are targeting.

Hamas has been known to use human shields to cause civilian casualties, in an effort to appeal to the international media.

The fact is, Hamas has killed three Israeli civilians and wounded 68, according to the Associated Press. These numbers would be much higher if the Iron Dome defense system did not exist in the state of Israel — it is an anti-rocket defense system that is fired from Israeli soil to intercept and destroy the Fajr-5 rockets that Hamas has been firing into Israel.

Since the beginning of the “Pillar of Defense,” the operation Israel launched Nov. 13, Iron Dome has intercepted more than 325 out of 700 rockets fired, heading for civilian populations in major cities such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The only purpose of the rockets fired into Israel by Hamas is to kill Israeli civilians.

Israel is amassing troops on the border for a possible ground assault. A cease-fire was attempted when the Prime Minister of Egypt met with Hamas leaders on the situation. Yet during the meeting Hamas vowed to continue firing rockets onto Israeli soil, thereby ending any hopes of a cease-fire.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians casualties have been high, but more than 50 Hamas terrorists and leaders have been killed. Israel attempts to clear civilians from bombing sites before any operation. Unfortunately, Hamas keeps women and children against their will, making them vulnerable to Israeli rockets — another example of the mistreatment by Hamas to the people it supposedly represents, and the reason why civilian casualties have been so high.

At the end of the day, what Israel truly wants is a lasting peace and to coexist with its neighbors without the threat of rockets hitting Israel on a daily basis. Israel is ready to negotiate unconditional peace, but it is up to Hamas to do the same.

People in Europe didn’t understand why Bill Clinton stepped down after having an affair; they largely considered extramarital affairs to have no bearing on leadership capacity. While there may be a difference in cultural norms between, generally speaking, Europe and the United States, the underlying presumption, from a European perspective, still stands—why would a leader’s personal affairs be of concern to American citizens? Even when I was in high school, I was critical of the media’s incessant hounding on Sarah Palin’s daughter, Bristol. Sarah Palin was an idiot regardless of how many pre-marital children her daughter popped out by Election Day—why should the personal life of her daughter have anything to do with Governor Palin’s capabilities, or lack thereof, of being Vice President. The personal lives of political figures, in no way, affect their ability to perform their duties.

In the case of Bill Clinton, perjury was the reason for his impeachment. Federal law declares perjury to be a felony. Clinton lied under oath and, unfortunately for the American people, was nixed for it—unlike his predecessor, which we’ll leave to another article. Petraeus’s situation, however, was quite different. He resigned amongst controversy, but not as a result of an sort of immediate conviction. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this situation is the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the initial investigation into supposedly harassing emails exchanged between Broadwell and an acquaintance of Petraeus, Jill Kelly. Perhaps the proximity of Broadwell to Petraeus somehow justified this awkward intrusion by the FBI, but I find it difficult to justify the FBI then ceasing a personal email account of Petraeus’s, uncovering a deeper cause for investigation, and then acting upon it, outing Petraeus’s affair.

Regardless of my opinion that the FBI should have little business in the affairs of leaders in other intelligence agencies, even if it was “accidentally stumbled upon,” an affair, in no way, affects a leader’s capacity to carry out their duties. While I am not condoning adultery, I find it disappointing that the personal lives of officials are brought under the public eye. They have a right to privacy just like everyone else and I don’t think they should have to relinquish that right in their service to the American people.

This is the time of year for family to come together and feast in celebration of the day the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. It’s important to keep in mind, however, that moderation is key when surrounded by overwhelming amounts of food.

What people shouldn’t do is starve themselves before the dinner because then they overeat, food science and nutrition professor Susan Swadener said.

“Research shows if you skip meals, then, if you normally eat 2,000 calories a day, you’ll end up eating around 4,000 because you’re so hungry,” Swadner said.

The portion size for meat is about three ounces, or the size of the palm of your hand, Swadener said. A serving of potatoes is about half a cup, and a serving of vegetables is a cup.

What tends to add up is generally how things are prepared, food science and nutrition professor Laura Hall said.

“Gravy, mashed potatoes with a lot of butter and cream in them or sweet potatoes with a lot of sugar in them all end up having more calories and are generally less healthy because they’re high in fat,” Hall said.

If you can cook a healthier meal in the first place by trimming off the fat on the turkey, using low-fat milk in the mashed potatoes and making healthier choices, then you can cut the fat in your diet, Hall said.

Little things such as deciding not to put whipped cream on your pie or choosing low-fat ice cream instead can make a difference, Hall said.

Swadener and Hall both offered tips to keep in mind when making a conscious decision about what to eat on this sacred holiday.

Studies have shown that if you eat on a bigger plate, or put more on your plate, then you’re going to eat it, Hall said. If you use a smaller plate, or put less food on it, you won’t eat as much.

Enjoy the company of the people you’re with, take your time and drink water to not overeat, Hall said.

It’s a good idea to have some of the foods from Thanksgiving such as turkey or cranberry sauce throughout the year, Swadener said. If you eat them more often, then you’re less likely to binge on them.

Kelsey Hollenbeck, STRIDE public relations and media coordinator, said you should avoid snacking throughout the whole day.

“I know that when we cook in my house, I’ll just be eating little pieces of everything as we make it, and then I’m full by the time dinner comes around,” Hollenbeck said.

Everyone overeats at Thanksgiving — it’s part of the culture of it, Hollenbeck said.

Students also generally go home after being used to having little food on hand or eating ramen, whereas Thanksgiving offers an opportunity to gorge on food other people make, Hollenbeck said.

This time of the year involves more socializing, and there are foods you wouldn’t typically eat, such as pies, so it’s easy to overindulge, Hall said.

You always hear that people gain weight around this time because they’re eating differently and they may not be exercising like they normally do, Hall said.

It’s important to let yourself feel full and to not overeat, Hall said. You can always have leftovers and don’t forget to be physically active.

A good way to not gain a lot of weight during the holidays is to make it a family tradition to take a walk before or after dinner so you don’t sit around and eat all night, Swadener said.

This is the time to be with each other, and sometimes if you do more physical activity, such as a walk, then you spend more quality time with one another than just sitting around and watching the television, Swadener said.

Good food in moderation and even better company is the trick to finding the balance to a perfect Thanksgiving.

In fact, with its economic heft, the U.S., as a seemingly silent superpower, is a larger player in the chaos ensuing now than perhaps either Israel or the Gaza strip.

But as Israel has intensified air strikes and bombs in retaliation to Hamas-launched rockets from Gaza, the U.S. response has spoken as to what side the American taxpayers will be supporting.

While President Barack Obama has said it would be “preferable,” according to the Associated Press, for violence to not exist, he has consistently defended Israel’s “right to defend itself.”

But according to the New York Times, Gaza health officials have reported at least 600 injuries and 70 deaths since Wednesday and Israel has reported 79 injuries and three deaths, the human rights violations being brought upon the people of Gaza by Israel are not things the U.S. should endorse.

While the initial violence of the rocket launch is not condonable, Israel’s response — the response sponsored by the taxpayers of America — is certainly not either, and coupled with the history of aggression and blatant disregard of civilian, women and children’s lives, the U.S.’s strategic oblivion is one that goes against the very value of democracy that allied Israel with the U.S. in the first place.

Gilad Sharon, the son of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, called for the “flattening of Gaza” in an op-ed written for the Jerusalem post.

“We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza,” he wrote. “Flatten all of Gaza. … There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing.”

The U.S. has a strong, vested interest in Israel — an interest so expansive (and expensive) that it is willing to overlook important aspects of democracy, such as human rights, to secure its own best interest in an utterly undemocratic process.

Israel has received about $115 billion in U.S. aid, and continues to receive about $3 billion a year, making it the largest recipient of U.S. aid since World War II. According to a Congressional Research Report prepared for the U.S. Congress, the Bush administration approved a 10-year, $30 billion package for Israel’s Foreign Military Financing grant, which Obama has continued.

The very Iron Dome system, the system that has intercepted 245 rockets for Israel since the recent burst of violence, is largely funded by the U.S, which provides an additional $70 million for it per year, according to CNN.

While it is incredible that this technology protects Israeli civilians, does the U.S. government value their lives more than Palestinians?

Though a 2011 Gallup poll found that 63 percent of Americans supported Israel over Palestine, it is worth a closer look as to whether cozying up to Israel solely because of its “democratic” roots is worth the fiscal and humanitarian costs.

A democracy is not simply electing leaders, and by turning a blind eye to these injustices, the U.S. is further distancing itself from other Middle Eastern nations at a time in which diplomacy is most needed.

Last Thanksgiving, however, I passed up most of these goodies because of a lifestyle choice I had made in May of 2011. I had decided to become a vegetarian, partially for the health benefits of giving up meat and focusing on fruits and vegetables and partially because I love animals.

However, most of what compelled me stemmed from a need to simply prove that I could do it. I hardly ate red meat, and I felt that I could give up chicken and tuna without much of a fuss.

I chose not to forgo dairy and eggs since animals aren’t harmed in the making of them (disregarding the idea that an egg is alive; I’m not here to argue about rights) and to simply live as a lacto-ovo vegetarian.

This proved more difficult than I had planned. At the time, I lived in Hays, which made it difficult to find vegetarian protein supplements. Because I had cut meat out of my diet, I tried to eat more peanut butter, eggs and protein shakes, but my diet still needed more sustenance. One store carried vegetarian imitation chicken breasts, so that made up the bulk of my protein. I dubbed this magical substance “fake chicken.”

My family didn’t agree with my lifestyle change. They constantly asked me when I was going to “get past this phase” and “start eating with the family again.” I grew up in a meat-and-potatoes household, so my mother had no idea how to feed me when I came home and simply substituted all the meat in our meals with cheese.

Needless to say, I either ate a lot of salad or consumed the entirety of my calorie content via Velveeta.

Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner proved to be the biggest challenges. My grandma forgot that I didn’t eat meat and made beef stew for lunch. I ended up scouring the fridge and throwing together a salad.

At Thanksgiving dinner, I loaded my plate with the vegetables and fruits at the table, finishing my meal with a piece of chocolate pie. Just as I was taking my last bite, my brother asked how I could eat something with pudding.

This was when I learned about the sneaky foods that don’t follow vegetarian diet guidelines. Foods like pudding, gelatin, marshmallows and ramen noodles seasoning are made of animal byproducts such as hooves and bone marrow. Even certain kinds of processed cheeses are cultured with animal byproducts.

He explained this to me as I guiltily pushed my empty plate away, vowing never again to ingest pudding.

I had aimed to continue this lifestyle for a full year, but because of a rigorous exercise schedule, I began to lose too much weight and my hair started to thin. I ended my vegetarianism last March to allay my family’s concerns over my health, but I learned a lot in the process.

For those of you considering giving up meat for an extended period of time, I offer a few suggestions. Taking a vitamin supplement can give you anything your body may be lacking during this period. You can also eat other foods rich in protein such as quinoa, beans, nuts, tofu or supplements.

Watch for unexpected hair loss or weight loss and, most of all, take care of yourself. By cutting meat out of my diet, I became more energized and less lethargic, but if done the wrong way a vegetarian diet can have the opposite effects.

For those of you making the brave attempt during the heartiest of holidays, allrecipes.com features a vegetarian Thanksgiving page that shows various ways for vegetarians to enjoy sweet potatoes, salads, cranberry sauces and other delightful dishes. Turkey and gravy will just make your family sleepy.

Now, the hip new disappointment tactic is to petition to secede from the union.

The secession movement stems from Texas, where an online petition to secede has more than 93,000 signatures as of Nov. 14 on WhiteHouse.gov.

According to ABCNews, the White House said it will review petitions that collect more than 25,000 signatures in 30 days, like the petition from Texas.

The Obama administration created the “We the People” website in 2011 so that Americans could easily petition for the redress of grievances. So naturally, people in more than 35 states have started petitions to free their states of the now socialist government of America. Arizona is one of them.

Let’s take a moment to think about what the world would be like if Arizona seceded: First of all, Jan Brewer would be the president.

Welcome back to the union.

Secession isn’t exactly new to Arizona. In 2011, people in Tucson wanted to secede from the state of Arizona to create Baja Arizona. They were driven to make the move because they were tired of the Republican policies of the state, specifically ones that defied the power of the federal government.

Though less far-fetched, because secession from states has happened before without resulting in war (see Maine from Massachusetts and West Virginia from Virginia), the idea was just as ridiculous as current attempts to secede from the union.

It was as though people thought that once Obama was re-elected, the country would turn into an apocalyptic state, where those gay folks getting married would forever destroy straight marriage and all the poor people would knock on the rich people’s doors for free money, as if every day were grown-up Halloween.

But people are forgetting a pretty important fact: Obama has already been in office for four years. Things aren’t going to start going to hell because he has another four years. In fact, things are probably going to get better.

You know that whole economy thing people are worried about? Prior to the election, a Slate magazine analysis predicted that by maintaining current trends, 7.8 million new jobs would be created, regardless of who won the election. And financial experts predicted that, with some improvements, there will be around 12 million new jobs created.

And you know that universal health care thing everyone is freaking out about? The majority of democratic countries around the world have that. Want to move to Canada? England? Spain? Australia? All of those countries have the same universal health care that you’re so angry about.

It’s time to come out of your toddler years, and stop throwing a hissy fit every time something doesn’t go your way. Secede from the union? That’s bullshit. We don’t need to be even more divided right now.

Sure, maybe it’s the crazy people that actually think about seceding, but we need to cut those crazy people out of the conversation.

Let people who want to secede leave the country to form a new one. They can move to a tropical island and call it Idiotsland. I’ll make sure to never visit.

Thankfully, this does not appear to be the case. While there were a great deal of contributions made to Super PACs by wealthy individuals and many wealthy candidates self-funding their campaigns, it appears that having more money does not always win an election. No amount of spending can convince the public to elect a candidate they just don’t like.

Although Super PACs are legally forbidden from coordinating with candidates’ official campaigns, there are many that have been created solely to support one candidate. In the presidential race, Restore Our Future backed Governor Mitt Romney, and Priorities USA Action backed President Obama. Over the course of the election, Restore our Future spent $142,645,946, and Priorities USA Action spent $66,482,084. In addition, the American Crossroads Super PAC run by Republican Karl Rove outspent Obama’s own PAC, spending $91,115,402. Yet despite his Super PAC spending over two and a half times more than his opponent’s and having the help of other groups like American Crossroads, Romney still lost the election by a significant margin. While it certainly had an impact, spending by Super PACs did not decide the presidential election.

Similarly, wealthy individuals were unable to buy the election, in spite of their new ability to contribute unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs. The biggest individual spender of the 2012 election was casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who contributed a total of $53.7 million to various campaigns and Super PACs. All eight of the candidates backed by Adelson lost. Harold Simmons, the second-highest spender at $26.9 million, donated to 7 campaigns. Six of them lost.

Of course, there are some other explanations to consider when looking at these trends. It is possible that candidates who were trailing in the polls attracted more donations than those who were leading by healthy margins. A candidate in a safe seat does not need to spend a lot to win, while an underdog needs more money in order to have a chance at victory. This is especially true when running against an incumbent, a difficult and costly endeavor.

Money is certainly a factor in political campaigns. There is no denying that. In fact, having a sizeable war chest is essentially a requirement of winning an election. Yet whether a campaign is fueled by a nearly anonymous Super PAC or a wealthy self-funding candidate, money alone isn’t enough to win. A core principle of American democracy is that one person gets one vote and no amount of money can convince voters to elect someone they don’t like.

The environmental issues surrounding bottled water are nothing new. Plastic bottles are made from a byproduct of refining oil and, when accompanied with the gasoline used to transport the bottles from one place to another, give bottled water a huge carbon footprint. Also, only 10 percent of plastic bottles are recycled, sending the rest to landfills, incinerators and waterways, according to Food & Water Watch.

One issue students may find particularly hard to swallow is the effect that water privatization has on human rights in our global community. Buying bottled water supports international companies who have succeeded in privatizing all municipal water in third world countries. The privatization of Bolivian water has led to a doubling of water prices. Many Bolivians cannot afford the price increase and there have been mass riots across the nation.

In addition to hurting the global water system, buying bottled water supports unjust efforts right here at home. Several towns in our country have had their municipal water sources claimed and bottled by big companies like Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Even during times of drought, these Americans are forced to buy what used to be a free resource. Even as they grow thirsty, the companies continue to bottle.

In a survey administered to the American U. community in October 2012, one student posed the argument that purchasing bottled water is everyone’s right. In response, students declared our freedoms only extend until they infringe on the rights of others. Everyone has a right to clean, safe drinking water. This freedom should not be sacrificed for our luxury of drinking from disposable bottles while our sinks are filled with safer, cleaner water.

The most common misconception about bottled water is its superiority to tap water. D.C. tap water is checked for bacteria several times a day and has a water quality report available online. Nationally, tap water is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act and is held to higher standards for safety than bottled water, which is regulated as a food product by the Food and Drug Administration. Additionally, the FDA gives the responsibility for safety checks directly to the bottled water companies, who are never legally required to release this information.

Also, plastic water bottles contain PETs, a chemical that is linked with cancer and reproductive issues. PETs begin to leak from the bottle and into the water instantly. The chemicals leak into the water increasingly due to the duration and temperature at which the bottle is kept. Ironic that the labels wrapped around those bottles read “pure,” “clean,” and “natural.”

The Take Back the Tap campus group is working to ban the sale of bottled water on the AU campus. Our goal is to have the administration agree to a campus-wide ban of bottled water sales. Bottled water will be available off campus and all other bottled beverages will continue to be available for purchase on campus. To find out more about the issue or get involved, please contact TakeBackTheTapAU@gmail.com.

Water is life, and life shouldn’t be privatized.

In his 40 years of power, Gaddafi suppressed Libyan civil society, violently repressing any perceived threat to his rule. Gaddafi was ruthless and unforgiving. University students, a source of potential for change, knew this all too well. In April 1977, following university student protests in 1976, Omar Dabbob and Mohammaad ben Saud were hanged in public on the campus of Tripoli’s Al-Fateh University. Leaving nothing to chance, the hangings were broadcast on state television, in case anyone was still unaware of the consequences of dissent. The students had held anti-Gaddafi protests in light of his declaration banning all independent student unions. Between 1977 and 1984, April 7 was a day of annual public student executions and a tragic symbol of the demise of Libyan civil society.

Although civil society is showing promising signs of revival, it is still incredibly weak after decades of violence and oppression. Since Ghaddafi’s death, private media has been allowed to operate again, seeing a proliferation of services such as an English-only radio channel. Such services would have been unheard of under Ghaddafi’s rule and have helped move Libya’s press to be given the status “partly free” in the 2012 Freedom House Index. These tentative signs of progress, while positive, are exactly that: tentative. Only last year, the Freedom House Global Press Freedom Index placed Libya fourth to last, narrowly beating Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and North Korea.

Libya’s weak civil society is also threatened by a traditionally divided Libya. Libya has always been a country more divided, both regionally and tribally, than unified. One of Gaddafi’s political talents was to manipulate the rival sentiments between regions, cities and tribes in a classic divide-and-conquer or, more accurately, a divide-and-control maneuver. Today, these exacerbated natural divisions in society are compounded by the current ubiquitous presence of firearms. October 24 saw government aligned militias, finally, proclaiming victory over Gaddafi loyalist militias in Bani Walid, a Gaddafi loyalist hold out. It had taken them an entire year.

That Bani Walid was won by government-aligned militia, not by the government military force, is an important distinction, reflecting the weakness of the central government. Only two hours west of Bani Walid is the city of Misurata, transformed in the past year into a de facto city-state by all the violence. Visitors are greeted by a formidable wall of checkpoints and a ready view of armed militias guarding the city borders.

One year after Gaddafi, Libya has defied critics’ fears of a civil war. But with a weak civil society marred by tribal and regional factionalism, Zeidan and his government must focus strengthening the foundations of civil society and reconciliation. Calls a year ago to form various Truth and Reconciliation Committees, inspired by the South African focus on accuracy and healing, should not be forgotten. The process of reconciliation is just as important of an antidote to decreasing violence as law enforcement, both in the long and short term.

Recently the International Criminal Court has asked that Libya not grant amnesty to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, former heir-apparent. While Zeidan and his government might be tempted to grant amnesty to past perpetrators, the process of reconciliation requires thinly balancing the need for a country to forget and move on, and the need for a country to remember.

Reconciliation on a more national, or collective, level is essential for a country to come to terms with its past. The role of “TRCs” lies in their ability to introduce to society a respect for the rule of law. By creating peace and stability through the rule of law, reconciliation will be a key component to a successful transition to democracy for Libya.  Hence, it is important that Zeidan does not extend amnesty to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and that he allows the ICC to continue their inquiries.

The recent Libyan focus on individual trials as a way of reckoning with the past should be supplemented by a strategy to include all stakeholders of the conflict. Since Libya faces the danger of factionalism, TRCs should focus on “group sessions” where tribes come together in a safe space to have meaningful dialogue.

Four decades of repression and violence will not die overnight; it will be a long process, surely dented by a few setbacks here and there. But it is important to start the process now.

The anatomical Homo sapiens has been walking Earth for nearly a quarter of a million years. On a 24-hour clock we came about roughly at 23:58:43 in comparison to the age of Earth. Not until 500 B.C. did Pythagoras claim that Earth was not flat and nearly 1,000 years later, 450 years ago, the telescope was invented. I was alive when America’s first optical telescope, Hubble, was sent into space. To say we know much about what lies within the confines of our universe is to be dense.

I have always found it intriguing that humans have maintained a highly egocentric view of ourselves. Always convinced that the greatest city lay at the “center of Earth.” Always convinced that the sun and planets revolved around us. Always convinced that we were at the center of all stars in the galaxy. Always convinced that we had someone watching over our particular planet, our particular species, and that we were the only living organisms, let alone “intellectuals,” in the universe.

How humbling it is to lay on a grassy hilltop staring into a deep, dark sky, knowing that we are one of a handful of minor planets revolving around an average star, one of the over quarter trillion (with a “T”) estimated stars in the Milky Way with likely more than that in planets.

While knowing that there are roughly the same number of galaxies in the universe as there are stars in the Milky Way, how can one remotely claim to believe that Earth is the only harbinger of life? I haven’t even begun to talk about the age of the universe.

It is because of the Hubble Space Telescope that we know the universe to be 13.72 billion years old, humans existing with telescopes for 3.28 millionths of a percent of that existence. Countless stars and planets have been born and died off before Earth was even formed, all with the potential chance to hold the conditions for life to arise.

The odds are ever stacked in favor for life to exist elsewhere in the universe. With a symbolically infinite number of places for life to arise and do so in less than a billion years (in Earth’s example) — there can only be one answer as far as I am concerned.

We are not alone.

Chemically, there really isn’t anything special about us. We are made of water and carbon mostly. Hydrogen, oxygen and carbon are among the most abundant elements in the universe — carbon having more combinations than any other element combined. Ranking order of abundance of elements in the universe to that of humans, you find they match up perfectly, all elements having been forged in the creation and destruction of stars.

“We are star stuff,” as the late and great Carl Sagan put it.

If you are not familiar with the Hubble photo called “Ultra Deep Field,” I highly recommend you look it up. This was a photo taken by Hubble after we pointed it in a very dark area of the sky for a long time. The result was nearly 10,000 individual galaxies and only a handful of lone stars in the foreground. If you were to hold the hole of a threading needle up into the night sky, everything that falls within “Ultra Deep Field” fits inside that eye of the needle.

Here’s the catch. We know that it takes time for light to travel a distance, and we know how far away those galaxies are (13 billion light years), which means we are essentially looking back in time to galaxies and stars that don’t exist anymore. At any point in time, one of the solar systems within one of those galaxies could have held the right conditions for life to rise. These systems, having long been destroyed, could have been replaced with new systems with completely new conditions to bear chance for life to grab hold.

Extraterrestrial life in the universe is inevitable with these sorts of odds.

Do I believe we have been visited by aliens? No. In a follow-up column I will talk about what I believe to be the implications of such an encounter.

While covering one’s tracks is not the moral that should be taken away from the media frenzy that has followed the “Petrayal” incident that has likely caused much grief to multiple families, it is a side note that should be heeded.

The tip-off of the scandal has been identified as an email sent from a Tampa woman to the FBI. The depth of the scandal can be seen in the “harassing emails” that Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ alleged mistress, sent to the Tampa woman, who Broadwell supposedly suspected was growing closer to Petraeus. The details of the scandal are all found in “intimate messages” within Petraeus’ private Gmail account — even though he reportedly used a dropbox-like system that allowed Broadwell to see the emails as drafts instead of actually transmitting them, in hopes of evading the ability to retrieve them. The Washington Post reported the tactic to be similar to tricks terrorists use when communicating in fear of espionage.

But the one thing that even the director of an agency that prides itself on secrecy cannot escape is the shield of privacy that the Internet — and public records laws — whisk away from all. This brief window into his personal email account could provide valuable information into other matters of national security and even allow hackers to access more classified information — a reason he was ultimately asked to resign.

But particularly in the state of Florida, where all government employees — including university employees — are, in the interest of open government and transparency, subject to having their email searched, it is
imperative one consider the merit of what is being put in written and electronic communication.

While the convenience of such communication has replaced note-passing and workplace whispering with emails to the person sitting next to you about the awful third person at a meeting or emails about non-work-related activities, email communication doesn’t offer much protection to those who are afraid of their dirty
laundry being accessible to all.

Even after deleting one’s browsing history, if one is logged into a Google account, any search is saved in the history and could potentially be accessible to all.

While the majority of people will never be swept into a media maelstrom and could likely safely get away with workplace wantonness, the importance of watching what one allows the Internet to know should not be forgotten.

Barack Obama was elected to a second term. Same-sex marriage was legalized in more states. But the vote that seems to maintain the highest amount of “hoorahs” and high fives was the legalization for recreational use of marijuana in Washington and Colorado.

Before any tokers out there pack your bags to move to the new havens of haze, keep in mind that marijuana legalization is not yet actually a reality.

But, this “trifling” detail is unlikely to prevent hundreds of thousands of those that enjoy that baked sensation from traveling to one of the American Amsterdams.

With the exodus of folks, and the likely immense bump in vacationing for a few days, there comes a great many challenges besides the already daunting decision of whether to smoke Canna Sutra, Nigerian, Purple Kush or any of the many other connoisseur marijuana strains.

Though increased tourism can be an excellent way to generate more funds for communities, weekend warriors from just across state lines, or anyone flying in to kiss the sky for a few days, can cause unanticipated troubles for maintaining the peace.

Denser traffic from deliveries or responsible stoners hailing cabs, to increased lines for purchases, to people with kine bud mindsets just chilling in the park or playing some tunes in public, crowding can become a safety issue.

Although there is little to no evidence to support the asinine claims concerning marijuana’s influence on individuals to make them violent or cause death, scores of stumbley folks searching for munchies or strolling along taking in the pleasant vibes of life in the city does not mean the criminals out there are giving a pass to those chiefin’ the reefer. There are oodles of individuals spoiling for fights or happy to rob tourists or others in a less than perfectly attentive state of mind of their possessions.

Operating vehicles, or merely meandering down the street under the influence presents a problem. Driving while high is like driving while drunk, you do not pass “GO” and collect $200. But that won’t stop people from trying anyway.

Marijuana traces can stay in your system weeks after smoking, even if you haven’t taken a bong rip for a few days. There is, as of now, no simple way for police to establish whether you are blazed, so when they suspect it, you likely head down to the station in cuffs.

Coming up next is drug testing for jobs. Public employees, and even a fair number of private, also have the wall of “random” urine tests to worry about. For residents of Colorado and Washington, despite the “legality” of your action, your job can still suspend or fire you for using an illegal substance.

The granddaddy of all woes for the 4/20 movement comes with the war on drugs. States can legalize weed all the live-long day, and it amounts to diddly-squat because Tetrahydrocannabinol remains a Schedule I hallucinogenic or psychedelic drug under the Controlled Substances Act, Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. And since federal law trumps state law, all this kine bud hype could go up in smoke.

But on the optimistic side, state-support for marijuana could lead to change for the idiotic regulation and spending wasted on combating cannabis consumption and incarceration of pleasant people wanting only to smoke a joint after a hard day of work and eat a Twinkie or two.

The legalization for therapeutic use — easing attention-deficit issues, regulating sleep difficulties, assuaging anxiety, dealing with mild to moderate depression, muscle relaxation or even relieving the suffering to some extent of the terminally ill — has been embraced more and more at the state level, with the overall goal in mind of ending the more-harm-than-good prohibition of pot.

The potential for trafficking from Washington and Colorado into other states could result in some serious legal attention by those unscrupulous entrepreneurs wanting to turn a profit illegally. The federal government’s war on drugs might see this as reason to sue to repeal the state’s legalization.

Myriad political and legal aspects surrounding recreational legalization play out positively and negatively, sometimes both at once, to the future of marijuana in the United States. The Obama administration has shown little sign of support so far for decriminalization, however given the fund potential from legalization for assisting economic recovery — due to taxing and decreased spending for enforcement — these might be the pebbles that start an avalanche.

If you want change, go to Petitions.WhiteHouse.gov and sign the various movements each month to get marijuana decriminalization brought often to the eye of the White House. Contact your state representatives with your support for change, to push for legalization in your own state. Tell your friends and family about the changes coming. Who knows, maybe this country is finally moving beyond the antiquated notions somehow still steering our country.

I’m usually skeptical of claims made by party faithfuls who, in the aftermath of losing an election, claim that no ideological adjustments are necessary to win the next election. When Kerry was defeated by Bush, I rolled my eyes as the surviving liberal rump of the Democratic Party blamed their loss on a lack of partisan purity. Similarly, I rolled my eyes when 2009 Republicans said the path forward was a return to conservative principles. To me, in both instances, the remedy for electoral losses was a simple application of median voter politics: moving toward the middle yields more victories than retreating to extremes. A bitter medicine for those who belong to those extremes, perhaps, but Hippocrates would recommend no other.

Barack Obama will serve another term as president. Supporters rejoice, detractors mourn. The American people made a choice Tuesday that will dictate the direction of public policy for at least the next four years. But that doesn’t mean our job is over.

During each of their campaigns, neither Obama nor Mitt Romney adequately addressed the most pressing problem facing our country today: the national debt. Whether this issue is addressed in the coming years will determine the United States’ viability as a world power in the 21st century and, with it, the legacy of our generation.

It’s perfectly understandable why the candidates wouldn’t suggest serious reform during the campaign season — to do so would have been electoral suicide. But as of Tuesday, Obama has secured his position in the Oval Office. It’s time to let him hear our voices.

For far too long, Congress has kicked its $16 trillion can down the road, running up a dizzying tab for future generations — yeah, that’s us — to pay off.

Both Democrats and Republicans will have to commit to entitlement program reform, tax reform and a leaner, more efficient military. If the debt is allowed to continue growing at its current rate, it will cripple the ability of our proud nation to exercise its most basic roles: protecting and providing for its citizens. Sound frightening? That’s because it is.

These are the facts. Our national debt has surpassed $16 trillion, and every day it grows by an average of $4 billion. In 2011, the deficit exceeded the annual GDP level for the first time in U.S. history.

Some deficit spending is widely accepted by economists as a method of national economic recovery, especially during a recession. But with the working population shrinking every day and no effort on the part of politicians to scale back spending, this is quickly developing into a crisis.

If this crisis continues, we will not only lose the trust of other governments but also face a lack of funding for national programs that we now take for granted. Think about this: By 2033, the government will only be able to pay out 75 percent of promised Social Security benefits.

The choice future leaders will inevitably have to make is to either finance the debt or provide for the people. The fact that our generation’s future hangs in the balance clearly demonstrates that both parties will have to work together in order to find a solution that benefits the American public.

Now, this isn’t one of the hyperbolic hypotheticals thrown around by self-styled deficit hawks in campaign ads. The Chinese government isn’t going to call in all their loans tomorrow, and anyone who tells you otherwise is insulting your intelligence. However, that doesn’t mean our ballooning debt is in any way acceptable. The time will come when the United States is forced to look itself in the mirror and make some serious changes in order to remain a viable state. If things continue as they are right now, the moment will come when our generation is faced with challenges that will be unfathomably difficult, if not impossible.

So start the process now.

As young voters, we have seen the debt skyrocket in our lifetimes, and it is now our chance to make this transition. The Georgetown community has a long history of good will and leaving the world a little better than it was when we found it. So let us continue to pave a path that will improve the standing of our economy for generations to come. Let us not sit back and allow the debt to rise without limit; let us ask for the media, the people and the politicians to think with us to make our futures a priority.

This is a call to thoughtful action, a chance to amplify our voice. Call your representative. Write to your president. Sign the petition for The Can Kicks Back campaign, which seeks to highlight these concerns on Capitol Hill and create a long-term deficit reduction agreement in 2013. Force those who dug us into this $16 trillion hole to lay the foundations for a way out.

The legacy of our generation should involve lifting this country to greater heights than ever before, not flailing to keep the nation’s head above the rising tide of irresponsible spending. We deserve better than that. We’re capable of better than that. It’s time for the can to kick back.

But clearly some don’t quite understand that, as they expressed their dissatisfaction with the election in a unique way.

Twenty-one states, including some that have duplicates, have filed petitions with the White House to “peacefully … withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.”

Some states, like Texas, whose petition had 51,069 signatures at the time of print, cited the federal government’s “neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending” and “blatant abuse” of citizens’ rights as reasons to secede. Texas, petitioners stated, does after all have the 15th-largest economy in the world.

Florida, which eventually went Democrat in the election, had more than 15,000 signatures on its petition and stated the “Federal Government has not led our citizens justly and with honor.” Even solidly blue states such as New York and New Jersey have their own petitions.

The White House website states petitions that reach 25,000 signatures will be addressed, but it has also addressed past petitions with fewer signatures, such as one requesting the president’s honey ale recipe.

The real issue is not whether or not these states actually succeed with their desires to secede, for as Yahoo columnist Mike Krumboltz said, the likelihood of the government granting states permission to secede is “on par with winning the lottery while getting hit by a meteor while seeing Bigfoot while finding gluten-free pizza that tastes like the real thing.”

What these noble citizens who took to the Internet and very spiritedly utilized their First Amendment rights to petition haven’t quite realized is that they already had their chance to make a difference with their opinions — Nov. 6, at the polls. The people of the U.S. spoke, and the majority elected Barack Obama as president. If it’s Obama they don’t like, dissenters will have their chance in four years to voice their preference again. This is the way the system of democracy has worked in this country since its inception.

The petitions filed are basically petitions against democracy and mark the heightened levels of partisanship and non-cooperation that deeply divides the nation.

What has yet to be specified is what form of government the “country” of Texas or Florida would have to look forward to upon secession. Clearly, it can’t be democracy, because the next time a candidate with a
less-than-100-percent approval rating comes to office, a new country would have to be formed — and that would be a bit exhausting.

But if not for democracy, would the people have a right to petition this way?

The American press has traditionally existed in a highly partisan and propagandist form. The first truly successful newspaper outlets, such as the Boston Gazette and the New York Gazetteer, were forged during the American Revolution as Patriot and Loyalist forces to wage their own journalistic war of words.  This merely continued into the debates of 1787 and 1788 over whether to ratify the Constitution. It is even speculated by scholars that the extreme Pro-Federalist bias of the newspapers at the time can take credit for the ratifying of the Constitution.

History shows that the press has a tendency to showcase its tilt and predilection during times of intense polemics.

Although the 21st century newspaper has been forced to take a more sober, conventional and moderate stance in compliance with the desires of the advertisers and business community that supports them, there is still a distinctly partisan bias. However, the new problem is in the overwhelmingly biased television news organizations. Let’s look at the six major providers of television news: ABC, CBS News, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC and NBC News. Of these, FNC has a conservative standpoint. The other five are left-leaning, if not outwardly liberal.

Journalists and news anchors are entitled to express their party affiliation and personal political opinions.  But when these beliefs keep networks from dutifully reporting the facts and investigating the truth, there is have a problem.

On Sept. 11, 2012, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was strategically attacked by a heavily armed group suspected to be part of a.l-Qaida. Four Americans were killed, two of which died in a stand-off seven hours after the State Department had informed the White House of the attack.

For weeks, the Obama administration alleged that the attack was the result of a riot over an anti-Muslim video. Everyday more information is uncovered that strongly insinuates that the administration not only knew it was a preplanned attack and lied about it, but also could have deployed a Special Operations team in the nearby Sigonella, Italy. And yet, an urgent request for military aid was denied by the chain of command.

Whether Democrat or Republican, this is an issue that matters. Put yourself in the shoes of those four brave Americans. If something was done wrong, we need to fix the system so nothing like this happens again. It is the job of journalists to not only present the facts, but to earnestly investigate the truth. Only one of the six major news networks has made Benghazi a top issue.

The liberal media has treated President Obama as their first-born son; he can do no wrong and all critics of his policies should be tied to the stake. With 21 percent of U.S. adults reading below a fifth grade level, television media is an important and primary news source for a large block of Americans.

The media has had a long-standing tradition of partiality. But this recent disregard of the basic duties of a media outlet is unacceptable when the press is expected to act as a check on the government. People cannot allow this dereliction of duty to become the new normal.

If it seems like a long time, it is – 1,460 days, to be exact. That’s 208 weeks to enact policy, 48 months to interact with foreign diplomats and 34, 944 hours to find the time to respond to asinine requests from idle billionaires.

In that time frame, however, is a much smaller one – approximately 53 days. That is the window of time before the Bush-era tax cuts expire, the Budget Control Act goes into effect, a number of tax cuts end, and taxes related to the Affordable Care Act begin. It’s what most political pundits, mainstream media organizations and doomsday prophesiers refer to as the “fiscal cliff.”

Almost makes you wish the Mayans were right, doesn’t it?

The results of the election don’t inspire much of a hope for change, either. The U.S. House of Representatives remains in Republican control, while the Senate is now very decidedly Democratic.

While this will ultimately make for more interesting inter-office softball games, it also means another potential gridlock on the nation’s most polarizing issue: the economy.

The fiscal cliff is fast approaching, and lawmakers must compromise quickly to avoid derailing the economy or launching the nation into another recession.

Simply put, we have a few options:

Congress could do nothing, allow the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax holiday to expire while simultaneously enacting the health care tax and austerity measures. It would cut the current deficit by almost half. What’s not to love? Nothing, if you’re a fan of recessions and skyrocketing unemployment. There are two sides to every coin.

Washington could also opt to cancel most, if not all, of the scheduled tax increases while maintaining the cuts. This option will make absolutely no one on The Hill happy and will serve to further burden the national deficit. An attractive option if you’re an insatiable masochist.

The third option is, of course, the unthinkable: a compromise that would extend the Bush cuts and cancel the automatic spending cuts, resulting in a modest level of economic growth.

Or we could all move to Canada like we’ve been threatening to for years. That’ll show them.

Shocked like so many other members of the Ole Miss family — students, alumni, faculty and staff — when I woke up Wednesday morning to the news that protests had occurred on campus in the wake of President Obama’s re-election. But as I read articles, Facebook posts and Twitter feeds documenting the blatant use of racial slurs towards not only the president, but other Ole Miss students, my shock turned into anger. And my anger turned into shame.

Even though initial reports of full-on “riots” proved to be blown out of proportion, the damage is done. The nation’s modern understanding of The University of Mississippi, which this entire year had focused on the 50th anniversary of integration and progress in race relations, was eclipsed in an instant.

What should have signified a new chapter in Ole Miss history has been forgotten.

As the fallout from the protests unraveled Wednesday, I heard many people argue that the protest was justified under the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech. While I agree that the tenant is both an essential human right and a cornerstone to the democratic foundation of the United States, the actions of the election night protesters were absolutely inexcusable and carry consequences that we have only just begun to consider.

One of the easiest, most basic ways to assess whether an action is morally right or wrong is to analyze its consequences. But beyond protecting the freedom of speech, I cannot find one single argument or example of how the protest actually benefited our university, our community or even the protesters themselves. In contrast, there is already a mountain of evidence to explain how the protest hurt the Ole Miss family, and it is only the beginning.

Just like any other school, Ole Miss works hard to “recruit” not just athletes, but a well-rounded student body. If the riots that surrounded integration half a century ago still haunt the athletics and admissions offices today, this week’s protest will have an effect as well. Prospective students are less likely to see us as the beautiful, vibrant university that we are and are more likely to judge us based on the ghosts of our past and the ignorant actions of a small but vocal minority.

As a senior applying for jobs, including many that are out of state, I honestly fear what possible employers think when they read “The University of Mississippi” at the top of my resume. It frustrates me beyond words to know that the actions of a few disgruntled, immature students on election night will seriously affect Ole Miss’s public image for the foreseeable future. The protesters not only degraded our Alma Mater, but the degrees held by every single alumnus.

The protesters have reminded the entire nation of the stereotype that Ole Miss has fought for 50 years to dispel. They perpetuated the belief that we are racist, that we are ignorant and that we are unwilling to accept inevitable social change.

I, for one, am tired of trying to convince people that this is no longer the case.

As voluntary members of the Ole Miss community, we pledge to respect the dignity of each person, to believe in fairness and civility, and to believe in personal and professional integrity. These values are spelled out in the University Creed, but not one of them was upheld by the protesters on election night.

What happens now is up to us. We are an imperfect community still coming to terms with our past. But I know that Ole Miss has the resolution, spirit and drive to do what is morally right: to address this issue, learn from our mistakes and look towards the future.

The ghosts of Ole Miss might not be dead, but we can refuse to be defined by them.

Three and a half years later, and the economy is recovering. There have been 32 straight months of private job sector growth. The unemployment rate continues to hover just below 8 percent, as more people are looking for work again after giving up during the worst months of the recession.

Obama asked for four more years to complete the economic recovery. On Tuesday, America gave him just that.

Obama defeated opponent Mitt Romney in an election that most thought would be a lot closer. The president hauled in 332 electoral votes, compared to Romney’s 206. It was the youth vote that propelled Obama to the White House, as 19 percent of the electorate  was 18 to 29-year-olds in this election, even more than in 2008.

Throughout the campaign season, Romney attempted to paint Obama’s four years in office as a failure, as he contended that the president’s policies had restricted economic growth. In reality, the economy has grown under Obama and the jobs numbers over the past few months have been particularly encouraging.

But Obama’s four years in office have been marked by disappointment, as well. The president must improve in many areas in his second term.

Where Obama has failed most is in trimming the deficit, as he has only added to America’s debt since entering office. The United States is now $16 trillion in the red. Obama has said that he will cut the debt by $4 trillion over the next 10 years through a series of spending cuts and tax increases for the wealthy. He cannot afford to come up short on that pledge.

Obama’s foreign policy has been solid, for the most part. He has used diplomacy rather than force in many Middle Eastern countries, and that has succeeded in building goodwill toward America in some Arab regions. Islamic extremists still present a threat toward American sovereignty, however, as evidenced by the attack on Benghazi on Sept. 11. And Obama’s use of unmanned drones to kill suspected terrorists – and, in some cases, innocent bystanders – presents ethical questions that the president has not yet addressed. The most important question is how far does the president’s power go in deciding whether someone lives or dies? While his use of diplomacy and support of Arab Spring revolutions have gained America’s allies in some regions, Obama’s widespread use of drones has only fostered hate for America in other parts of the Middle East. He has to amend his policy on unmanned drones and be more transparent about it in the process.

Where Obama has excelled is connecting with the American people on important social issues. Whether it is his support of gay marriage, his repealing of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or his stance as pro-choice, Obama has proven time and time again that he understands that all Americans deserve equal rights.

Obama has also done an excellent job of supporting higher education throughout his presidency. As states across the country slashed their funding to public universities, Obama helped keep college affordable by increasing funding for Pell Grants and keeping student loan interest rates low. Countless students have been able to afford a college education thanks to these reforms.

It was not anywhere close to a disastrous first term, as many opponents of Obama have said. But there are improvements that need to be made. He must work across party lines in building a budget, trimming the deficit and maintaining America’s private sector growth. If he can do that while continuing to advocate for important social issues and support higher education, Obama’s second term will be an exceptional one.

However, after the way Christie has behaved with regard to this upcoming election, I cannot help but to applaud him. First and foremost, Christie’s praise of President Barack Obama regarding his actions during the hurricane was interesting. What was incredible about this was the fact that many on the right criticized Christie for saying anything good about Obama, saying it amounted to an endorsement of him.

I realized the other truly admirable thing Christie did as I was waiting in line to vote early Monday. In a move rare for New Jersey, our governor ordered that County Clerk offices stay open to allow for people to vote early. I chose to do so because it worked much better for my schedule. However, for some, it was their only option because their polling locations could not open.

Christie decided to do this because even in the wake of a natural disaster he believes “there’s no reason why anybody shouldn’t vote. We’re going to have a full, fair, transparent, open voting process.” This is the type of mentality that should fuel our government. In a country where voter turnout is lower than it should be, and every year there is some sort of accusation of voter fraud, there is nothing more important than getting people to vote, and keeping elections fair.

So in the spirit of our governor, I am going to say nice things about him. He acted truly admirably lately. As he himself remarked, this does not amount to an endorsement of Christie in future elections. This does not amount to an endorsement of the Republican Party in this election. It just amounts to the simple truth that if someone does a good job — they deserve to have it acknowledged.

Obama stood out as the strongest candidate compared to Romney, despite Romney’s appeals to the American public’s wallets and desires of reduced unemployment. The public sided with Obama, arguably for his stance on social issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, as well as for his foreign policies regarding negotiations in the Middle East. A number of Americans likely cast their ballots acknowledging that many circumstances regarding the recession were out of the president’s control and that, considering the intensity of the recession, recoveries sometimes take a painfully long time. However, the majority of those voters who re-elected Obama are doing so with the hope that he will revisit issues that he failed to address over the last four years such as Guantanamo Bay. The country is giving him another chance with the hope that he will revitalize the economy and provide new, good jobs for Americans. Now that he does not have to worry about re-election, perhaps he will be able to push harder for those changes.

That being said, it will still be interesting to see how he tackles healthcare, an area where he dedicated a lot of time in his first term.

After months of town halls and campaigning for healthcare reform, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law in 2012, which marked the largest overhaul of the healthcare system since the 1960s. Over these next four years, Obama will not only be overseeing the Act, but will have an opportunity to tack on minor or major amendments to it.

However, it will be even more interesting to see how Obama addresses the economy. Student loan debt is mounting and 23 million Americans are still out of work, according to a statement on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s website. There have been some small improvements — in spite of the unemployment levels, new jobs have been created and federal loan repayment has been capped at 10 percent a year.

However, going into this next term, the question on our mind is, Can Obama be proven right in his potential to bring forth economic stability for Americans?

Hopefully, the Obama we see these next four years will surpass the Obama we’ve seen over these past four years. The new Obama will hopefully focus more on the issues to which he has given neglect, namely the economy.

Of course, you know this. Everyone knows this. But I want to dwell on it, because although the election in 2008 was in many ways a more dramatic affair, the 2012 election might one day be considered more important. The election of 2008 was an election about hope. The election of 2012 will be about change.

For a law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, Obamacare has had an awfully hard time sticking around. Obama’s lawyers had to pass it a second time in front of the Supreme Court. Mitt Romney, with the aid of a stubbornly Republican house, had promised to block its implementation. He was the last roadblock, the one man standing between every American’s access to affordable health care.

He has been swept aside.

If you are a college student, congratulations. Your America will join the rest of the world in having a modern health care system.

American tax policy has always been at the heart of America’s debt crisis. Obama was elected on a promise to lower taxes for most Americans. As president, he has passed tax cuts for middle and low income Americans. But he has also resisted giving those same cuts to the rich — a clear difference from not only Bush-era tax policy but also Gov. Romney’s promise to reduce the tax burden even further for the wealthiest among us.

Thus far, Obama’s quest to raise rates on the rich has been thwarted. But no longer — at the beginning of next year, the Bush-era tax cuts will expire.

Rates assessed on income above $250,000 will rise from 35 percent to Clinton’s 39.6 percent. Will this tax hike impede our economy? Will our “job creators” just pack up and go home? Or will new revenue prove at last a viable path to ending our government’s gaping deficit? For now, answers to these questions will be shaded by speculation and self-interest. Because of Obama’s victory, we will soon know for sure.

Another thing known for sure is that this nation’s Supreme Court will soon change. Currently dominated by a 5-4 conservative bloc, the liberals of the court have suffered defeat after defeat on issue after issue, Obamacare being the (notable) exception.

In these next four years, three justices stand a real chance of resigning. From most likely to least: Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. Whereas Romney had promised to nominate justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Obama gives liberals their first chance in a generation at reclaiming our nation’s jurisprudence.

The importance of the Supreme Court nominations cannot be overstated. The desegregation of schools, the ability of women to have abortions, the right to sleep with whomever you love — so many rights viewed as fundamental now were at one point guaranteed, not because of the popular will, but only because the right people at the right time held in their hands the ability to shape the life of our Constitution.

Obstacles will present themselves. John Boehner will remain the implacable opponent of the president’s policies. The debt ceiling approaches as the House Republican Conference laments modern-day social welfare spending. The ocean inches ever upward as our politicians look ever elsewhere. The fight to restore civil liberties continues, independent of any victorious night or resurgent presidency.

On a cold day in February 2007, Obama began his first presidential campaign in Springfield, Ill. He told us people who love and work for their country can change it. More than five years later, our country remains besotted by problems. Yet his fundamental point was, and is, correct. His re-election gives Americans a chance to prove it. Let the work continue. Let the results begin.

The push for legalization is very real and now stronger than ever, as those continue to step forward to speak of its medicinal benefits and its role as a more or less benign modifier of consciousness. Public support for marijuana legalization has been steadily rising since 2002, breaking a record at 50 percent of Americans favoring legalization.  This added with the fact that more than 70 percent of Americans who believe weed should be made legal for medicinal reasons has the potential to significantly alter the social and cultural status of many Americans who do smoke marijuana. It also would have an incredible impact on our infamous war on drugs.

Anyone familiar with U.S. history might know that marijuana was once both legal and endorsed by the American government. Our Founding Fathers had their own hemp crops where they sowed the harvest for multiple purposes, smoking being one of them. It wasn’t until the 1930s that marijuana was nationally prohibited. Since then, fear, ignorance and demonization of the plant have made it one of the biggest players in the drug war. Almost an eighth of drug prisoners are being held for crimes related to pot, meaning that Americans pay more than a billion dollars per year to hold such offenders.

While these measures up for debate in Oregon, Colorado and Washington will have a real effect on America’s prison systems, economy and pharmacy, they may more directly change the power and activity of Mexico’s most popular drug cartels. The Mexican states Chihuahua, Durango and Sinaloa are expected to be most impacted by legalization, as they are home to the biggest drug cartels in Mexico. Sinaloa may be the most affected, perhaps losing up to 50 percent of its revenue.

Right now, the U.S. gets between 40 and 70 percent of its marijuana from Mexico. The Mexican drug trade makes about $11 billion a year and has resulted in more than 60,000 deaths of government officials, reporters, activists and civilians over the last six years. Legalization of recreational marijuana use would considerably lower violence and revenue in these cartels. In Washington alone, a projected $1.9 billion in state revenue would be generated in a five-year period. With a proposed 25 percent tax on marijuana, the drug would still be sold for cheaper than if it was brought from Mexico. This home-growing idea would provide less expensive, better quality cannabis for people in the U.S. If these measures are passed, the cumulative revenues would lead to a loss of almost $5 billion a year to cartels.

It seems that the American people are relearning what our Founding Fathers and these drug cartels have already known — that marijuana is a cash crop. We also seem to be learning that, contrary to the 1930s idea of “Reefer Madness,” weed has been shown to be less harmful than alcohol and less addictive than nicotine. Aside from this issue, the distribution and sale of marijuana in these states will remove income that would otherwise go to organized crime and instead use the money for the state. This simply means state offices, small businesses and individuals would yield higher profits.

Clearly, legalization would not end cartel violence in Mexico, but there is no doubt that cartels would lose a significant amount of power. If any of these states pass their legalizing amendments, it will give both the U.S. and Mexico the chance to redefine drug policy when it comes to marijuana. The time has come.

The first and foremost misconception is this idea that Iran is building a nuclear missile and will launch it on Israel upon completion. There are two major discrepancies with this idea. The first is that Iran most likely desires nuclear weapons for the same reason every other country aims to have them. It gives the country leverage on an international stage where everyone else also has nuclear weapons. The second point to consider is that while Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government aren’t the most reasonable voices in the international political sphere, they aren’t fanatics. Over the past decades, Iran has had a self preservationist streak. They are more than aware that a preemptive nuclear strike would be disastrous for the rest of the world and for their own country considering how many nations would oppose it.

From a foreign policy perspective I would consider Pakistan an equal if not greater threat. Unlike Iran which has yet to develop a nuclear weapon, Pakistan currently has over 100 and is free to produce more. Pakistan’s history hasn’t been spotless. They came very close to nuclear conflict with India a little over a decade ago. The 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks had links to Pakistani intelligence. Pakistan has also been involved in giving nuclear technology to other countries and potentially having terrorist ties within its own government. Questions have also been raised when terrorist groups set up shop in Pakistan and most notably Osama bin Laden who resided surprisingly close to a Pakistani military base.

The threat however doesn’t necessarily come directly from Pakistan. I believe they also realize the stakes of a nuclear strike in today’s age. However, the main threat falls in terrorist groups getting their hands on nuclear weapons or Pakistan’s government providing technology to other countries or groups as they have done in the past. These groups are much more fanatical and likely don’t see the rippling consequences of nuclear warfare, and are an even bigger threat if they have links in the Pakistani government.

However, there is a reason that the issue of Pakistan is often brushed over. We tend to consider them as an ally. The United States sends foreign aid to Pakistan, their military has supported us on occasion and they have leaders that the United States associates with. With these factors we tend to turn a blind eye when Pakistan does something shady, or something happens that isn’t in our best interest.

There is also a lingering sense of hypocrisy here. As Israel is allowed to stockpile its nuclear weapons, Iran is called into question for simply following what has been natural protocol for any country. The underlying purpose of the nuclear arms race is that countries have nuclear weapons so as to protect themselves from other countries with the same capabilities. In the same way, no one brings a knife to a gun fight, countries can’t bring a traditional military to a table of nukes.

This isn’t to say Iran isn’t a priority in foreign affairs. There is a chance that Iran could provide nuclear technology to terrorist groups as well. The difference is that Iran has yet to reach the stage where it can do that, whereas Pakistan has been in that situation for years now. This in no way warrants Iran as the largest international threat or justifies the drums of war and military action that some politicians have been beating as of late. Frankly you need to ask yourself which would currently pose a bigger threat: Iran acquiring a single nuclear weapon while being heavily sanctioned and opposed by the international community; or a country that already has over 100 nuclear weapons, has acted as a base for extremist groups and has been called into question multiple times for having intelligence tied to terrorist groups.

The facts are damning, even considering the economic mess the president inherited in 2009. Today, over 23 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. The unemployment rate is now 7.9 percent, higher than when he took office. After calling former President George W. Bush “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for piling up $4.9 trillion in debt in eight years, Obama has added over $5.3 trillion in just four. If reelected, the national debt will skyrocket to a whopping $20 trillion by 2016, with yet another likely downgrade to the U.S. credit rating.

The unemployment rate among youths (aged 18 to 29) is worse than the national average, at 12 percent. This does not include those who have given up looking for work. More than 5 million women are unemployed, and more women are in poverty — 25.7 million — than at any other time in our history. I find this frightening. To mask the facts, the president has diverted attention by creating a fictional case for a “War on Women” by the Republican Party, citing access to birth control as a top campaign issue. This is a ruse to mask the real problem: abysmal economic conditions for women and men of all ages. Who’s waging the real war on women? How do these seemingly abstract numbers impact college students? It’s simple. High debt slows economic growth that, in turn, negatively impacts the job market. Can’t find a job after graduation? Stuck with educational loans? Without a job, or without a well-paying job, it will be painful to meet these obligations. Every Dartmouth student is subject to the economic effects of our government’s actions and policies. Four years is enough. The president tried, yet a record 47 million Americans are on food stamps and nearly 50 million are in poverty. “Trust me, things are getting better” is not a strategy. Hope, however sincere, is not sufficient for our success.

Instead, we have an opportunity to elect a man who has the proven experience to get our country back on the right course.

Mitt Romney knows we can’t borrow and spend our way out of this mess. Unlike the incumbent, Romney has a clear plan to rein in government spending, expand trade, increase access to energy, rationalize our tax system and reform outdated entitlement programs so that our generation will not be punished for the fiscal blunders of previous generations. In short, Romney has a verifiable track record of success in precisely the things that matter the most right now.

How likely is it that real change will occur in Washington? According to Dartmouth’s own Andrew Samwick, director of the Rockefeller Center for Public Policy, Romney is a “results-oriented” person who can work effectively with Republicans and Democrats to get 60 votes for legislation in the Senate.

This results-driven approach enabled him to build Bain Capital, one of the nation’s best private equity firms, from the ground up. Romney’s penchant for results was evident at the 2002 Winter Olympics, which he saved from massive debt and possible relocation and transformed into one of the most successful and profitable Olympics in recent history. It was evident when, as governor of Massachusetts, he negotiated with decisive Democratic legislative majorities in both houses to pass legislation that moved the state forward. It will also be evident as president of the United States.

Against Romney’s record of accomplishment, President Obama can only offer four years of failed economic policies, legislative gridlock, continued government spending and acute economic pain that show no sign of subsiding.

America needs a leader who intuitively understands the private sector and will implement common sense policies that will create private sector growth, not growth in government. This will lead to job creation. Mitt Romney has the experience and vision to make this happen. So when you go to the polls and vote, think about what you want the next four years to be like. When I cast my ballot, the choice is clear: Mitt Romney.

Melanie Wilcox  is the vice president of the Dartmouth College Republicans.

What’s important in this election? Former President Bill Clinton is famous for saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Well, President Barack Obama took a stumbling economy and immediately worked to stop further job loss. He introduced a stimulus bill, which not only helped to bring our economy back to life but also gave tax relief to millions of Americans and began the process of modernizing our crumbling infrastructure. When Mitt Romney said that we should let Detroit go bankrupt, Obama decided to make an investment in the auto industry that is paying off. When circumstances called for bailing out the banks, Obama not only made sure that the money was paid back but also that struggling homeowners would be helped. Have a student loan? By taking out banks as the middlemen, Obama has already cut the cost of student loans. We all benefit from Obamacare, which allows students to stay on our parent’s insurance until we turn 26 while creating exchanges that leverage the power of competition.

Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan are nowhere near the financial experts that they claim to be. Although they present themselves as concerned about the deficit and middle America, they propose a tax cut for the wealthy that can only be balanced by increasing taxes on the middle class. They have abandoned the idea of completely replacing Medicare with a voucher system, but the system they propose would still cannibalize Medicare and would bankrupt the system sooner. Why should we trust these people with our economy when they can’t even get their numbers to add up? Want more details on their plan? Wait until after the election.

And this election is about more than just the economy. Reproductive freedom, LGBT equality, our environment and immigration reform are all at stake.

What’s tragic is that Romney used to be somewhat moderate. He used to support a woman’s right to choose. Before he mocked global warming at the Republican National Convention, he advocated for research in renewable energy. And before he started pandering to the gun lobby, he supported sensible gun control that made the streets of Massachusetts safer. While my vote in this election would likely be the same, the old Romney would have been a formidable challenger for Obama. He would have shown that moderate Republicans still exist. But this isn’t the man running for president.

There is only one candidate in this race who supports an “equal pay for equal work” bill. There is only one candidate in this race who stands on the side of marriage equality and has worked to protect the right of LGBT Americans to serve in the military and receive federal benefits. There is only one candidate in this race who embraces a woman’s right to choose. There is only one candidate in this race who has fully embraced the DREAM Act.

I was not always such an enthusiastic Obama supporter. I supported him after he won the Democratic primary, but his goals still seemed lofty to me, and I was unsure if he would bring about real change or whether “real change” could even be defined. But looking back, I know that America made the right choice. Are we better off than we were four years ago? If you look at job growth: yes. If you believe that women, gays and children who are “illegal” through no fault of their own deserve the same shot at the American dream: yes. And if you agree with Vice President Joe Biden that we are better off when “bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive:” yes.

We still have work to do. No one thinks that our health care problem is completely solved. Our economy is not fully back on track and we need to find a way to fix it without further increasing our deficit. Immigration reform needs to happen. But there is only one candidate who has shown a willingness to face these issues head on and doesn’t change his positions for political expediency. Obama has already taken the first steps to solve the tough problems from which many of his predecessors have run. I’m voting for Obama so he can finish the job.

Mason Cole is the president of the Dartmouth College Democrats.

While the benefits of bringing together diverse and far-flung people of widely varying interests are obvious, there are some very real and tangible downsides to allowing users unfettered access to one another, wrapped in the warm, snug blanket of anonymity the Internet can provide.

Reddit.com is arguably a microcosm of the Internet, itself. According to the website, Reddit had more than 42 million unique visitors to its content-aggregating site in September. There is much good that comes from gathering people together in such enormous numbers — Reddit’s Secret Santa program, for instance, is the largest in the world with more than 17,000 participants — but it is inevitable and a fact of the human condition that such an enormous and anonymous conglomeration of people will magnify humanity’s worst impulses, too.

Three weeks ago, nobody on the national stage knew who Michael Brutsch was. He was a polite, nondescript application developer for First Cash Financial Services in Arlington. He went about his job quietly, and no one complained of any improprieties or misbehavior. He was just another quiet face in the crowd, doing his job, chatting idly with co-workers and going home to his family at night.

Brutsch’s Reddit alter ego, Violentacrez, was a different matter altogether. Posting anonymously, Brutsch drew the attention of Anderson Cooper, who devoted a portion of his CNN show, “Anderson Cooper 360,” to condemning one of Brutsch’s creations — a forum on Reddit, commonly referred to as a subreddit, called r/jailbait, that acted as a repository for suggestive photographs of underage girls.

As Violentacrez, Brutsch was an incredibly influential and prolific user and moderator. He was also responsible for the subreddit r/beatingwomen, which is unfortunately exactly what it sounds like. For Brutsch, it all started to unravel as the result of r/creepshots, which promoted and displayed compromising photographs of young girls taken without their knowledge or consent.

One notable contributor was a Georgia substitute teacher, who was identified and subsequently fired after students in the suggestive photos he contributed were recognized and the photos were traced back to him.

Given the amount of attention being paid nationally to the Violentacrez subreddits and their content, it was only a matter of time before Brutsch’s identity became known, though this was apparently lost on him, and he continued to act as though his anonymity was inviolable and absolute.

The bitter end came when Gawker.com writer Adrien Chen identified Brutsch in early October. Brutsch was fired from his job once his extracurricular activities became known, leaving him and his family with no health insurance. His wife is disabled and hasn’t been able to work in more than a year.

This outing sparked an enormous amount of debate and rhetoric about the right to privacy and anonymity on the Internet. While Brutsch is nominally apologetic about his online activities, he also maintains that his privacy was violated and that Chen wronged him.

Brutsch is by no means on the fringe here. There has been an overwhelming wave of free speech-themed defense of Brutsch’s anonymity, and there is no shortage of people outraged about the perceived violation of a sacred right.

But the world is flat, and that goes both ways. With the amazing and world-altering speed and effectiveness of the Internet in connecting its users, also comes the easy identification of a contributor. Chen didn’t do anything difficult, brave or laudable. He did a little research, took the story and ran with it. He’s not Woodward and Bernstein by any stretch.

Everyone comes out of this story looking worse for it. Brutsch is a sad, unsympathetic character who encouraged and promoted some of the most reprehensible content anywhere on the Internet, and Chen is a sensationalist, yellow journalist who was hardly out for the greater good so much as web hits — precisely the same motivating factor for Brutsch as Violentacrez.

There is no real catharsis. There are bad people everywhere, and they will use all the wondrous and powerful tools decent people use with all the same effectiveness and power. Outing Brutsch may have curbed his activities, but it isn’t a solution.

There really isn’t a solution. Humanity’s darker nature is not going away. The only honorable response is to monitor content they consume and tacitly support or aggressively disapprove of content that violates the rights of others, acknowledging that the good fight will never be definitively won but continuing to fight it nonetheless.

This isn’t to say that Obama has done a poor job. In fact, I think the strides he has taken toward keeping the Internet free and supporting transparency in government have actually been fairly positive steps. I think that his historic Aug. 29 Ask Me Anything thread on Reddit, in which the president answered questions on the social media site, showed, if nothing else, that he treats Internet policy as a serious issue even if the dialogue of the two campaigns hasn’t emphasized it enough.

There is still a significant amount of work to be done. The freedom of the Internet is precarious, and we must be vigilant in protecting it.

A great deal of focus in the presidential campaign has been on the economy, as is probably necessary, yet, in my opinion, not enough of the dialogue has been about the role that the Internet plays in the economy. If it’s not a huge campaign issue, it probably won’t be a huge governing issue. That’s a problem, because it has to be.

A significant portion of the much-touted economic success during the Clinton years came as a direct result of the Internet boom. Some have suggested that we may be on the verge of a second great wave of Internet development, one that could carry our economy into the next decade or two. With Web 2.0, a more modern update in the way the Internet is designed and used, finally finding a real place in the business world and showing viable revenue structures, the Internet is more important to the economy than ever.

However, this importance is not shown in speeches from Romney and Obama. So much of the discussion is on manufacturing jobs or education, and while both of these are important topics, issues of technology have been cast too far to the side.

Since Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have found their place as some of the biggest companies in the world, the economy could be significantly hurt or helped depending on how we shape our Internet policy. These companies have business models that rely on relative freedom on the Internet. Any regulations surrounding these models need to be implemented with great care or, better yet, not put into place at all.

Yet, it is the Internet itself — the very nature of how we connect to each other in the modern world — that is frequently under attack from interest groups in Washington under the guise of fighting piracy. Piracy is a serious problem, and it’s one that I take very seriously, but that’s no excuse to push through poorly-constructed policy.

Our legislators have shown themselves to be woefully inept in terms of understanding how the Internet works and the role that it plays in the economy, and the dialogue in this year’s presidential election so far has done very little to convince me that this going to change in the future.

Believe it or not, the Internet is actually more than a series of tubes, no matter what former members of the Senate might say. It’s time that our representatives start acting like it. Let’s start with the most important issue and demand that the next president, whoever it may be, come up with a coherent and intelligent policy.

And now, a just-released report compiled by Stanford and NYU students reveals how our country’s drone campaign, which has been expanded fivefold under Obama, is responsible for mass-suffering and civilian death in the northwest region of Pakistan.

The evidence offered in this new report, along with what we knew before, makes it clear that the US needs to significantly reform its use of drones in the region, if not completely abolish it.

The report exposes that, far from being the “surgically precise and effective tool[s]” most Americans believe them to be, drones are actually incredibly violent and messy. It points out that, “while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians.”

The United States, in its Pakistani drone campaign (along with parallel campaigns elsewhere) has targeted a range of public establishments, from village squares to schools, in the pursuit of eliminating accused terrorists. This wide scope of targeted structures has, understandably, created a sense of fear and helplessness within the communities living under drones. As one villager interviewed in the report explains, “Everyone is scared all the time. When we’re sitting together to have a meeting, we’re scared there might be a strike. When you can hear the drone circling in the sky, you think it might strike you. We’re always scared.”

The terror experienced by these Pakistani citizens, a terror documented through the many interviews and polls within the report, is far from surprising. All one must do to understand it, in fact, is look at just who and what our government has attacked using drone missiles in the past.

Time and again, the US has claimed to have successfully eliminated multiple military targets in a strike, only to have it later revealed that there were heavy civilian casualties and few, if any, real militant deaths. Three such instances of this pattern are documented in detail by the Stanford-NYU report, and they serve to show just how unreliable the “official” accounts of drone attacks can be, while also highlighting the attacks’ innately devastating nature.

Add to this the fact that the Obama administration now officially records any military-age males killed in drone strikes as “militants”, and it’s not hard to see why these Pakistanis are so afraid for their lives.

The Obama administration has also approved the use of “signature strikes”, drone attacks that target individuals whose identities are unknown yet who seem to exhibit behavior in line with that of an active militant. The broad power this grants our government—to kill people we haven’t even identified living thousands of miles away—is frightening in its own right. Couple that power, though, with our track record for mistakenly killing civilians in the place of actual militants, and the terror felt by each person forced to live under our drones is made even more tangible.

Apart from engaging in signature strikes, the US has also seems to be willing to attack both the rescuers and mourners of drone victims. This practice is, on its face, morally grotesque, as it literally means we are targeting people who seek only to save others’ lives or honor their deaths, those first-responders at the strike zone and those family and friends gathered at the funeral. Yet our government continues to commit these “follow-up” strikes in the hopes that they will kill further suspected terrorists, no matter the cost.

Such clearly unjust and destructive drone practices don’t just fill the affected Pakistani populations with terror, either. They also fill them with rage, and in doing so help foster the very anti-American sentiment that our foreign enemies thrive off of. In the report, an affected mental health professional notes “the impact [the drone program] has on personality development,” stating that “people who have experienced such things, they don’t trust people; they have anger, desire for revenge.”

So now, amongst all the collateral deaths and destroyed properties, we find that the policy we have instated to fight terrorism may very well be fueling it.

Consider that for a moment.

Not only does it turn out that our drones terrorize entire Pakistani villages, but they might not even achieve their intended goal of combating terrorism. We simply cannot continue a policy that so indiscriminately and insensitively kills innocent civilians, especially when its efficacy is so called into question.

In fact, because of its bloody record, our drone campaign has now come to embody the very terror it originally sought to vanquish.

Targeting emergency first-responders, or those gathered at funerals, or those attending village meetings, or those who’s identities we don’t know, or even those who are simply in the area and over eighteen—these are not the policies of a nation defending its freedom; these are the policies of a nation terrorizing another’s populace.

America now has the responsibility to either change or end its drone program. That’s it.

If we continue on like this we are embracing the very terrorism we claim to despise, and in doing so are abandoning the very values we claim to defend.

As the world watches and waits for the results of the 2012 presidential election, Proposition 37 in California, which would mandate the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), has been largely ignored.

A quick rundown of statistics is startling: 88 percent of U.S. corn, 90 percent of canola, 90 percent of cotton and 94 percent of soy are genetically modified. This results in a supermarket where over 70 percent of the products contain GMOs.

That statistic is worth repeating: more than 70 percent of foods in the United States are genetically modified. The future has arrived, and it is all around us.

The science fiction began at Calgene, a biotech firm now owned by Monsanto, whose scientists opened the door to a new food and agricultural revolution. The Green Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s increased crop yields and expanded the industrialized the food system, fundamentally changing food at the molecular level.

Calgene created the Flavr Savr tomato, the first commercial GMO. This tomato unleashed a wave of genetic modification that has resulted in a food system dominated by GMOs.

GMOs have been designed to resist pesticides sprayed on fields, ironically allowing more to be sprayed, have longer shelf lives, be more tolerant to stress and even contain pesticides within the plant itself.

The benefits have been unparalleled food production in the U.S. The costs are an uncertain future of food and unintended consequences for both humans and the environment.

While there must be a separate argument about the effects of GMOs in relation to intellectual property, seed prices, health and the potential to form superweeds (which has already occurred), the discussion facing voters is far simpler.

If we understand food as a fundamental right to all people, the right to know what is in our food must also be accepted.

Fifty countries around the world, including Japan, India and China, already require the labeling of GMOs, and many of these countries restrict their use. The development of GMOs has the potential to be one of the greatest technological advances in food and agriculture in the 21st century.

However, the greatest problem regarding GMOs has been transparency. Monsanto and other large companies conduct their own studies on GMOs, limit the distribution of their data and results (because it is “proprietary”) and are ultimately left to regulate themselves. Large companies such as Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgroSciences, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg and General Mills have combined to raise $47 million to fight Proposition 37.

The adage “you are what you eat” has taken on an entirely new meaning in the age of GMOs, and it is essential that products be labeled so that consumers know what exactly is in them. It is their right.

The billionaire casino mogul and host of NBC’s “The Apprentice,” who explored a presidential run of his own earlier this year, spent the past several days teasing a revelation he implied would shake up the presidential election.

Wednesday, Trump finally let the cat out of the bag. In a video Trump posted on his Twitter and Facebook pages, he announced a “deal” he was offering President Barack Obama.

In exchange for President Obama releasing his college transcripts, college applications and passport application, Trump vowed to donate $5 million to any charity of Obama’s choosing.

This cheap publicity stunt was Trump’s big, earth-shattering surprise. That his announcement wasn’t a game-changer for the election is hardly shocking. Trump has made similar bombastic claims on numerous occasions, such as his recent teasing of something “huge” he had in store for the Republican National Convention. Unfortunately, Trump’s big surprise was scrapped when the RNC was shortened due to the weather. It turns out we were all going to be treated to a video of him telling an Obama impersonator that Obama was “fired.”

Trump was roundly mocked for his most recent announcement, which he hopes will vindicate his conspiratorial views that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. and was a bad student who only attended elite universities because of Affirmative Action.

Of course, the birther claims have been refuted time and time again, and the notion that someone who became the president of the Harvard Law Review didn’t deserve to be admitted to Columbia and Harvard is laughable. But what else should we really be expecting from “The Donald”?

In light of this latest charade, The Daily Beast proposed a fantastic idea: Everyone should just ignore Trump.

This man is very obviously a delusional egomaniac who thrives on the attention he gets when he employs these ridiculous publicity stunts.

The Daily Beast is right. It’s time we all ignore him in the hopes that he’ll just go away.

This contradiction isn’t our fault—democracy just doesn’t always reward anticipation. Politicians are accountable to voters whose main concerns generally include how to feed their families and keep their jobs and houses. And it is this combination of preoccupied voters and cowardly lawmakers that has kept the U.S. from tackling climate change in any sort of comprehensive way.

It’s no surprise that a recent Gallup poll showed 72 percent of Americans thought the economy was today’s most important problem. A mere two percent saw pollution and the environment as the most important problem. Yet, the two problems are undoubtedly connected. MIT economist Henry Jacoby predicts, “People will pay…[for inaction on climate change] in taxes, energy prices, insurance premiums, disaster relief, food prices, water bills and changes to our environment that are hard to put a price tag on.”

We’re constantly flooded with startling facts about rising ocean levels and shrinking rainforests. To those who pay attention, climate change is clearly imminent, and it’s approaching the brink of irreversibility. Scientists predict a nearly complete lack of wild fish in oceans by 2050. At the beginning of his numerical rundown of the current state of the climate, activist and writer William E. McKibben grimly states, “I can say with some confidence that we’re losing the fight, badly and quickly—losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.”

Denial isn’t the only reason that the situation is stagnant—for those who are thinking short-term, there is a valid economic argument against cutting emissions. The fossil fuel sector certainly isn’t a small deal, and the world economy is invested in the future of drilling. Construction of the southern part of Keystone XL is already underway.

While economic hurdles block a smooth transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy, the carbon tax represents a potent economic solution. The Kennedy School’s Joseph Aldy showed his support for the carbon tax in his talk at Harvard Thinks Green 2 last week. A tax on carbon would de-incentivize the purchase of carbon and naturally force investment in alternative energies. It would provide the economic impetus currently lacking from the green movement.

Even conservative economist and policy advisor Greg Mankiw expressed his support of a world carbon tax in a 2007 New York Times op-ed, but he doubted that a carbon tax would make it through Washington. Mankiw wrote, “Republican consultants advise using the word ‘tax’ only if followed immediately by the word ‘cut.’ Democratic consultants recommend the word ‘tax’ be followed by ‘on the rich.’”

It would simply be political suicide for a Republican to support a new tax of any kind, and Democrats are too busy trying to get rid of tax breaks for the rich that suggesting a carbon tax right now might very well be too much. Yet, logical thinking would demand that our lawmakers push aside all of those political fears for the sake of doing something that makes pure and total sense.

China’s Communist Party recently released its new five-year plan, a strategic move that will end up investing $315 billion in measures for energy efficiency. And because of the one-party system, China can afford to be aggressive in the way it pursues its alternative energy goals. The National Energy Commission has asked each province in China to provide a plan for increased solar energy use by October 15. China remains the world’s largest coal consumer, but these steps represent a significant effort to reduce emissions. The United States is the world’s largest consumer of oil, but political polarization and corporate influence would block any clean energy initiatives of a similar scale.

So while China’s alternative energy plans charge forward, the US is stuck with little to no political or economic push for sustainability.

This problem is not unique to the U.S., and it’s why very little has been done in the way of large international agreements. Recent climate discussions have all failed miserably—it’s as if every time someone mentions the words Kyoto, Cop10, or Rio+20, the environmental community emits a collective sigh of frustration.

Our markets are so interdependent that changes in energy consumption have global effects, and therefore countries must tackle the issue through a combination of domestic policies and international cooperation. The U.S. could help shape the international debate on climate change, but it chooses not to because U.S. citizens have yet to demand the discussion.

Our government spends billions of dollars each year on defense. We stockpile more weapons than we will ever use. But the prospect of entire countries being submerged under water as a result of large scale flooding is in many ways equally as scary as a nuclear Iran. And just like our founding fathers were worried about the political freedoms of every generation to come, should we not be intensely concerned about the safety and welfare of our future generations? And should we not demand from our representatives that same view?

Popularity helps because “those who learn to play the game in high school are figuring out what they need to know to succeed when they enter the workplace,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

Popular students are typically strong communicators, which is a skill that would benefit them in the workplace. In order to enter certain fields nowadays, jobseekers must be able to network. Someone with strong interpersonal skills would probably be more successful at forming relationships with experts in his or her field than someone who does not have those skills. Strong communicators might also form better working relationships with their bosses and coworkers. Those relationships could lead to job promotions or simply a better work environment. Popular kids also tend to have high self-esteem, which is another trait employers find attractive. Someone who is confident in his or her skills comes across as more knowledgeable and professional than someone who lacks confidence. Confident employees would probably be rewarded with better job offers than timid employees.

However, popularity is fleeting. Just because someone was popular among his or her high school peers does not mean he or she will be popular among adults. Perhaps he or she lacks the composure or maturity that adult conversations require. Popularity also depends on factors other than personality — physical appearance and socio-economic status for instance. How can researchers make a statement about something so variable as popularity? The results of this study seem less convincing because there are so many factors that affect popularity and even more factors that affect success.

Not everyone who was popular in high school is going to be financially successful, just as not everyone who was unpopular is going to live a life of financial ruin. While it makes sense that someone with strong interpersonal skills would be more successful in or her career, those skills can be possessed by both popular and unpopular high schoolers.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and vice presidential candidate Cheri Honkala were arrested Oct. 16, the night of the second presidential debate.

Complying peacefully, they were charged with disorderly conduct after they were refused entry into Hofstra U., the location of the debate.

Stein and Honkala are the predominate Green Party candidates who show up on 85 percent of the nation’s ballot, including Iowa. After the Commission on Presidential Debates disallowed them from participating in the events, Stein and Honkala protested by sitting outside the debate hall with an American flag, surrounded by police officers preventing them from entering the facility.

Jailed for more than eight hours, the candidate’s campaign manager Ben Manski said: “The arrest was outrageous and shouldn’t be tolerated in a country that is a leading proponent of democracy. … They knew that there was the possibility that they would be arrested. Their intention was to enter the premises and bear witness to the mockery of democracy that is tonight’s debate.”

Many might argue that Stein’s behavior, especially as a presidential candidate, was of slightly too high intensity. Fair enough. That same kind of pacifistic mentality strips everything it means to be a democracy. I would like to note that when Stein debated Romney in Massachusetts in 2002, the Boston Globe claimed “[Stein] was the only adult in the room”.

Larry King has decided to be a moderator for a live-stream debate in Chicago for minor-party presidential candidates at 7 p.m. CT this Tuesday on Ora.tv/ora2012/thirdparty. The debate includes: Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson; Green Party, Jill Stein; Constitution Party, Virgil Goode; Justice Party, Rocky Anderson.

Larry King made it clear none of them will win, going on to say: “They have a story to tell. It’s a valid story. It’s a two-party system, but not a two-party system by law.” The debate is organized by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.

To go back to Manski’s remark about “mockery of democracy,” there seems to be a very legal but very shady way our debates are organized. Here’s a not so well known secret: The Commission on Presidential Debates is actually a private corporation.

You heard that right. All the presidential elections you’ve seen televised since 1987 are formed and run by the Democratic Party and Republican Party. The commission is technically “nonprofit,” but the money comes from contributions of various foundations and corporations. And when a corporation has money flow and is under the control of the Republican and Democratic national committees, it becomes quite apparent nobody is going to devote attention or resources to a third party of any kind.

In 2000, Ralph Nader filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates, which cited a monetary favor to the Republican and Democratic national committees and stated that was against the Federal Election Campaign Act. He lost the lawsuit on the basis he failed to provide enough evidence the commission was favoring or denying any party.

The commission has drawn outlash over the years, leading to protests at its headquarters and demanding of contact information being posted on its website. The list of allegations is endless.

In 2004, Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik were arrested for civil disobedience after ignoring the police request to not enter the presidential debate.

In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity found 93 percent of commission’s money came from just six donors, all of which were kept secret.

Just a month ago, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates for denying competition by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a century old act that denies business from restraining competition in the market. Johnson asked the court to put a hold on all presidential debates until the lawsuit was completed or until all presidential candidates were allowed debate time by the commission and had the 270 electoral votes to win an election. That request was denied.

Do you notice a trend here?

Two active presidential candidates and three former presidential candidates in recent times have all protested both formally and informally for the right to a fair election process, and all have lost and/or been arrested.

Regardless of what the court finds in Johnson’s lawsuit and regardless of the likelihood of a third party getting elected, all parties that have a spot on an American presidential ballot should have the right to an equal and fair election process — what is this, a democracy?

As Romney spoke of the U.S. purpose in making “the world more peaceful,” and Obama spoke of “spreading our values,” both alluded to concepts of American diplomacy rooted in the zenith of the nation’s Golden Age.

While the U.S. is still largely considered the most powerful leader of the free world and does have a responsibility as a member of the global community to further peace and stability, the candidates seemed oblivious of the U.S. bearing in light of the economic recession that has plagued the nation in recent years.

The primary focus of the candidates’ thoughts in terms of international policy placed the U.S. as the standard-setter for international nation building, bringing “gender equality” and “civility” to the lump sum region of the Middle East and alluding to setting up puppet leaders in place of leaders deemed in opposition of U.S. values and democracy.

But gender equality remains an issue in the contiguous 50 states, with women earning between 55 cents and 87 cents per dollar that men earn, according to Slate. These issues must be addressed at home as well as abroad, and cannot be handled with credibility outside the U.S. until the standards in our own country are upped.

As Romney spoke of Russia and Obama expressed support for Israel, a point of hot-cold contention for him, the candidates did acknowledge the need for nation-building in the U.S. But they failed to address the weaknesses within the U.S. that they were quick to point out overseas.

While these values may have been ones all followed while the U.S. was at the peak of its economic height, it is no longer so, and building ties with countries and governments around the world and proving American credibility should be prioritized by each candidate as opposed to finding ways to expand the nation’s overseas defense presence.

As countries like China gain stronger economic footholds, the global power that is attached to diplomacy values will follow the money. Showing respect to our foreign allies and working in partnerships with them will go further than imposing our beliefs and values upon them and attempting to help create “civil societies.”

For the U.S. to maintain its status, it must focus on building credible, lasting and peaceful partnerships with allies rather than imposing values onothers.

Your best bet is not getting a tattoo you’re going to regret in the first place.

I’m not arguing against tattoos; that would be astoundingly hypocritical of me. I’m not covered, but I have a few, one of which is a sleeve — incidentally, one covering the aforementioned regretted tattoo. If you want a tattoo, go for it.

Before you do, though, don’t just choose a design because it’s pretty or trendy. This ink is going to be with you for the rest of your life. Let me repeat that so it sinks in: the rest of your life — there’s a lot of dude-bros out there regretting their tribal armbands 10 years later. If you’re going into this planning to have the tattoo removed at a later date, you should save some money and go get a temporary transfer from the quarter machines or just draw on yourself with a Sharpie.

Also, keep in mind that you’re in college, presumably to earn a degree to qualify for a specific career.  In other words, if you want to teach fifth graders, don’t get a neck tattoo.

Your design should do more than look totally awesome — though it should obviously do that as well. It needs to mean something. It doesn’t need to mark an epiphany, but it should mean more to you than just your first tattoo. And for goodness’ sake, don’t get your significant other’s name tattooed on your body. Just, no. In all my years as a tattoo junkie I have never met anyone with their special someone’s name on them who was still with that special someone. A rule of thumb for names is: they should only be your children’s or a dead person’s.

To get your perfect design, you need to collaborate with your artist. Tell them what you want and bring them reference pictures, and they’ll sketch up something for you. Tell them what you do and don’t like about that sketch, and they’ll draw you up another one. Repeat the process until there’s nothing you don’t like about the design. Don’t settle on this. Remember: the rest of your life.

The process of working with the artist in designing your ink is also a good way to make sure you don’t annoy the crap out of each other. You’re going to be trapped under their needle for what might be hours; being able to tolerate each other will be a good thing.

Please don’t just pick the nearest tattoo parlor and the artist who’s free when you wander in off the street. Shop around. The artists will have portfolios of their work on display in their shop. Leaf through their books until you find someone whose style speaks to you, amazes you and makes you want to look at it every day for the rest of your life. This is a big decision. My artist is three hours away, because what she does with color is amazing. For me, that’s worth the drive.

Tattoos hurt. Anyone who told you otherwise was either lying or drunk. A reputable artist will never tattoo anyone they know to be under the influence, and not only because they’ll lose their license. If it’s not worth the pain, don’t get a tattoo; it’s as simple as that. If you absolutely have to look like a d-bag, try the transfers and Sharpie route, or I hear they have fabric “tattoo sleeves” at Spencer’s. Keep in mind that anywhere the skin is thin, or the bones are close to the surface, is gonna hurt like a mother. I don’t recommend one of those areas for your first, but I’m not the boss of you, so do what you want.

If you have any questions, ask your artist! They’re your number one resource — utilize them.

If after reading this you still get an ironic — or stupid — tattoo, your pain when it’s getting lasered off or covered up will be my sweet, sweet revenge.

A little over a year into his presidency, though, Barack Obama signed just such a mandate into law. That mandate became the center of his signature health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act.

The mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court, but Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that, while the Court found the mandate constitutional, it did not and cannot decide whether the mandate is good public policy.

As American citizens, it is our job to consider the consequences that come from the choices we make in elections. One consequence of the choice we make this presidential election year will be the impending enforcement of the ACA, which takes effect in 2014.

The ACA aims to increase health insurance coverage in the United States primarily by shifting health care costs from older Americans to younger Americans and from willing insurance purchasers to taxpayers. It does this by requiring all Americans to purchase a government-approved health plan, regardless of their age or health status, and by raising taxes on everything from medical devices to tanning beds.

To the extent that the health law reduces costs for some, it increases them for others, while rerouting a substantial amount of money through government programs. The law will increase government spending by more than a trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

That cost will be covered by the government, already sinking under the weight of existing entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

President Obama should have stuck to his original position on the health insurance mandate and pursued reforms to make health care more affordable. As the president went on to say in that same 2008 interview, “The reason they don’t have a house is they don’t have the money. And so our focus has been on reducing costs.”

Mitt Romney has a health care plan that really would focus on reducing costs. He has promised to start by repealing the ACA and then working on smarter reforms to spur choice and competition in the health care market. Those reforms include equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance benefits, creating a national market for health insurance by allowing plans to be sold across state lines, and finally reigning in frivolous lawsuits that are raising costs for every patient.

Romney’s goal is to give power back to states and individuals so they can decide on their needs instead of creating comprehensive universal health care without individual considerations. This will allow both state governments and consumers to have more flexibility with their plans.

This election gives voters a distinct choice between the government-driven approach President Obama has taken toward health care reform, embodied by the costly and intrusive ACA, and the patient-centered choice Gov. Romney has proposed.

The results of Romney’s health care reform plan will be a system with more choice, more competition and lower cost.

This debate provided the candidates with the opportunity to finally discuss issues, such as the ongoing war in Afghanistan, which have not been extensively debated this election season.

It was also the last chance for the two candidates to attack one another in person, and both President Obama and Gov. Romney attempted to make the most of this opportunity.

Despite the fact the partisan pundit-led discussion on the broadcast networks will undoubtedly focus its attention on these rhetorical jabs for the coming days, it is important to note that there were, in fact, some important takeaways from this debate.

The most compelling of these is that, despite what the candidates and their surrogates claim, the differences between President Obama’s policies and Gov. Romney’s proposals on most foreign policy issues are very hard to discern, if not altogether nonexistent.

On Syria, where a brutal dictatorship headed by Bashar Al-Assad continues to massacre its own people, both candidates expressed their support for the opposition without committing to getting involved in the conflict militarily.

On Iran, both candidates stressed that they will do everything they can, presumably including taking military action, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Both candidates endorsed Obama’s surge of troops into Afghanistan, which cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars without substantially improving the situation on the ground.

Both Obama and Romney also seemed to be on the same page concerning the U.S. response to the Arab Spring, with Romney agreeing that turning against Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and joining the NATO coalition to oust the late Libyan strongman Moammar Ghadafi were both the right courses of action.

Of course, neither candidate or political party will acknowledge these similarities, and the two argued over subtle rhetorical differences, such as Romney’s designation of Russia as our greatest geopolitical foe and Obama’s so-called “apology tour.” But the reality is, the two candidates do not differ substantially when it comes to most foreign policy issues.

What this means for voters is that they should make an extra effort to understand the two different visions Obama and Romney have when it comes to domestic policy, as this is an area where there are substantial differences.

With only two weeks until Election Day and early voting underway in many states, it’s time for America to finally make its decision. Based on this debate, it doesn’t seem to have much of a choice when it comes to foreign policy.

Much press and controversy has surrounded the rise of shale gas drilling, particularly in Pennsylvania and New York. Nevertheless, natural gas as an energy source provides substantial benefits, both geopolitical and environmental, that cannot be ignored. As the United States seeks to move towards a more sustainable and stable energy future, the crucial role of shale gas development has become readily apparent. Still, much of the critical discourse necessary to formulate sound policy has been obscured by partisan inertia on the national level and deep division on the local level, as well as substantial yet hyperbolic media coverage.

The Argument for Natural Gas

Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have dropped off precipitously in the past few years, an unpredicted new development largely attributed to the availability of inexpensive natural gas—the exponential growth of drilling in the Marcellus and other shale formations has more than halved its cost.

Natural gas is often touted as a more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional fossil fuels such as oil and coal. John Hanger, the former secretary of PADEP, told the HPR in a recent interview, “Over fifty-five percent of our energy comes from coal and oil, both of which cause infinitely more harmful environmental impacts that [natural] gas ever could or ever will.” According to the EPA, natural gas-fired power plants emit half the carbon dioxide, a third of the nitrogen oxides, and 1 percent of the sulfur oxides produced by coal-fired plants, while also avoiding the heavy metal-laden waste associated with coal.

As the cost of natural gas extraction has fallen drastically in the past few years, it has become the fuel of choice for many industries. Many are optimistic about the role natural gas has to play in shaping a cleaner energy future; among them is Seamus McGraw, author of The End of Country: Dispatches from the Frack Zone, who noted in a recent interview with the HPR, “[T]he risks associated with natural gas are profound and it is still a fossil fuel and a source of carbon and other pollution… but [shale gas drilling] has reduced as a result our dependency on the single dirtiest, deadliest form of energy there is.” 

Shale formations span the length of the Eastern seaboard, covering most of upstate New York, western and central Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, extending as far south as Mississippi and Alabama. Other shale formations include the Barnett Shale in Texas and the Antrim in Michigan. The Marcellus shale formation alone contains gas reservoirs that Penn State University geosciences professor Terry Engelder has conservatively estimated to contain 168 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas—five and a half times what the United States currently produces in a year. Shale gas drilling has already almost singlehandedly reduced the cost of natural gas by fifty percent, making it an increasingly attractive energy option.

As the United States tries to reduce its carbon emissions to curb global warming, many proponents of shale gas drilling have touted natural gas as a cost-effective bridge fuel to a renewable energy economy. Estimates of recoverable natural gas in shale formations predict no more than a century’s worth of natural gas, at current usage rates. Even supporters of shale gas development acknowledge that it can only be a temporary fix. “We don’t have a hundred years,” McGraw asserts. “If we’re still burning [natural gas] in thirty years, we’re screwed.”

Frack No: The Shale Gas Story in New York and Pennsylvania

The past five years have seen the rise of shale gas drilling from novel application to industry bulwark. According to the Energy Information Administration, shale gas’s share of the domestic natural gas market has risen from 1 percent in the year 2000 to almost 20 percent in 2010. Along with its meteoric rise has come a vociferous and diverse public response.

Towns like Dimock in northeastern Pennsylvania have become a flashpoint for the shale gas controversy. Tensions between neighbors run high, with Dimock resident Anne Teel telling NPR’s StateImpact, “I don’t like to go to the grocery store and have neighbors who won’t say hello to me. That’s not the way I live. But that’s unfortunately what’s happened because of this.” Virulent anti-fracking sentiment has led to enormous pressure on local and state governments to respond quickly to new developments in drilling technology, but regulation has by its nature remained several steps behind each new advancement.

Hundreds of townships, however, have taken legal action in the courts and through zoning restrictions to block the construction of drill sites and recoup damages from contaminated water and air. “Since the oil and gas industries are largely exempt from any uniform federal level of regulation … and it’s largely up to the states to regulate oil and gas activity,” Tony Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell University’s School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, told the HPR, “the people of New York have seen what’s happened in Pennsylvania, and [townships are] not confident that the New York DEC can do any better of a job at this point than the Pennsylvania DEP.”

Shale gas drilling in New York and Pennsylvania has developed along radically different lines—whereas the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has yet to finish what has become a five-year long review of shale gas drilling in the state, Pennsylvania has almost 9000 unconventional gas wells on the books as of this June and approves dozens more drill sites on a monthly basis.

With almost one-third of land in the state of Pennsylvania under lease to drilling companies, the potential impacts of drilling in the state are astronomical. “Over the next few decades, there will be hundreds of thousands of wells, tens of thousands of miles of pipelines, tens of thousands of miles of roads, that will spin like a spider web across the state…and we don’t know what the cumulative impacts of that will be,” John Quigley, former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, told the HPR.

The Road Forward

The EPA, for all of its efforts, has been hobbled by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which exempted oil and gas companies from many provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and thus from EPA jurisdiction. Legislation at the federal level to mandate the disclosure of lists of fracking chemicals was first introduced in both the House and Senate in 2009, but has yet to move out of committee. Both presidential candidates appear to have given fracking a pass in this election cycle: while Romney lambasted Obama in an April campaign stop in Tunkhannock, Pa. for delaying natural gas development with overregulation, the Obama campaign has touted the increase in natural gas development as an integral part of the President’s “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.

Environmental groups remain hopeful that the citizen outcry will result in action on a national level. Some have compared the current debate over shale gas drilling to the debate over pesticides in the 1970s. “There wasn’t action at the federal level, so communities started taking action for themselves—they created buffer zones, they outright banned certain pesticides … and we eventually saw action at the federal level,” Kathleen Sutcliffe, a campaign manager at Earthjustice, told the HPR.

PADEP has introduced a whole host of new regulations on water usage and water waste disposal in the past few years, and the New York State DEC is currently considering the public health effects of shale gas drilling before releasing an environmental impact statement, but the regulatory process remains slow. Longitudinal studies on long-term impacts of shale gas drilling are scarce, and Geisinger Health System, a healthcare provider in Pennsylvania, is beginning one of the first of such studies this year. “We can’t afford to repeat the mistakes of the past,” Quigley said. “The way forward is with good regulation, good industry practice, and good science.”

The shale gas narrative has unfolded along the traditional paths of industry and environment, citizens and corporations. From media to policy, the debate over fracking is a microcosm of the paralysis and polarization plaguing our politics writ large. Whatever the best path forward may be, what is certain is that our action—or inaction—on shale gas will define the world’s energy and environmental future for decades to come.

The massive fallout from Chen’s article included Reddit’s institution of a site-wide ban on Gawker links (although this was later revoked), Brutsch’s termination from his job and Brutsch giving a disturbingly detached interview in which he expressed little remorse for his actions on “Anderson Cooper 360.” The closest that Brutsch comes to expressing regret is noting that his “sort of gallows humor,” which he said played to the “college kids” who frequented Reddit two years ago at the height of his Reddit activity, is no longer appreciated. Summing up the interview, Cooper noted that Brutsch only seemed concerned about his outing’s consequences for himself.

This month has been tough for the hyper-anonymous Internet as a whole. In the same week that Chen outed Brutsch, Jezebel lauded the efforts of a female Redditor who is fighting back against “Creepshots,” a Reddit thread on which anonymous users post photos of women alongside lascivious comments about their bodies, by outing its users. Outing’s effectiveness is proven by the examples of Christopher Bailey, a 35-year-old substitute teacher and CreepShots user in Ohio, and Kody Maxson, a man who harassed 15-year-old Amanda Todd to the point of committing suicide in Vancouver, Canada. Now that their real world identities have been linked to their virtual misdeeds, both men are facing potential legal consequences for their online antics. It turns out that users’ content can be tracked back to them, and ill-advised virtual words and actions can have real world consequences.

These events in the wider world are an opportune moment to consider users’ personal responsibilities in the context of our own Dartmouth-specific Reddit: Bored@Baker. While Bored@Baker’s hyper-anonymous format affords users near-unlimited liberty to troll and eviscerate others, it might be an interesting thought experiment to consider how others’ opinions of you might change if the rest of campus knew the content of your Bored@Baker posts. Could you still look certain people in the eye if they knew the thoughts you’d expressed under the veil of anonymity? And, more importantly, how would you feel about yourself?

Anonymity allows people to give voice to thoughts and opinions that they might not otherwise have the courage to bring into a public forum. The idea that anonymity offers people the comfort to admit and overcome personal shortcomings was the initial rationale for Alcoholics Anonymous’ adoption of anonymity. In some cases, anonymity is a valuable asset that empowers individuals and enriches public discourse.

However, the theory of de-individuation, by which individuals lose self-awareness in groups, applies to an extreme in anonymous group situations. To some people, spaces like Reddit are virtual repositories for a stream of vitriolic, tasteless and borderline illegal content to which they would never put their names in public spaces. In these cases, the separation of words from personalities is tremendously problematic when it allows faceless personas to disseminate material that violates good taste or endangers others. In these cases, it is imperative and necessary to take the comfort of anonymity away from these trolls and virtual menaces when their virtual actions cross the line into having real-world impact on the women — and, in Bailey’s case, underage students — whose photos they post online.

Sadly, while the revelations of these particular men’s identities are victories for their victims, these men are mere drops in the bucket. Given the breadth of the Internet, it would be impossible to monitor all of its content. Moreover, as many Redditors have pointed out in the wake of Brutsch’s outing, the revelation of anonymous users’ identities is both inflammatory and potentially detrimental to their real-world lives. Ultimately, it is only personal responsibility for and awareness of the impact of one’s virtual words that can make the Internet as a whole better for its inhabitants.

Yes in the sense that, obviously, the Internet was not a factor 20 years ago and before. And yes in the sense that print media will never again be the biggest thing around like it was in a bygone era – much as radio will never again be the biggest thing around.

But no in the sense that this predominantly reflects on Newsweek itself as opposed to the state of print media. Newsweek completely lost its way over the last few years, taking a sharp turn from respectable news to showcase of sensationalism and controversial covers. Would a trustworthy news source publish a magazine cover on “The 101 best places to eat in the world” featuring a woman opening her mouth to eat a long piece of food in an obvious insinuation of oral sex? Or their cover of the Commander-in-Chief with a rainbow colored halo over his head alongside the headline “The first gay President?”

Contrast this with Time magazine, which has long played the role of Newsweek’s “older brother,” if you will. Time is also in some aspects a shadow of its former self: for example, adding a regular humor column by Joel Stein to a magazine that formerly never would have considered such an item. But consider Kurt Andersen’s article “The Protestor” from last December as Time’s annual selection for Person of the Year. He spent two months traveling around the world nonstop working on this one story, with the result being perhaps the best journalistic article of last year. For all its faults, Time’s quality never sunk as low as Newsweek. And the results showed: while virtually no print publication actually gained circulation over the past decade, Newsweek dropped 52.2% percent since 2000, while since 1997 Time only dropped 19.5 percent.

As a parallel, look at a similar situation from decades ago and closer to home: the Hartford Times ceased publication in 1976. Seemingly, if anything, the opposite should have happened. This was right after Watergate, when newspaper subscriptions increased. And this was during that great middle era, when television was already established and proven not to have killed the newspaper industry as once feared, but the Internet was still a ways off. So why did the Hartford Times fail? The answer is complex, but the biggest reason is simple: the newspaper lost its way. The Hartford Courant, which already did investigative reporting, doubled down on it during the immediate post-Watergate period. And, as occurred when capitalism works its magic, the Courant survived and the Times did not.

As I see it, a comparable situation is what happened with Newsweek today. Is it partially the modern iPad, Internet, and smartphone environment? No doubt. I am a print media aficionado, but facts are facts. However, there is also the critical factor that the quality of Newsweek, like the Hartford Times, started to drastically decline.

In fact, historically speaking, this is a relatively decent time for print newspapers and magazines. Many other periods were far worse. Television in the 1950s likely came closer to killing the print industry than the Internet has thus far. If people could see the news occurring visually for free, so the reasoning went, then why would they only read about the news at a monetary cost? Yet the industry survived. And throughout the 1970s and 1980s, many major cities went from having two or three major newspapers to just one.

In a free market, some businesses succeed and some businesses fail. That is simply the nature of things. Newsweek had a 79-year run and eventually it failed. In a perfect world, no company or product would ever go out of business and everyone would be happy. But are print newspapers and print magazines failing left and right? Since around 2000 or so, naysayers have said, “Just you see, this will be the year all print publications die!” And a few indeed have, Newsweek among them.

But the death of print journalism is a myth. Some critics are quick to jump on the discontinuation of Newsweek as a sign of the death of print journalism. In fact, it is nothing more than the death of Newsweek.

No, it is not the wording of Romney’s comments that offends, but the fact that he and Obama feel the need to pander to women.

Whether the topic is jobs or contraception, what makes a group of bureaucratic men, largely removed from public life, qualified to preach about issues they perceive to be important to women?

The answer is simple — nothing. No matter how many qualified female advisers, found in binders or otherwise, they have doing policy analysis and advising them, they can’t really know.

Which is why politicians should campaign on principal-driven policies, rather than pigeonhole the American electorate into neat little subgroups based on race, gender and income level. In short, your desire to court my vote should be driven by the areas where my individual ideals and principles coincide with yours. To do otherwise is inherently sexist and fails to take into account the diversity of women’s interests. News flash, politicians — women as a voting block do not possess a collective brain. We have different priorities, influenced by our individual thoughts and experiences.

Most Americans, and women in particular, are intelligent enough to extrapolate the impact the goals of federal policy will have on their lives. If they like what they perceive to be the implications toward them personally, they’ll vote for a candidate. If not, they’ll apply the same rational process to the stated goals of the other candidate.

It’s the only way to end this ridiculous “malarkey,” to borrow a phrase from Vice President Joe Biden, about one party wanting to take away women’s health care choices. This fear mongering is not only downright asinine, but ought to be extremely offensive to any self-sufficient woman.

Excuse me if I don’t define myself by whether or not I have access to “free” contraception, or go running to the federal government to solve my problems. Are we really going to allow others to dictate how we should act or feel about these personal issues? And what exactly about this follows the “feminist” doctrine of strength and independence?

And the same principle applies to subdividing voters by race or income level. Are we really going to let anyone besides ourselves frame how we should think about issues that affect us? That’s not individualism. It’s some bizarre form of collectivism, and it’s a perversion of the underlying foundation of American government — personal sovereignty.

Essentially, this means that because we’re individuals with unique experiences and viewpoints, no one but us can know what’s in our best interests. That’s why government is limited and ultimately answerable to the people.

This is precisely why candidates for public office should run on ideals, not this degrading groveling toward the perceived priorities of narrowly defined groups of voters. As individuals, we can’t truly understand the thought processes of others because we do not share the same experiences or influences. But we can all understand overarching ideas, and their applicability to our own lives. In the end, that’s what America boils down to — principles. So, when we perform our greatest civic duty, voting, shouldn’t it be based on this, not the divisiveness of political pandering?

As Election Day nears, don’t worry about trying to understand every issue the candidates discuss. Instead, look at the effects of those ideas. There are so many issues that come up in the presidential race and it is next to impossible for voters to be knowledgeable about all of them.

It is possible for voters to look at the candidates’ stance about the appropriate size of government and from there make a reasonable decision of who to vote for. For example, the debate about clean coal actually boils down to a debate about the size of government.

But what actually is clean coal and why are we hearing about it?

I watched the first presidential debate Oct. 3, with my roommates who major in chemistry and environmental science. At a comment made about clean coal, they burst out laughing, saying there was no such thing. Also, this term has made its way into political ads. So I decided to look into it a little more.

In the presidential race, we have seen two distinct opinions develop.

President Barack Obama believes in the investment in green energy. In the past four years, Obama has won more than $10 billion in private investments toward green energy. He plans to promote research and investment in green energy, including clean coal technology, and regulations on harmful energy production.

This belief calls for the federal government to take responsibility. This is consistent with his stances on other issues, such as healthcare, jobs and education.

Republican candidate Mitt Romney does not go into detail about clean coal on his website. But he believes that energy production should be able to control energy production, and it should be certified by federal agencies, but led by individual states. This means that each state could decide how clean its energy is.

This side calls for the federal government to play a more limited role, and for the states to play a larger role. This is consistent with his stances on Medicare and education.

Regardless of who you believe should be responsible for the future of this technology, the federal or state government, clean coal could be a very important technology to the future of the production of energy in America. It is something that people should be aware of, especially in a state that promotes their interest in green energy.

The term “clean coal” was created by R&R Partners. These are the people who brought us the popular “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” slogan. Big companies, such as Duke Power, Peabody Energy and BHP Billiton, latched onto this term by producing a multi-million dollar campaign. They spent $35 million in 2008 alone.

The term “clean coal” refers to the technology used to limit the environmental effects of coal.

Coal as an energy source is very important. The International Energy Agency estimated that 70 percent of the energy used between now and 2050 will come from fossil fuels, such as coal. It is also known as the dirtiest form of fossil fuel energy.

When burning coal for energy, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are released into the atmosphere. These chemicals can cause acid rain, water pollution and human health problems.

There are five types of clean coal technology that stand out: coal washing, wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, gasification, and carbon capture and storage. These technologies use a variety of methods, but one common factor is that each of these technologies is very expensive. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that carbon capture and storage could add between 50 to 100 percent to coal energy costs, an increase that many companies and Americans are uncomfortable with.

This presents a valid business concern, but it is also a valid demand. If we know the source of multiple problems, shouldn’t a solution be demanded? The use of coal is causing serious harm to our health and environment; therefore it is not out of line for the government (or anybody) to demand an alternative or at least a reduction.

Also, data from demonstration storage projects will not be available until 2013. This means construction on the first carbon capture and storage  plants will not start until at least 2020, which means there is plenty of time to debate about which type of technology will be the most practical and create an effective plan.

As Election Day draws near, look at the stances each candidate takes and then think about what the implications of those stances will look like for our nation. Then you will make an informed decision.

The 15-year-old Canadian was targeted through social media with topless photographs of her being posted on Facebook, according to CNN.

Anxiety and depression became issues for the teen soon after. Her family relocated for a fresh start. Amanda eventually changed schools, but the photographs still haunted her and reappeared online.

She began drinking and taking drugs. As her anxiety worsened, she started cutting herself to cope through her pain.

Todd had attempted suicide before by drinking bleach.

She also made a Youtube video one month before her suicide. She told her story through flashcards.

While her death is under further investigation, cyberbullying is still playing a role in the lives of countless other children.

According to Cyberbullying.org, 1 out of 3 young people receive death threats online. About half of all young internet users have been victims of cyber bullying, and 10 to 20 percent experience it regularly.

The even scarier part is that only 1 out of every 10 children tell their parents about being bullied online.

If you want to make sure the youngsters you know are in the safe, here are some things the website says you should do:

-Talk to children about cyberbullying, and let them know about the dangers it can lead to.

-Make sure children know they should talk to an adult if they are being cyberbullied.

-Explain to them that they should never share anything online or over their phone they wouldn’t want made public.

-Keep the computer in a family space and not someplace a teen could be alone with it.

-Make sure you regularly access their accounts and monitor their technology usage.

You can read more about cyberbullying at Cyberbullying.org.

For Todd’s case, however, details as to how she committed suicide aren’t being released yet.

The most important thing we can take from Todd’s case is that the young people we know don’t have to share her fate. Make sure you’re involved in what your youngsters are doing online, and make sure they can talk to you about what’s going on. This is a horrible situation that should never be repeated.

Nike said in a statement that it “does not condone the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs in any manner.”

It is understandable that the company would feel inclined to cut its ties from Armstrong. Nike athletes are typically held up as role models. An athlete who uses performance-enhancing drugs should not hold a position of influence in that field.

However, it is interesting that Nike continues to sponsor Tiger Woods, another controversial athlete. Woods was involved in several extramarital affairs, but that behavior was unrelated to his sport. Even still, is it appropriate for Nike to endorse an athlete whose private life is so controversial? Probably not. Like Hollywood stars, athletes’ private lives are not all that private. The decisions they make outside of their sport can influence their fans. It is probably inappropriate for Nike to endorse an athlete who was involved in extramarital affairs.

Returning to Armstrong, just before Nike’s announcement, the cyclist made an announcement of his own. Armstrong revealed that he was “stepping down as chairman of the Livestrong cancer fighting charity so that the organization can steer clear of the whirlwind surrounding its founder,” according to the TIME article.

It will be interesting to see how Armstrong’s absence affects the charity going forward, if  at all.

Armstrong’s concern is understandable. It would be unfortunate if his poor choices tainted an organization that could do some pretty life-changing work.

It’s a sad state of affairs. Hopefully people focus on the charity’s work and not the mistakes of its founder. But really, only time will tell.

In a phone call aired on state-run television around mid-evening during voting day, Chávez said these elections “will be a triumph for democracy” and asked that there be no violence.

However, all those familiar with Chávez and Venezuela know that there was nothing democratic about these elections; instead, they were riddled with corruption.

“Half of Venezuela is speechless,” engineer Alejandro Colmenarez, 32, told USA Today of the re-election of Chávez to a fourth term as president. “We were looking for something better after 14 years.”

Although there is no concrete evidence that corruption took place, there are indicators of Chávez’s unfair advantage.

Chávez’s opponent, Henrique Capriles, spoke against the re-elected president’s use of the country’s oil money as bribes to gain supporters in the form of “vote-buying” through giveaway programs targeted at the poor.

“The use of state oil funds for this kind of electioneering is driving Venezuela’s budget deficit for the year to the astounding level of 20 percent of GDP, an incredible figure for an oil-exporting economy at a time of very high oil prices,” Capriles said.

Chávez and his regime also control and manipulate the mass media in Venezuela, specifically the television system. Broadcasters covered hours of Chávez’s campaign trail but devoted limited coverage to Capriles’ campaign and events.

The Venezuelan government under Chávez also relies on a constant atmosphere of threats. Under Chávez, there have been high crime rates, and the police often do not provide protection but instead aid criminals.

Venezuela sits on the largest oil reserves in the world and is a major petroleum exporter to the United States. Despite this, Chávez’s problems with the U.S. are plentiful. Chávez is not only a supporter and admirer of Fidel Castro but is also allied with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He also often rails against the U.S. and its “imperialist allies.”

Other countries in South America are following his lead, promoting corruption, socialist democracy and an anti-U.S. sentiment.  In September, thousands of Argentines protested against President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner due to corruption scandals, violent crime and her ever-tightening controls over the economy. Many Argentines fear the female populist president will do away with term limits and extend her rule due to her control of Congress.

As Americans, we have to pay attention to the lack of democracy and increased corruption in South America. While our relationship with Venezuela is rocky, our economic ties with them are important. With other South American powers following in Chávez’s footsteps, we can see possible long-term problems economically and in regards to foreign policy.

While South America is no Middle East, it cannot be ignored. We may find that our interest in the region is too little, too late.

My boyfriend and I have never used protection during oral sex, and we have only had unprotected vaginal intercourse once. I take birth control pills, and I never miss a dose. I don’t have to worry about catching anything, right?

—Totally Safe?

Dear Totally,

Actually, you can contract STIs during unprotected oral sex — including HIV. There is a greater risk of becoming infected with HIV or another STI as the performer of oral sex than as the receiver, but there is still a risk as a receiver for both men and women. Additionally, one episode of unprotected vaginal sex can result in transmission of an STI and/or HIV. Taking birth control pills only protects you from conception; oral contraceptives cannot protect you from STI or HIV transmission.

It is important to note that the risk of contracting HIV via oral sex or one encounter of unprotected intercourse is low, but not zero. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through performing or receiving oral sex, though it is known to be a less common mode of transmission than other sexual behaviors, such as vaginal and anal intercourse. There have been a few recorded cases of HIV transmission from performing oral sex on a person infected with HIV, but it is not known exactly what the degree of risk is.

If the person performing oral sex has HIV, blood from his or her mouth may enter the body of the person receiving oral sex through the lining of the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis), the lining of the vagina or cervix, the lining of the anus or directly into the body through small cuts or open sores. If the person receiving the oral sex has HIV, his or her blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid or vaginal fluid may contain the virus. Cells lining the mouth of the person performing oral sex may allow HIV to enter his or her body. The risk of HIV transmission is increased if the person performing oral sex has cuts or sores around or in the mouth or throat, if the person receiving oral sex ejaculates in the mouth of the person performing oral sex or if the person receiving oral sex has another sexually transmitted disease. Abstaining from sexual activities is the only way to completely protect yourself from contracting HIV or an STI.

If you would like to be sure you have not contracted anything, University Health Services offers a number of different tests for various STIs. The chlamydia and gonorrhea test is $14, but for students with the Student Health Plan, SHP will fully reimburse this fee. HIV testing is completely free. The herpes (HSV-2) test costs $90 to $150. The syphilis test is $35. Getting tested is the only way you can know for certain whether you have an STI. One in four American adults has an STI, but many have no symptoms and are unaware. The most common STIs on college campuses are genital warts, chlamydia and herpes. Being tested is useful, as most bacterial STIs, such as gonorrhea and chlamydia, are relatively easy to cure with antibiotics if they are caught early on. Syphilis is a serious bacterial infection that can result in death if left untreated; however, if detected early, syphilis can be treated with proper antibiotics.

When it comes to protecting yourself and your partner during oral sex, one should use a male condom when performing oral sex on a male and either a dental dam, non-microwaveable plastic wrap or an unlubricated male condom that has been cut open and completely covers the vulva when performing oral sex on a female. Condoms and dental dams come in various flavors, which can make protected oral sex more fun.

Sexually related activities that carry no risk of HIV transmission are non-sexual massages, casual or dry kissing, masturbation (without your partner’s body fluids) and frottage (also known as “dry-humping” or body-to-body rubbing). Beware that you can still contract other STIs, like herpes, HPV and pubic lice, if you have bare skin-to-skin contact with your partner.

— The Sexpert

Wages:

In 2008, President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour. He planned to raise it to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and then raise it to compensate for inflation periodically. He has failed to take action on this promise since taking office and has not yet mentioned it in his 2012 campaign.

Republican candidate Mitt Romney originally favored raising the minimum wage as well and also favored adjusting it yearly for inflation. But Romney changed his mind after an outcry from supporters concerned about job losses and now has come out against raising the minimum wage at this time.

The president supported and signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which gave women more freedom to sue over pay discrimination. Romney never has come out in support of equal pay and refuses to release his views on related legislation.

Wall Street regulation:

Obama signed the Dodd-Frank bill, an answer to the financial crisis designed to limit the risk in future recessions. This legislation provides for oversight on risks to the financial institutions most essential to the economy, consolidates regulatory organizations, creates a non-bankruptcy mechanism for the take-over of “too-big-to-fail” institutions and limits consumer financial fees, among other regulations.

Romney’s campaign website promises the candidate would “repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework.” A more efficient regulatory system sounds nice, but Romney so far has offered few specifics on how this will be accomplished. No president should work to repeal a law before developing a workable replacement with some chance of passing Congress.

Outsourcing/foreign markets:

Romney has emphasized the need to go after China for currency manipulation, unfair trade practices and the violation of existing economic agreements. Obama largely agrees with this stance but has drawn criticism for not doing enough to protect America’s interests.

Obama’s website says he will eliminate tax breaks for companies that outsource and create incentives for businesses to bring jobs back to America.

His opponent has declared he would not support such an elimination of tax breaks. Romney also would eliminate taxes on profits American businesses earn on foreign soil. This could encourage business growth, as Romney claims, but it is just as likely to encourage businesses to favor foreign markets and move jobs overseas.

Other regulation:

The largest new set of regulations Obama has added fall under the unmbrella of health care reform. The Affordable Care Act forces insurance companies to provide more fair coverage to all Americans. Insurance companies no longer will be able to deny citizens policies on the basis of pre-existing conditions, charge exorbitant fees for medical services or cap the amount of coverage available to a person in the course of a year or in the course of his or her lifetime, among other restrictions.

Romney has vowed to repeal this law as quickly as possible, allowing states to waive its requirements in the meantime, though he has said he would keep some unspecified measures of the law.

The Republican candidate also has expressed support for a “regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies,” meaning federal agencies would not be able to pass any new regulations that have associated costs. This would indeed keep additional costs from being passed down to the consumer — Romney’s stated inspiration for the cap — but it also would tie the hands of agencies responsible for ensuring the educational quality, consumer safety and environmental health of this nation.

As Romney’s website puts it, this would restrict new regulations “no matter what the social benefits.”

The grades

Based on the candidates’ tax and spending plans and their views on these other economic issues, we have assigned each a letter grade for how well their position fulfill the goal of economic recovery.

Obama: B-

Though the president has weathered a difficult economic recession and done much to help soften the impact on citizens, he could stand to be more aggressive in his tax and spending reforms. And he has failed to give proper focus to some important issues connected to the economy.

Romney: I

We would give him a solid C for tax and spending plans that would achieve the desired result, but do so at too high a cost to consumers. However, considering the lack of specifics in his other stances related to the economy, we have to give him an incomplete until he does his homework.

While both President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney have given a few talking points about the need to reform and improve our education system, neither candidate has provided much substance or leadership on the issue. Education did come up in the first presidential debate; however, neither candidate said anything that indicated a willingness to make education reform a top priority of their administration. While Obama rightly supports more federal funding for schools, the nation’s education problems are much more complex than a simple financial shortfall. Real change and reform are needed in the way the U.S. delivers education.

Romney, unsurprisingly, has been equally silent on how he would make real reforms in order to get American education back on track. Outside of a jab at Big Bird and proposing to cut federal funding to PBS, it’s hard to tell how he differs from Obama on the role of the federal government in education. Should college students and school administrators expect less or perhaps more federal aid under a Romney administration? It’s almost impossible to know.

What is well-known is that neither presidential candidate is making education a focal point in their campaign, and neither is willing to provide much leadership on the issue. As Election Day draws near, voters should demand more clarity and substance from the candidates on what they plan to do to rebuild and improve America’s broken education system.

According to the Nobel Committee, the EU deserved the honor for having “over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.” Essentially, the committee deemed it appropriate to reward most of the members of an entire continent for behaving exactly as they should — for not attacking one another. Of course, many EU member states have engaged in some sort of armed conflict in the past six decades. But an undistinguished history of participation in international military operations is not enough to discredit the EU alone; after all, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and not the EU serves as the military coordinator for much of the continent. No, the Nobel Committee’s decision is flawed for two main reasons: It affords the shared ideals of the EU too much credit for the continuing peace on the continent, and it completely ignores the present-day quagmire in which the EU finds itself.

The idea that the European peace is a direct result of the liberal values shared throughout the continent is a nice one. This type of thinking appeals to our idealism as good Westerners and to our senses of democracy, freedom and fairness. But solely concentrating on the proliferation of liberalism as the cause for peace, as the Nobel Committee does, leaves a much more visceral factor out of the equation — the rather large United States military presence in Europe. From the end of World War II to the modern day, the United States has maintained significant amounts of personnel and equipment across the European continent. The explicit purpose of such an expensive and large force — approximately 90,000 men and women — is not to prevent, for example, France and Germany from attacking one another again. Rather, the preservation of such a presence grants the United States easier access to the Middle East and offers the military a better position from which to respond to emergency situations.

Regardless of U.S. intention, however, European states are the beneficiaries of such a security blanket. They have to worry less about providing for their own defenses and can concentrate funds and efforts on welfare programs or other potentially stabilizing projects. And of course, a large and capable American military presence is likely to deter an unfavorable balance of power from materializing in Europe — just in case, say, Germany started wondering about exactly how much it could flex its ever-growing muscles. So perhaps the Nobel Committee should have awarded the prize to the U.S. Army as a joint declaration for having “over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.”

And of course, the EU as it exists now is in rather poor shape. Anyone not living under a rock is aware that the EU is still in the midst of a fiscal crisis that has been ongoing for several years. Less wealthy and less financially competent countries, such as Greece and Spain, have been forced by more wealthy and more financially competent countries, mainly Germany, to impose strict austerity measures on irate populaces, which have responded with protests that have at times devolved into violent riots. At this point, it is not unreasonable to state that the only glue holding the EU’s fiscal union together is German willingness to act as a bailout fund; nor is it unreasonable to assume that German tolerance and patience will eventually evaporate. If this happens and chaos results, the financial pact between EU nations will be abandoned, and the entire ideal of European unity will have been dealt a death blow.

The Nobel Committee is obviously well aware of the fragile state of the EU. Perhaps it felt that a Nobel Prize would do something for morale on the continent. But there were other, more deserving candidates. And how such an esteemed body could so blatantly ignore the harsh status quo of its chosen winner, in the form of current unrest and possibly impending pandemonium, is inexplicable.

That behavior can be positive as it is a form of political activity. Those posts suggest that a person has been following the candidates and or the issues and is passionate about the outcome of the election. Americans should be civically engaged.

Political statuses might also inform Facebook users who have not followed the election as closely. Chances are, more Americans are tuned into their newsfeeds than the homepage of a major news publication. Election related material on the site may keep them informed.

However, that is not to say users should take every political post they see at face value. Rather, those posts should encourage them to learn more about the issues and the candidates.

Some users probably have hidden agendas and the material they post may not be all that accurate. Also worthy of discussion are the political statuses that come off as militant and overly aggressive. Who wants to log onto their Facebook page only to find material attacking them for thinking a certain way? No one.

Then again, users have the option of hiding more militant posters from their newsfeeds. Just because someone has a habit of posting hostile statuses doesn’t mean you have to subject yourself to them every time you log onto the site.

For better or for worse, people’s behavior on Facebook and other social media websites sometimes influences their interactions in the real world. Someone who attacks a political party online might find that they have fewer friends who are willing to carry on a conversation about the subject with them in person. Their friends may even steer clear of discussing any controversial topics with them in the future. In the end, these people will likely not refrain from posting political statuses, but it does not mean their Facebook friends will listen.

Most Americans support a progressive tax system — a system where the wealthier pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the poor. The Bush tax cuts actually made the system more progressive.

Wait, how is that possible?

Didn’t Democrats argue that the wealthier receive a higher proportion of the Bush tax cuts?

How could the cuts also have made the system more progressive?

Well, in the words of Aristotle, “There are things which seem incredible to most men who have not studied mathematics.”

Let’s look at a hypothetical example to see how this is mathematically possible, relying on statistics from Deloitte and Touche’s analysis as cited by David Rosenbaum of the New York Times in 2001.

Imagine there are two families in America. According to Deloitte, in 2001, one that currently made $20,000 paid $990 (4.95 percent) in taxes. The other family made $1,000,000 and paid $306,842 (30.7 percent) in taxes. Thanks to the Bush tax cuts, the poor family saw their taxes reduced to $580, a reduction of $410 or 41 percent. The rich family saw their taxes reduced to $259,728, a change of $47,114 or 15 percent.

If we then added the two tax cut numbers together to find the total dollar amount cut, $580 + $47,114 = $47,694, we could see the statistic often cited by Democrats that the “rich received a higher percentage of the tax cut.”

In a large-scale society, there are obviously more than two families. However, not only did poor families see a higher tax cut than the rich in terms of percentage of income, but according to multiple calculations, the share of total taxes paid by the rich increased by a full percentage point, facts often cited by Republicans.

Both facts are true at the same time. Now the numbers are obviously going to be different today — but feel free to apply the same calculations.

My point is that, historically, the Bush tax cuts made the tax system more progressive. In addition, the law basically wiped away the tax bill for many low-income taxpayers.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems is that letting the cuts expire could cost trillions in lost revenues.

This is certainly distressing, considering the state of our national debt. The Obama administration has recently been arguing to extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making under $250,000 a year, while letting the other tax cuts expire. This “soak the rich” compromise may sound appealing to some, but it does not come close to eliminating the effect on the national debt. Additionally, raising taxes in this economy could cause even slower growth.

Peter J. Wallison, the Arthur F. Burns fellow in financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that tax cuts do not stimulate much growth without reducing regulation at the same time. He says:

“Tax cuts are powerful economic stimulants, as the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush experiences show, but reducing regulation provides the space in which a private sector — incentivized by tax cuts — can find room to pursue the innovation and risk-taking that ultimately creates jobs.”

The drug war that has engulfed the border cities for six years brings to mind immigration, drug and human smuggling and cross-border violence. Further down the list is freedom of the press.

This year, the U. Arizona School of Journalism presented the annual John Peter and Anna Catherine Zenger Award to two journalists who stand for freedom of speech: Rocío Gallegos Rodríguez and Sandra Rodríguez Nieto, for their work covering violence against women, drug cartels and related crimes for El Diario de Juárez.

Juárez has been a center for border violence for years, and Mexico has been labeled “the most dangerous place in the world for journalists.”

Since the war on drugs began in 2006, 67 journalists have been killed in Mexico. Many more are threatened, harassed and intimidated.

But Gallegos and Rodríguez represent the struggle for freedom of the press with their struggles through the threats and harassment they receive, as well as a non-responsive government that wages a war in which it ignores its own people.

This should be a standard that journalists should strive for, regardless of how free or oppressed the media is in their home countries, because in the future these roles could be reversed. A perfect example is the U.S., and just beyond the southern border of Mexico.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Latin America was one of the worst places a journalist could be located. With the continent covered by military dictatorships and oppressive regimes, journalists and other political activists were sometimes “disappeared” at the hands of the government, and often were never seen or heard from again.

Since those governments fell in the late 1980s, freedom of the press has certainly not flourished in Central or South America, but it has taken significant steps toward achieving a system where information flows freely.

Press freedom in the U.S. seems to be trending the other way, unfortunately. This year, the U.S. fell 27 places to 47th in press freedom in rankings by Reporters Without Borders. This is mainly “owing to the many arrests of journalists covering Occupy Wall Street protests,” according to the organization.

There are other factors that should worry citizens about the impending fate of free information — increasingly limited access to government documents due to national security issues (perceived or real), increasing self-censorship and the recently developed phenomena of sources expecting to be anonymous instead of anonymity being an agreement under rare circumstances.

To keep journalism from declining in the U.S., reporters should look to figures like Gallegos and Rodríguez. Even though, regrettably, the U.S. government has been less responsive to the press, it is a much easier government to deal with than with Mexico’s.

Reporters should be able to make bold decisions in order to protect the profession, and not worry about arrests, the self-censorship culture, or even governmental niceties (“We respectfully ask you not to print this”).

If journalists can follow Gallegos and Rodríguez’s examples by being bold and accountable not to the government, but to readers, viewers and citizens, the U.S. press can rise from being one of America’s least trusted institutions to one of the highest.

Instead what we’ll hear is a parade of poll-tested statements from each candidate, each meant to inflame the particular passions of whatever target demographic is the key in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Are you unemployed? You’ll love Romney’s five-step plan to restore America. Are you a student? Just wait until you hear how Obama’s saved student loans. Some of these statements are true; some are false. But the word “debate” is a misnomer — even during the remarkably rowdy vice-presidential scuffle last Thursday, actual dialogue between Biden and Ryan was rare.

It’s hard to blame the candidates. The risks in engaging in conversation with an opponent on national television are staggering. It’s much safer to stare the camera in the eye and talk to the voter than look at your opponent and argue about minutiae the median voter knows nothing about. Debating skill, after all, has precious little to do with whether you’re a good president or not. Courage, political skill, and intelligence — all the traits we associate with a successful presidency — are entirely unnecessary to be a talented debater. Jimmy Carter soundly thumped Gerald Ford in the 1974 debates on the way to a presidency that was alternately irrelevant and incompetent. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was so scared of the 1980 debates that he refused to take the stage alone against President Carter until two weeks before Election Day. Terrible policies aside, Reagan’s presidency was remarkably effective at shaping policy and controlling the agenda.

The irony of the debates is they’re only useful when the candidates aren’t debating. Debates have one, and only one, legitimate use for the American people: They give low-information voters an opportunity to discover the basic beliefs of the candidates. Fifty-eight million people watched the first presidential debate last week. Most of them had very little idea what, exactly, is going on in their government. They are scared by the phrase “death panel” and “fiscal cliff” but don’t fully understand what these things are. When the candidates are looking at 58 million people and saying what they think, a decent education is being given. When Obama and Romney haggle over the specific size of Romney’s tax cut or explore the fate of Big Bird, valuable time is being wasted. Wading into the policy weeds to convince already-educated voters of some relatively small point is hopeless. Educated voters are overwhelmingly partisan voters, and partisan voters are simply not going to be persuaded to vote for a different candidate in the course of a debate. Can you name anyone who changed their planned vote after Obama got walloped last week? I didn’t think so.

If you’re an uneducated voter, watch the debates. But if you consider yourself educated, if you consider yourself locked into an ideology or candidate, don’t bother. They’re not for you. Instead, I suggest you try to understand. Understand the candidate’s simple language reflects poorly not on the candidates, but on their audience. Understand awful debates are the result of a nation’s leaders coping with a perilously uninterested citizenry. Understand all of this and join me, not in celebrating our debates, but in hating them.

In turn, the Grutter v. Bollinger decision relies on an earlier case, the 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In the case, Allan Bakke alleged that he had been discriminated against in U. California-Davis School of Medicine’s consideration of his application for admission. UC-Davis’ admissions process reserved 16 of the 100 admissions for minority students. The decision ruled that the use of a quota in the admissions process was unconstitutional because it removed minorities from competition with non-minority applicants and thereby discriminated against non-minorities. However, the decision did not bar the use of race as a factor for admission entirely, citing Harvard’s admissions program — which had filed an amicus curiae — as an example of a program that uses race only as a part of a “holistic review.” Thus, after Bakke, race could be considered, but defined quotas were barred.

The Grutter decision 25 years later upheld the key distinction laid out in Bakke. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who recently retired from the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote the majority opinion and affirmed that universities have a compelling interest to obtain diversity. O’Connor used the term “critical mass” to describe the desirable number of minority students. O’Connor’s definition of desirable levels of diversity does not rely on the benefits to minority students of their admission but rather to the institution as a whole. This is the crux of the difference between a quota — as was barred in Bakke — and a critical mass. Importantly, O’Connor’s opinion admitted that in the future, admissions should strive to become race-blind at the time such that it was no longer necessary to achieve the benefit of diversity in the institution. Should the conditions for a post-racial society be met, it is conceivable that admission decisions could then truly be race-blind without impacting diversity. O’Connor postulated that this time may be some 25 years in the future. Since her opinion, nine years have passed. America has elected the first African-American president. These concepts are central to any decision that the court may find regarding Fisher.

Oral arguments last week centered around the questions laid out in O’Connor’s decision in Grutter. The university spent much of the oral argument defending the use of the “critical mass” concept. On one hand, it cannot be defined as a number or percentage — or risk drawing dangerously near being interpreted as a quota and unconstitutional under Bakke. On the other hand, to suggest that the university had met a critical mass condition would imply under O’Connor’s ruling that the time to transition to race-blind admission had come. The university sought to define critical mass in terms of the perceived isolation of minority students enrolled in the institution, as determined by social science research. Fisher’s lawyer argued that the university had failed to adequately explain the conditions for reaching critical mass — essentially inviting them to define it in a way that would render the practice unconstitutional — either because it was too similar to a quota or because they had achieved the critical mass.

Matter of standing aside, the justices must weigh the consequences of any decision they reach. Ideally, by 2012 the U.S. would have reached a post-racial society, and every measure should be taken to achieve this noble goal. But by numerous metrics, this simply hasn’t occurred. The achievement gap in education, the income gap, the unemployment gap and numerous other disparities between minority and non-minority populations indicate that the U.S. is still far from a post-racial society. Ending affirmative action too early could erase the gains that have been achieved thus far. In a final consideration, should colleges be barred from considering race prematurely, there are numerous ways around explicit consideration of race: geography, income and even the details in an application to infer minority status and attempt to maintain diversity — which there is little question on inherent value. However, these are imperfect and open the door for advantages given to non-minority students in predominately minority school districts. It is a matter of justice — reconciling disparate and apparently opposed rights.

Early voting allows citizens to vote before Election Day, usually to accommodate out-of-state residents, such as college students, or those who will be unable to vote on the inconvenient Tuesday election day. In addition, as college students, some of us decide to vote in our home states as opposed to registering in New Hampshire. The absentee ballots that we send in are received upwards of a month before Election Day. Though these ballots aren’t counted until November 6, they still have a significant impact on election dynamics.

During the 2008 election, President Obama accrued so many votes during the early voting period in North Carolina that even though he lost the Election Day popular vote, he was still able to secure the state’s electoral votes. Though most of these early votes don’t occur a month in advance, with some states having early voting periods the weekend before the election, there is something to be said about the impact early voting has.

Voting dynamics are, in large part, influenced by the specific socioeconomic groups that are physically able to vote. For example, for some people who may work odd hours or double shifts, holding Election Day during a weekday hinders their ability to cast a vote. The fact that most election days around the world don’t occur during the week but instead occur on weekends attests to the fact that our election calendar is antiquated.

The decision to hold elections on Tuesday is based on our agrarian history. Back when the majority of Americans were farmers and needed a day to get to the polls, it seemed convenient to place Election Day on the day before market day, meaning that farmers could harvest their crops and then go to town and sell their crops as well as vote.

In modern times, Americans are increasingly located in cities and polling places have become more easily accessible to most Americans, which makes this out-of-date procedure more inconvenient than anything else. In a country in which 9:00 to 5:00 jobs are extremely common and in which voting on a Tuesday may be physically impossible for some, this choice may inadvertently serve to disenfranchise a select few.

Early voting acts as a solution to this problem by accommodating those Americans who otherwise would not be able to vote, either because of the aforementioned obstacle or because, like us college students, they temporarily reside in another state.

With this in mind, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned an Ohio law allowing only military personnel to participate in early voting. The court stated that all voters must be treated equally under Ohio law and that allowing early voting for some residents requires that it must be allowed for all.

Proponents of the law claimed that because military personnel could be deployed at any time, they deserved special privileges in terms of when they could vote. Although this point is in fact true, when it comes to voting, any incapacity is equally legitimate. Whether deployed to foreign soil or unable to vote because of the necessity to work to provide for one’s own family, the incapacity is the same and results in the same inability to participate in the voting process. Therefore, early voting must be applied equally to all residents of a state or county.

A change in one factor or one aspect of the voting process, such as early voting, can have systemic effects that alter the nature of the election and voter dynamics. The exact nature of these effects is unknown in the best case, or intended in the worst, and therefore should be avoided at all costs to prevent any form of unlawful or unfair tampering with elections.

Who is telling the truth?

Well, like most issues in politics, it depends on how you define the terms.

Let’s look at President Obama first. Although claiming in the Wednesday debate that he reduced taxes on the middle class by $3,600, the reality is that those cuts were temporary. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit saved the average family $800 a year, but it expired in 2011 and Obama did not renew it. The other tax cut Obama refers to, the payroll tax cut, expires at the end of this year as well.

We can’t forget the impact of “ObamaCare.” According to the Associated Press, nearly 6 million people will see a tax increase due to the new health insurance law. Most of these 6 million are in the “middle class” and will see their taxes rise by an average of $1,200 per year.

Mitt Romney’s plan relies on lowering tax rates and closing loopholes to make up for the difference in revenue.

His plan has been criticized as “impossible” by the Obama campaign, citing a study from a Princeton economist, Harvey Rosen.

Unfortunately for the president, Rosen soon spoke to the press claiming Obama had misrepresented his study, saying:

“I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work… The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral,” he said.

How is this possible? How can tax rates be reduced without slashing revenue? It all depends on economic growth. Cutting tax rates often spurs economic growth, as consumers have more money to spend and invest. As the economy grows, more people become wealthier and end up offsetting some of the revenue lost from lower rates.

Professor Greg Mankiw of Harvard University calculated the effects that tax cuts pay for themselves in a paper written back in 2005:

“In all of the models considered here, the dynamic response of the economy to tax changes is too large to be ignored. In almost all cases, tax cuts are partly self-financing. This is especially true for cuts in capital income taxes.”

Although Obama criticizes Romney’s plan because it “might” burden the middle class at some point, he ignores the fact that his own plans have not been particularly helpful, to say the least.

Even if Romney did need to eventually close some loopholes that currently benefit the middle-class, the tax cuts would first and foremost give relief to middle-class Americans.

Coming out is a life-changing decision that makes or breaks careers, families and lives. And, of course, it’s not something you can do in a day — it’s a continuing process.

But today is about more than just the brave personal decisions of individuals. As important as it is to live honest and open lives, Coming Out Day represents something more significant.

Today is a celebration of how times have changed. In 1988, when the first National Coming Out Day was celebrated, those who came out faced serious risks: loss of a job, abandonment by families, rejection by communities, and even injury or death.

Those risks, unfortunately, have not disappeared. But Norman and communities like it are testaments to the fact that it does get better.

Today is a celebration of the fact that many GLBTQ Sooners feel safe enough to live open lives. That hundreds of Normanites feel comfortable publically supporting the GLBTQ community and working for gay rights.

That two men or two women can walk across campus holding hands and be relatively certain they will not be harassed. That the harassment or discrimination that does happen is not the norm.

It is a celebration of the fact that some students and faculty members felt safe enough to come out in the pages of the The Daily.

In just the span of most students’ lives, the U.S. has made such progress. Just 20 years ago, GLBTQ Americans were invisible in popular culture; marriage equality was a distant dream; attacks based on sexual orientation were not called hate crimes; and “gay” was a dirty word in politics.

Now, the battle for marriage equality has spread to every state, the patchwork collection of rights and protections for GLBTQ citizens grows constantly, and the president of the United States himself is a proven (and open) advocate for gay rights.

But today also is a reminder of what it takes to keep that change coming — because the battle is far from over. As of January, in 29 states you still could be fired because of your sexual orientation, and in 34 you could be fired because of your gender identity.

Fourty-four states still lack marriage equality, barring same-sex couples from the 1,138 federal rights that come with marriage. In fact, 30 states have enshrined this discrimination in their constitution.

Most importantly, the effects on the GLBTQ community have not abated. To come out in America is still to take a risk.

Studies show GLBTQ people are more likely to commit suicide and more likely than members of any other minority to be victims of hate crimes. Hatred and homophobia still are accepted — if not expected — in the political discourse. And interpersonal discrimination is a fact of life for many.

But we’ve seen that it does get better. In order to continue this trend of progress, GLBTQ Americans must come out and be counted, and their fellow citizens must do what they can to make their communities safe places in which to exit the closet.

So do your part to make this community inclusive. If you’re an ally, work to ensure your fellow Sooners feel safe enough to live honestly. If you’re a member of the GLBTQ community, consider coming out.

In the end, today is a fullfillment of the promise made by one of the first openly gay politicians, Harvey Milk, before he was assassinated: “If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door.”

Young Americans fighting for prosperity and progress are running on a treadmill on which every attmept to move forward is met with a backward drag by debt. So far this fiscal year, 343 billion tax dollars have been spent simply on interest to maintain the existing debt. This money does not fund programs like Medicare, nor does it fund services like road construction. This is $343 billion in pure interest t  hat taxpayers lose every year. Americans cannot afford to continue to pay more and more taxes without receiving services and benefits back. As the debt gets bigger, it pulls more of us down.

Tackling the monstrous debt situation will require a change in attitudes and ideas regarding spending. Currently, the government uses a severely misguided budgeting strategy known as baseline budgeting. Under baseline budgeting, the budget of each department or program for each year is assumed to be equal to the budget for the previous year plus a built-in projected increase. Negotiations are then made with respect to this assumption that spending will always increase. Therefore, a budget allocation of “zero” means that a department’s funding actually increased by the projected amount. Even a “cut” to the baseline could still represent an increase in spending from the previous year.

In order to bring the debt down, voters must learn to reinterpret how the government talks about budgeting. It is just not enough to make cuts to a projected increase. We must settle for nothing less than a real, significant and immediate reduction in the actual number of dollars the government spends. At this time, the government would need to cut about $1.3 trillion in spending just to balance expenditures with revenues. More cuts will be needed in the future in order to pay down the debt and help our country begin to heal.

After a day of grim relief, knowing that their son was, amazingly, still alive, the Harels were visited by the IDF once more. Their son — the first Yuval Harel — had also been killed in battle.  Today, the two Yuval Harels are buried in the same row of graves in Mount Herzl Cemetery in Jerusalem.

The Harel family’s story is the history of Israel. Its people know war and the tragedy it brings in its wake in a way we, as university students in the United States, don’t and hopefully never will. Few of us know any members of the Armed Forces, and fewer still have lost someone close to them in war. Even within that small subset of people, most will never visit Iraq, Afghanistan or any place U.S. soldiers are or recently have been actively engaged in combat. Like the Malabar Front in George Orwell’s “1984,” our theaters of war exist only in the abstract and are shown — when they are shown to us at all — in nicely produced segments in between announcements about the new iPhone and Paul Ryan’s workout regimen.

Not so for Israelis. For them, war is such a part of the fabric of regular life that complete peace is a dream for them in the way an economy free of fossil fuels is a dream for many in the United States. Military conscription is mandatory for all Israeli citizens at the age of 18 — university comes after. From Haifa, Israel’s third-largest city, to Beirut, a major center of Hezbollah activity, is approximately 80 miles. To put that in perspective, that’s about half the distance from Providence to New York. When you live under a more or less constant threat of attack — from that close proximity — there’s nothing abstract about war.

Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has extensive special forces experience, having taken part in raids along the Suez Canal and leading a commando team into Syrian territory during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Perhaps most importantly, though, is that in the same cemetery as the two Yuval Harels, a few plots away, lies his brother Yonatan “Johnny” Netanyahu, who was killed in a special forces raid rescuing Israeli hostages at Entebbe Airport in Uganda. Say what you will about his policies, but Prime Minister Netanyahu has no illusions about war and its costs.

This is not a call for arms, but for empathy. Not to excuse unnecessary violence, but to try to help people understand why to many Israelis, it might not seem so unnecessary. If we ever want to have a real shot at bringing about lasting peace in the region, it has to start from a place of true understanding of both sides. What we see is a wall being built between Israel and the West Bank — what we don’t see as often are the pictures of buses in Tel Aviv going up in flames with children on board that prompted such drastic action.

It is often said that Israelis are oppressing the Palestinian people — for examples of this line of thinking I would refer you to a thoughtful piece written by Mika Zacks ’15 (“Suffering on the path to freedom,” Sept. 26). But why can’t the converse be true as well? And while innocent citizens affected by the violence in the Palestinian territories unequivocally deserve our attention, Israelis in cities like Sderot and Ashkelon live in constant fear of rocket barrages from Gaza.

The Second Intifada and the threat of a third  loom specter-like over Israeli communities near the border of the West Bank. Citizens of Haifa know they are one flare-up away from a repeat of the 2006 Lebanon War in which the city was hammered with Katyusha rockets. In Brown’s hyper-liberal political atmosphere, it is often overlooked that in Israel and the Palestinian territories, brutality is a two-way street. Our discourse needs to start treating it as such.

The ad’s narrator delivers the line “Mitt Romney knows it’s not Wall Street you have to worry about, it’s Sesame Street” while cutting to images of Big Bird, the loveable, yellow bird on the PBS show “Sesame Street.”

The Globe and other major news organizations have already identified the ad as satire. However, satire was probably too strong of a word to be applied here.

Typically, satire involves wit. This ad is anything but witty. Rather, the ad capitalizes on a line that Romney uttered in the first presidential debate a week ago: “I love Big Bird … but I’m not going to keep on spending money on things [we need] to borrow money from China to pay for it.”

However ridiculous the ad, is it really all that surprising that is was produced? It shouldn’t be.

Political candidates capitalize on the details of their opponents’ campaigns. That is the reality of 21st century campaigns.

Is it right? No. But it happens.

If the situation was reversed and Obama had uttered the Big Bird line, we could probably expect Romney to produce an ad mocking the president.

Looking forward, it will be interesting to see how Obama’s campaign responds to Sesame Workshop’s request to pull the ad, if at all.

The studio released a statement on its website Tuesday requesting that the ad be taken down because it does not “endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns,” according to The Globe.
Regardless of whether or not the ad violates the studio’s policy, its message is weak and reinforces just how bitter the presidential campaign has become.

Sex is a tough subject to be open about, and as a result, it is usually hushed, its meaning lost in between the lines. But no matter how hard it is to be serious about sex, it’s even harder to hold an open dialogue about sexual health — and specifically, the human papilloma virus, otherwise known as HPV.

Last week, Gardasil, one of two vaccines protecting against many forms of HPV, was given the OK in a study conducted by the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center. The study followed about 200,000 subjects after having been administered the HPV vaccine and determined it is safe for use. At most, the vaccination could result in a skin infection or same-day fainting — a preferred alternative to cervical cancer.

This is a fantastic step forward for cancer prevention, and hopefully, it will drive down the death rate due to cervical cancer, which is one of the most fatal cancers observed in women. However, the study won’t dispel the controversial nature of the vaccine. In the six years since the Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, Gardasil has undergone so much scrutiny for a vast number of reasons — but all of them come back to society’s discomfort with acknowledging the nature of sex.

I was with my roommates and their friends when we started talking about the vaccination. It seemed that several people we knew had received the first vaccination (out of three). But a few years after Gardasil was approved by the FDA, many began to worry that the newness of the drug meant there was still a possibility of a side effect that was yet to be discovered. It doesn’t make much sense because it’s a pre-emptive sort of worry. Nonetheless, it effectively stopped girls from receiving the rest of the vaccinations.

While I was in high school, I remember the administrators encouraging the student body to get vaccinated. But the girls I knew made fun of each other if they did end up receiving the vaccination because that must mean “she’s a whore.” Some parents even looked down on their friends for getting their girls vaccinated because she must have been somehow “tainted.”

And, even in the political arena, negative attention surrounded the HPV vaccine when, in 2007, former GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry issued an executive order to vaccinate every schoolgirl. He received a huge backlash from the Republican party and other candidates for having government meddle in an issue so personal as vaccinating one’s children.

I doubt those who took part in the backlash, both on the community and political levels, understood that cervical cancer is directly caused by HPV, and that the vaccine would prevent transmission of the virus. I also doubt they understood that the vaccination is most effective if administered prior to being sexually active.

It’s this lack of understanding about the vaccine that puts people off from promoting it. There may be a general understanding that Gardasil can lower your chances of developing cervical cancer, but people have still stigmatized the vaccine: Those who receive it must be sexually promiscuous — why else would they need to be vaccinated?

The medicine behind prevention has made great strides in progress within the past decade. We have the power to make cervical cancer virtually non-existent.

But we need to catch up psychologically. We need to put aside our fears for being considered socially tainted because risking a cancer diagnosis isn’t worth fitting into social standards.

While the media continues to largely ignore the gravity of the matter, the cold, hard truth is we were not prepared for what happened Sept. 11 at the U.S. Consulate in Libya. The cost was steep – a dead ambassador, another diplomat and two former Navy SEALs – in what was now clearly a planned attack from some kind of terrorist entity. Most fingers point toward Al Qaeda in the Maghreb.

The original position of the administration was that it was a “spontaneous” attack, for which no one could have really been prepared. Furthermore, they attributed the “spontaneous” attack to the video mocking the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

While there can be no doubt the mentioned video caused mass outrage in the Muslim world, it cannot, however, be used as the reason Ambassador Stevens and the others were brutally murdered.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice explained the attack this way during a statement she issued at the U.N. That notion has essentially been entirely debunked. Now, the heat is on her and others in the administration from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. After pressure began to build, the administration finally changed its tune and conceded it was indeed a terrorist attack. Still,the spin has not stopped there.

According to the Washington Post, a number of sensitive documents were recently found that detail the situation at the consulate prior to the attack, such as Ambassador Steven’s itinerary, the identity of several Libyan guards who had been contracted to protect the consulate and, most importantly, evidence that the U.S. Embassy requested more security out of fear of an attack based on actual intelligence assessments. These documents contradict essentially everything the administration has laid out.

Now, out of nowhere, administration officials have said they went solely off the intelligence at hand to base their belief it was spontaneous. If there was a request by the embassy for more security based off of intelligence they had, what does that say about the administration’s stance on their intelligence?

Either the intelligence is clearly faulty or the administration is trying to purposely sweep this huge intelligence failure under the rug, strictly for fear of the consequences. If what the administration said is true, then heads should be rolling at the U.S. State Department and the various intelligence agencies. If the latter is true, then heads within the administration itself need to start rolling, and the necessary policy makers, including the President, need to be held responsible.

Despite this strong criticism of the administration’s contradicting stances, we must not be so quick to jump to the worst-case conclusion, which is the administration actively knew about the threats of a terrorist attack and not only did anything to prevent it, but also actively covered it up after the fact.

We are in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty.

In this case, that is the Obama Administration, and at least personally, I will wait until I see actually definitive results before I cast my final judgments on the matter at hand.

This conversation has gone somewhat unnoticed in the United States, with Americans distracted by a weak economy and a presidential election where this particular issue is little more than a footnote, or perhaps the latest episode of “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.”

That may be because it’s become easy, or perhaps even preferred, for the specter of an armed conflict to become a distant concern. Americans are tired of war. We’ve been in at least one since before current fourth-graders were born.

Yet at the same time, citizens of the U.S. haven’t experienced the worst horrors of war — combat on its own soil — since the Civil War. Even the most recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have only been experienced firsthand by a tiny slice of the population.

Thus although we are vaguely aware of the costs of a foreign war in terms of lives and treasure, the national psyche of the U.S. isn’t properly equipped to understand the true horrors of war. So when talk of yet another conflict pops up, we respond with annoyance or even applause, instead of fear and solemnity.

Many have said Americans don’t have an “appetite” for another conflict in the Middle East;thus, the logic follows, the U.S. wouldn’t take a lead in such a conflict.

Rather it would be Israel, whose diminutive size and frequent appearance in the rants of the Islamic Republic’s leaders has it concerned over the possibility of Iran’s development of powerful weapons. However, many believe that the U.S. would almost certainly get drawn into the conflict anyway since, as a close ally of Israel, it would be seen as having explicitly or tacitly supported Israel’s move.

So any military action against Iran not only holds the possibility of dangerous escalation, but it could even strengthen Iranian leaders’ resolve to build a nuclear weapon or trigger other unforeseen consequences.

Economic sanctions are also proving to be a peaceful, albeit painful, way to put pressure on the Iranian regime. In short, there are plenty of great reasons not to start this war.

As for myself, an outsider who has paid quite a bit of attention to this issue, I too have found it becomes far too easy to talk or think about it in amoral, mathematical terms — discussions about “objectives,” “strategy,” or whether or not it would be “successful” from various viewpoints.

But this approach leaves out the most important fact and the most important reason not to go to war: human lives are at stake — people with families, careers, dreams and aspirations.

So alongside all of the talk of weapons capability, red lines, and enrichment facilities, should be a simultaneous awareness of how it all affects the Iranian people, many of whom hold generally positive feelings towards the U.S.

Many Iranians — in contrast to the distance Americans possess from armed conflict — have fresh memories of the brutal Iraq-Iran War of the 1980s, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and simply wish to live peaceful, free lives. Any military strike on Iran would deny that wish, greatly hurt a population that is by all accounts highly pro-U.S. and end innocent lives.

Once the dust settles from this year’s presidential election, we are sure to hear more and more talk about a war in Iran regardless of the victor.

History warns of the dangers of a public blasé about the effects of foreign wars justified with dubious information. But regardless of what happens in the months and years to come, I encourage you to always heed the enormous power of perspective when discussing and thinking about these matters. Lives are at stake.

How much is $16 trillion? To put it in perspective, $16 trillion would buy Apple, Inc. 25 times. It would buy the Chicago Cubs more than 9,000 times or pay this year’s undergraduate tuition for more than 1.3 billion University of Illinois students. It’s a lot of money.

The national debt is currently exceeding our nation’s GDP. This means that even if our government collected every penny our economy reels in, it still would not even cover the debt our government has created. Even though part of the debt issue was created under the Bush Administration because of the wars that were waged, the amount of debt that President Bush created in eight years was doubled under the Obama Administration in only four years. The main contributor in Obama’s Administration debt explosion was the so-called “stimulus,” which showed little to no to bad results as key economic indicators point out.

The issue here is that our government is spending money recklessly, and the taxpayers suffer the consequences and eventually foot the bill. If it is not from the taxpayers’ wallets then it is either lent from foreign investors or simply just printing more money with nothing to hold the value of our currency. If the foreign countries lending us money take away our credit card, it could have disastrous effects.

How can we trust the government with our money when it is wasting it and putting a burden on us in the future due to their negligence? Who is going to pay back this debt? We are. We paid taxes for the government to throw away on pointless social programs and “stimulus.” Now, we will have to pay more taxes in the future to foot the bill for this wasteful spending. If we spread out the debt amongst the population, each citizen will have to fork over nearly $52,000. When considering just the taxpayers, each would have to pay $140,500. That number is going up, and that means taxes are going up. Higher taxes on business means they will hire fewer people, which means fewer jobs for us when we graduate. It is a potentially devastating cycle.

The issue with the role of the government is still a top priority that many are concerned about and is a top issue in the election. Republicans want to cut spending, help businesses create more jobs and hire more people and begin to pay down the national debt. It is economically proven that by reducing the size of government and by decreasing taxes, economic expansion will be possible. In the long run, we will begin to see the debt clock move backward and our nation will move forward as the economic powerhouse.

For those who recognize our harrowing environmental circumstance and are compelled to heed to the call of sustainability (as we all should), there are means of action. Low-carbon alternatives to conventional consumer goods are becoming ubiquitous, and there is an incipient cultural shift toward more sustainable lifestyles that will surely play a prominent role in the future.

But we can only go so far in our individual efforts. We must not neglect the need for large-scale, government-run operations to assuage our addiction to fossil fuels. It is for precisely this reason we all must abandon our naive fears of nuclear energy and embrace nuclear power for what it really is: a safe, convenient and efficient source of energy that must be utilized if we are to seriously combat our climate crisis.

In any pragmatic examination of energy policy, there are three key terms that must first be established: baseload, footprint and portfolio.

Gwyneth Cravens, an environmental activist and former New Yorker editor, explains baseload most concisely in her 2007 book, Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy. Cravens describes baseload as “the minimum amount of proven, consistent, around-the-clock power that utilities must supply to meet the demands of their millions of consumers.”

Grid power, the energy required to fuel our growing cities and booming urbanized populations, requires baseload as its foundation. So far in the U.S., baseload comes from fossil fuels (68 percent), renewable energy (13 percent) and nuclear power (19 percent). Wind and solar, however desirable, cannot currently provide baseload power, but future innovations in energy storage could update their potential. Until then, considering hydroelectricity’s myriad inconveniences, nuclear energy proves to be the most viable energy source to meet our baseload needs.

Footprint is the physical efficiency of a given utility. For example, to produce 1,000 megawatts of energy, a wind farm would have to cover 200 square miles, and a solar array would require 50 square miles. In comparison, a nuclear power plant would take up only one-third of a square mile to obtain the same amount of power.

Beyond its spacial capabilities, nuclear waste is miniscule in size. A person’s entire lifetime’s worth of electricity, strictly from nuclear energy, amounts to waste roughly the size of a Coke can. From there, nuclear waste goes into dry cask storage, where it is kept in a small area and is monitored and controlled.

In comparison, a person using strictly coal produces 77 tons of carbon dioxide in a lifetime. It is then released into our planet’s atmosphere, contributing to a climate crisis that threatens our very existence.

Nuclear meltdown incidents are always a possibility but are rare. However, the safety of nuclear power plants has advanced dramatically since the cases of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In fact, the cause of last year’s Fukushima Daiichi disaster had more to do with negligent geographical placement than anything else.

The last essential term in understanding nuclear energy’s importance is portfolio, which refers to the fact climate change is such a serious matter that we have to do everything, simultaneously, to combat it.

Nuclear energy is no be-all cure, and it certainly has its risks, but they are miniscule compared to the climate chaos that will ensue if we do not reform our current energy policies. At the very least, we should embrace nuclear energy as a temporary alternative to fossil fuels while the transition to a more renewable-based energy economy is being developed.

In any case, nuclear energy’s undeserved stigma is something that will simply have to evaporate as climate change becomes more readily apparent and accepted. Let’s just hope that by then, it’s not too late.

Surely, though, this chaos was nothing that a “proud hunter” like Paul Ryan couldn’t tame. Indeed, for all the hype surrounding his natural charisma and silver tongue, I was half-expecting to be swept up in a whirlwind of Ryan-ism myself. If there’s one thing that’s difficult for me to take down with a straight face, it’s political rhetoric. The cattiness, the baseless accusations, the half-truths and unabashed contradictions — whether it’s from the right or the left, I’m prone to dismissing most of the vitriol as static. Would Ryan, though, with his reported irresistible charm, stand alone as a model of integrity among it all? Could he break through my icy layer of skepticism?

In a word: no. By the time Ryan actually got on stage, my old habits had already crept safely back in. Whether it was inflammatory, garbled or just plain uncomfortable, each Republican hopeful that filed onto the stage only pushed me closer to the edge of outright political apathy. Kerry Bentivolio, a House hopeful for Michigan’s 11th district, stammered through vague ideas of hope and American values. U.S. Rep. Candice Miller managed to blame high gas prices on “an absence of leadership in the White House.” My favorite in terms of entertainment value had to be Don Volarics, whose over-the-top hysterics mostly resulted in awkward applause or dead air. I don’t think he has my vote for the House of Representatives, but I’ll definitely put him down for “Most Likely To Have Pregamed With A Box of 5-Hour Energy”.

Of course, the common thread throughout all of this rambling stemmed back to the faults of one man: President Barack Obama. Pastor Kent Clark lamented how the Lord had been “banned from America” by the current administration. Pete Hoekstra — Sen. Stabenow’s Republican challenger — criticized the strength of our national security. Ben Bishop, the tween son of Oakland County’s Mike Bishop, was given a minute to talk about how his generation wouldn’t have the ability to pay off the debts that Obama’s spending would incur upon them. Thank you, Mike, for sacrificing your son in order to complete this three-ring circus of a rally. Ugh.

I realize that the Republican campaign has never been about winning votes through fair play and ethics, but when Ryan and his cronies are coming out with a holier-than-thou attitude about the dirtiness of the political process, how can you not feel like your intelligence has been insulted a little bit? “Obama is criticizing.” Ryan said. “He’s going from hope and change, to attack and blame. We’re not gonna fall for that.” What do you call what you’ve all been doing for the past two hours, Paul? It’s disheartening, to say the least, that by the end of the night, the only speaker who had said anything with even an ounce of goodwill towards the opposition was none other than Michigan’s own, Kid Rock.

“I strongly believe,” he said, “that it’s possible to disagree about politics without hating each other.” That may be true, Kid, but just be sure to let your friends know it too.

It is difficult to see what could be so off-putting about a movement whose primary aims are so innocuous. I doubt that feminism’s detractors would oppose the elimination of institutionalized gender inequalities or endorse the objectifying practices that underlie a culture of rampant sexual assault. It is equally unlikely that these self-proclaimed anti-feminists would champion the glass ceiling, defend employment discrimination or speak out on behalf of domestic abuse. What, then, could possibly account for the recent wave of hostility toward the feminist position — a position whose goals are so uncontroversial by most modern standards?

“People see feminism as a knocking down of men rather than a convergence of the two genders,” one ’13 male, who asked to remain anonymous, said. Furthermore, J.P. Harrington ’14 explained that he is not a feminist because he perceives the movement as having “largely strayed from self-determination and independence to arguing for special benefits.”

These anecdotal reports lend credence to what I have long suspected — that most opposition to feminism derives from a complete misunderstanding of what the movement actually entails. Backlash against the feminist position is not a response to the arguments and ideas presented in feminist literature or women’s and gender studies classrooms, but rather a response to the caricatures of feminism that riddle popular culture.

According to common logic, the feminist is an unshaven, combative creature intent on the utter destruction of the male sex. She is willfully ignorant of the difficulties that males face in our society, and she is self-righteously indignant at every opportunity. Although she is quick to blame individual men for the long history of chauvinism plaguing the Western world, she remains incredibly resistant to engaging in even a cursory examination of her own role in the process of female marginalization. Even the most favorable popular portrayals of feminists still tend to represent them as aggressive, abrasive and unappealingly sanctimonious.

Such a characterization could not be more misleading. Although the term “feminism” refers to a diverse array of stances and intellectual advocacies, there is widespread consensus among feminists that the goal of the movement is to promote critical dialogue and self-reflection. Feminism is not so much a commitment to a certain set of beliefs as it is a commitment to general inquiry and dialectic. Prominent feminist theorists like Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler are less wedded to any particular account of the world than they are to presenting challenges to unquestioned cultural conventions.

Much of the criticism levied against feminism relies on the unfounded assumption that feminists ignore men’s issues or hope to fight misogynistic hierarchies by reversing them. In point of fact, most contemporary feminists are quite sympathetic to the male plight. From a feminist perspective, female oppression and male oppression arise from the same central source: from the series of social expectations that conspire to create gender roles. The chauvinism responsible for the suppression of women is bound up with the very same cultural structures that demand certain behaviors from men. The notion that women should be demure, sentimental and delicate is closely related to the corresponding notion that men should be strong, stalwart and reserved. Consequently, any discussion of gender norms that fails to address men’s issues is miserably incomplete.

Feminism is nothing if not cautious when it comes to assigning responsibility and blame — indeed, many tomes have been dedicated to an examination of women’s hand in their own subjugation, a consequence of the internalization of sexist ideologies. The position is not anti-men — it is merely anti-patriarchy, and reasonably so.

The myth of the dogmatic, hysterical feminist is one more attempt to silence the feminine voice and discredit the female point of view. The assumption implicit in such accounts is that women could only oppose their own oppression by assuming an unreasonable posture, an assumption that smacks of familiar stereotypes and prejudices.

George Washington U. has demonstrated time and again a commitment to racial diversity on campus since University President Steven Knapp took the helm. In 2010, Knapp created the President’s Council on Diversity and Inclusion to focus on increasing diversity in the student body, faculty and curriculum. Each year, the Office of Admissions holds a multicultural open house for underrepresented students and minorities. In February 2011, the University hired a Vice Provost of Diversity and Inclusion who has plans to offer grants to help fund diversity efforts on campus.

Provost Steven Lerman reaffirmed the University’s commitment to race in the admissions process in his opening remarks at a panel discussion on the Fisher v. UT case, hosted by the GW Law School Sept. 24.

Like any college or university, race is merely one factor among many within GW’s admissions process. Students are not accepted or denied based exclusively on race, but instead on a combination of several factors including applicants’ high school GPAs, extracurricular activities, personal essays and standardized test scores. It is a holistic approach which examines a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses in a variety of areas.

At a time when college admissions across the country are becoming increasingly competitive, students and their families are looking for a way to make sense of a process that is rarely straightforward. Students often wonder why they were denied admission when their peers were accepted.

The college admissions process is, by nature, nuanced and subjective. And all too often, students use race as a scapegoat to justify their rejections. They sometimes assume that if a minority student receives a spot in the incoming freshman class, that student had an advantage because of his or her race. This cultural reality is proof that inequality and racial bias still exist on campuses across the country.

While race is a factor in admissions, it is not the only one.

In the past, the Office of Admissions has made diversity a priority.

However, the outcome of this case threatens to undo the University’s efforts toward racial equality and representation on campus. Although it is impossible to predict the court’s ruling, if affirmative action is struck down, the makeup of future classes at GW and on other college campuses could be radically different. If race is removed from the application process, it will be more difficult for admissions offices to admit an ethnically diverse class.

If affirmative action is struck down, GW could become more homogeneous. Efforts to promote a multicultural open house would be undermined.

But more importantly, GW would no longer be able to use race as a factor in its admissions process.

The 2003 benchmark case on affirmative action, Grutter v. Bollinger, states that there are tremendous social benefits to receiving an education in a diverse environment. And subsequent studies have affirmed this. Exposure to different races, ethnicities and cultures is a cornerstone of the college experience at GW.

There are a lot of factors within any admissions process, but race is the one factor that is most often contested. Still, there are other admissions criteria also of importance which are rarely called into question. Racial bias is still a tenuous subject in the U.S. That’s why the preservation of affirmative action at colleges and universities is vital, and why cases like the one at hand are so important to the future of higher education.

The Constitution is a living breathing document, one whose meaning must continue to be debated and allowed to evolve as the country changes socially and culturally. The issue regarding affirmative action is something that will likely be discussed for decades to come.

Perhaps one day, there will be no need for race to be considered in the admission process. But until all Americans have equal opportunity, until we are all truly on a level playing field, race must continue to be a factor in college admissions.

Yes, Romney won. While Obama effused confidence in his plan and maintained a calm demeanor, there was something listless about his movements all night. Perhaps unaware that, for the first time, debates would be viewed on split-screen television, Obama spent much of the night looking down and taking notes while Romney was talking. He was unprepared for Romney’s blatant denial of Obama’s assertions that the plan Romney champions would add $5 trillion to the deficit through tax cuts for the rich, repeating it as though stunned when Romney insisted this wasn’t the case.

To his credit, Romney—who trailed Obama in the polls coming into the night—played the attacker from the beginning and went after the president’s record on issues from the economy to energy policy. He was animated from the onset and nothing, not even moderator Jim Lehrer, stopped him from a harrowing attack on Obama’s record. The aggression was borne out of desperation; Romney has steadily been falling further and further back in the polls since the Democratic National Convention, and nothing truly positive has bolstered his campaign since.

Yet, if the expectations for Romney had not been so low coming into the debate would we have been all that surprised? The knock on Mitt is his inability to empathize with his constituents—his comments about the “47 percent” refueled criticism that he is out-of touch—but he displayed a talent for debating during the Republican primaries. His one gaffe, offering to bet Rick Perry $10,000 on an outcome, was tactless but displayed his comfort on the stage.

You could have watched this debate without sound and proclaimed him the victor, much as you could during the Republican primaries. Here Mitt looks more comfortable than at formal functions; his body language is positive, and his expression reflects his eagerness for confrontation. Obama’s reputation as a great orator is well deserved, but Romney is no slouch in this department. Had we come into this debate acknowledging Romney’s skills, perhaps the result would not have been so shocking.

Similarly, it is important to acknowledge the nature of the first debate. The discussion topics—the economy and health care—lent themselves to a discussion of Obama’s record. They are major topics in the election, no doubt, but topics that Obama was unable to turn into a discussion of Romney’s history. Phrases like “the one percent,” “Bain Capital,” and “the forty-seven percent” were conspicuously absent from the president’s lexicon as he abstained from a full-on attack of Romney’s record.

The first debate routinely goes in favor of the challenger, and there are two more to come. In the meantime, Obama will likely regroup and prepare to come out focused and on the attack from the first question. In the first debate, as The Atlantic’s James Fallows writes, challengers are “elevated simply by being matched on equal footing with the president.” Obama was also forced to publicly argue with someone directly opposed to his views for the first time in four years, while Romney spent his winter crisscrossing the country swapping intellectual banter with Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. While not the liberal standard-bearer Romney faced Wednesday, the trio provided a diverse array of attacks on Romney’s record he quickly learned to parry and avoid.

Polling shows a wide discrepancy in the number of Americans who declared Romney the victor—as much as three to one by CNN’s estimate—but we should view these findings with caution. A simple random dialing method of polling American households still riding the emotional crest of the debate is insufficient evidence for how this will affect the race moving forward. The number of undecided voters remaining is a minute fraction of the total electorate, and few committed votes likely switched sides after Wednesday night.

Media hyperbole like Sullivan’s draws good ratings but is too preemptive. There are three more debates and, if the 67.2 million Americans that tuned in Wednesday night are any indicator, the country will be watching. Next week’s matchup of two political bulldogs in Joe Biden and Paul Ryan should set the tone for a more adversarial Barack Obama and Mitt Romney matchup the week after.

Certainly Romney outperformed expectations, but lest we forget, some were on the edge of declaring the race over as little as a week ago. The first debate favors the challenger, the second the incumbent. This story is far from over.

Apple Maps featured directions that were largely incorrect, flattened images of famous structures such as the Eiffel Tower and bridges that went underwater, among other glaring inaccuracies. The faulty application was not only limited to iPhone 5 users, but also affected Apple products that were updated to the new operating system, iOS6.

Technology has changed our exposure to such mistakes in many ways. Information and communication are widespread, and blunders such as missing products on Amazon’s website or unexpected changes like the implementation of Facebook’s Timeline feature are more visible than ever before. This drastically changes the relationship between individuals and the masses, as online and technically-savvy businesses must be transparent in order to gain customer trust. Similarly, individuals are now able to openly express grievances with the intention and expectation that the intended audience — Apple, in this case — will know of their critiques. A company may even respond in a big way, such as Apple has, through a public letter on their homepage.

A quick search notes that many of the largest and most well-known tech-based companies are frequently apologizing for a variety of issues. In addition to those mentioned at Apple, Amazon and Facebook, the Sony Corporation, Research In Motion’s Blackberry Corporation and even Netflix CEO Reed Hastings have all at some point (for some, more than once) apologized for faulty service.

As consumers, we should be pleased that the companies producing goods in our current technologically-advanced and media-regulated age are aware of the incredible loyalty required to ensure the trust of the consumer. Companies producing our products are interested in our satisfaction because it ensures good business. Honesty has become an effective means of managing product shortcomings and is better than previous attempts to mislead an intelligent and capable public.

Not only do these “incredibly high standards” lead major corporations to produce better products and larger profits, but they also are the same driving forces that create some of the most innovative and competitive brands that exist today. When we set these standards, mistakes will happen. But we will also see the emergence of some really good ideas. Errors should no longer be seen in a negative light — they produce and enforce some of the most unique and practical ideas, expediting the creative process in most cases. In Apple’s particular scenario, the Maps debacle could perhaps lead to a partnership between companies to change the way applications function on the iPhone and set the stage for more personalized and customizable smartphones.

Apologizing for a blatant inadequacy will generate respect. In a world in which creativity is a driving force in business and innovation is a proud sponsor of some of the most important cultural developments, there are plenty of opportunities to make mistakes. But in this same world where information is available with a click of a button, those mistakes or faulty claims are never hidden for long. Apple’s big-time fluke reminds us of the importance of honesty in our society and that we should demand that individuals and businesses possess integrity in everything they do.

In 1964, Sulzberger helped take the libel case New York Times v. Sullivan all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, culminating in a decision which perhaps did more than any other to ensure freedom of the press. The Times published a full-page advertisement implying high criticism of L.B. Sullivan, the Public Safety Commissioner of Montgomery, Ala. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects any statements published about public officials made without “actual malice,” meaning the statements could not be made knowing they were false or with “reckless disregard” of their possible falsity. In other words, the standard for prosecuting the press for criticizing any public official was made extremely high, so high as to render it almost impossible for such an official to prevail.

In 1971, The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, classified documents from the U.S. military that detailed hidden secrets of the military’s tactics and involvement in Vietnam. The exposed material cast a dark shadow of doubt on the legitimacy and truthfulness of previous statements issued by the Pentagon and the presidency, in some cases even revealing the outright lies previously perpetrated on an unknowing public. Sulzberger was even warned that he might face the possibility of a prison sentence as a result of his actions, but he proceeded regardless. (And fortunately stayed out of jail.)

In 1970 Sulzberger introduced the op-ed page, a forum for commentary columnists and others. For example, this section is the primary medium for Nicholas D. Kristof, the columnist and author whose book “Half the Sky” was the UConn Reads selection last semester and who filled the Student Union Theatre with his lecture in April. The newspaper won 31 Pulitzer Prizes while Sulzberger was at the helm from 1963 to 1992.

As student journalists ourselves, we value and take lessons from the legacy Sulzberger set. But even for those not looking to enter the journalism field, the New York Times has for decades exposed corruption, brought an unparalleled level of news analysis to the debate and helped keep public officials honest. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger played no small part in helping craft and retain that reputation.

While Romney might not be making one of the blatant mistakes he’s become known for this election season, the move holds little political value for his campaign — it won’t impact the Latino vote to any significant extent, and it could potentially alienate his more conservative supporters.

At first glance, supporting Obama’s program seems like a great move for Romney. He comes off as open-minded and sympathetic toward a demographic that has criticized him for being out-of-touch. Changing his stance could also be a sign of compromise in an extremely uncompromising election.

Upon further inspection, however, the decision seems to be almost entirely politically motivated. In light of the fact that Romney has had to put his foot in his mouth more than once while discussing immigration policy, his new position is more a political Band-Aid than a genuine effort to improve important immigration issues. It should also be noted that rather than adding anything to the debate on the immigration issue, Romney is simply taking one pre-existing program and promising not to cancel it. And he isn’t even referencing actual immigrants — since the program deals only with younger illegal “immigrants” — most of whom did not choose to come here, but were brought to the United States at a young age — this is far from an actual plan to tackle the problem of illegal immigration.

Though making such a politically — rather than ethically — motivated decision might seem harmless, Romney’s new stance could prove detrimental to his campaign and his complete plan for immigration, which he says will be implemented in his first term.

With relatively high Latino populations in swing states such as Colorado and Nevada, the Latino vote will be a major determining factor in the election. According to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, however, 69 percent of Latino voters support Obama as of last month. To change the minds of such an overwhelming majority would require much more effort on Romney’s part than agreeing once with Obama — such as creating his own policy and campaigning with it openly.

Obviously, Romney isn’t approaching the Latino voting bloc as effectively as he could be. According to a CNN poll taken last month, 44 percent of Latino voters consider the economy to be the most important issue facing the country today versus 14 percent who chose immigration. To appeal to a demographic that overwhelmingly supports Obama — who has been criticized for vague and ineffective economic policy — Romney should have focused on this rather than make a small compromise to his immigration policy.

His compromise will, however, be seriously taken into account by another demographic: staunch conservatives, who will interpret the move as weakness on Romney’s part. It also might offend those who strongly believe in rigid anti-immigration policy. This is a group of voters that Romney has locked down. Though it is unlikely conservatives will instead support Obama, Romney should be keeping them as close as possible.

Romney’s commitment to continue Obama’s immigration program is inconsistent with his previously harsh immigration policy, which could cause problems down the road if he is elected president. And Romney will have trouble following through on his other initiatives regarding immigration if he has to continue supporting a policy that isn’t consistent with his platform. To truly improve his numbers in the polls, Romney must focus on making concrete and effective policies rather than insignificant compromises.

We’re not talking about far-right religious morals. This morality is one of simple right and wrong — morals in their most basic sense. I find it interesting that Romney would reference morality when talking about deficit reduction, given his policies and his choice of running mate.

“The Path to Prosperity,” better known as the Ryan Budget, calls for massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Pell Grants. This essentially amounts to balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. In a recent New York Times article, Larkin Warren, a self-professed “former welfare mom” told her story of getting through four years of college by heavily relying on government assistance. She took out student loans, accepted Pell Grants and used food stamps. Her road was an arduous one, but with perseverance, hard work and a lot of help, she eventually graduated and found gainful employment.

Romney’s injection of morality into the debate will likely go unnoticed, but it shouldn’t. The plans that he and his running mate have put forward are, at best, of questionable morality. Though Romney and Ryan both preach “self-reliance” in accordance with their religious morals, they’re largely dodging the elephant in the room. Cutting welfare, whether it’s for students, the elderly, children or just people down on their luck, is horrifically immoral. People need these programs, especially during a period of economic crisis — not just to advance in society, but to get by day-to-day. If Romney wants to talk morals, he needs to justify how he can propose hurting the poor so badly to balance the budget.

Yes, I realize that paying off our federal debt would be a moral achievement. The massive debt we carry makes our country extremely vulnerable as well as weak in diplomatic relations. It would be good for us to be debt-free, or at least minimally in debt. But we cannot alleviate this problem on the backs of our poor. The people in this country who have the hardest lives already shouldn’t be asked to sacrifice even more when there are other ways to balance the budget.

As President Obama asserted, the very wealthiest in America can afford to pay a little more. I’m not proposing we balance the budget purely through increased taxes on the rich — that isn’t moral either. Plus, it would staunch economic growth. The facts, however, are that the richest 1 percent of the country own more than 40 percent of the nation’s wealth and pay historically low tax rates. Everyone needs to pay his or her fair share, especially those who can afford a little extra. By increasing taxes, we can begin to cut down our deficit while still providing essential services to grow the economy.

I commend Romney for bringing morals into the discussion — morals, after all, are the basis of law. Romney’s ideas on economic morals, however, are just plain backwards. If I were President Obama, I’d be sure to point that out at the next debate, especially considering the sharp contrast his economic policies present. Romney was the clear winner of Wednesday night’s debate, but he shouldn’t have been. After taking such extreme positions during the primary, not to mention a slew of gaffes and Obama’s campaign ads, which have painted a less than flattering picture of the former governor, I was expecting Romney to be left in the dust during the first debate. President Obama, however, faltered, while the Romney pounded his best talking points home.

Here’s a piece of advice for the president: if he wants to win, he should remind everyone that the guy at the other podium wants to cut help for the poor. Then he should ask the American people if they’d consider someone willing to do that to be “moral.”

Walk up to any business owner or manager and ask them the top five things wrong with their business and possible solutions to those problems, and it’s a sure thing that person can rattle them off in but a minute or two with no thought, and probably have a dozen more problems to give you. And it’s no feat for them to do so really; the business is their life.

Whether you like the idea or not, for competent, diligent, successful people, work does tend to become one’s life, and every little facet of one’s work is as known as the proverbial back of one’s hand. The same is certainly true, and hopefully even moreso given the stakes, for the president of the United States of America.

It was with the typical dismay of this election cycle that we found a story on CNN Tuesday afternoon about President Barack Obama taking a break from studying for the debates to speak with workers at the local campaign office. The president quipped that his staff was keeping him busy boning up on the campaign’s message, making him “do his homework.”

Of course, there’s nothing to be shocked by there; that a candidate would study for a debate is nothing new. No doubt Mitt Romney is off somewhere doing the same thing as you read this. However, that the president of this nation needs to cram to deliver information about the country and his proposals to move forward is just plain disheartening and revelatory of the modern so-called “politician’s” lack of actual political skill.

The presidency is Obama’s life and has been for the last four years. There are few people in the world as qualified to talk about government and matters of American domestic and foreign policy as he is. A truly talented politician president, one who possesses that indescribable spark of the truly political individual, would have no need to study for a debate at all. He could simply waltz on stage and tell it like it is.

And the people would love him for it.

Unless, of course, what’s being studied is a canned message developed by apolitical propagandists who are less interested in public interaction and more interested in scamming the most votes out of our broken electoral system. Furthermore, that candidates occupy themselves memorizing what amounts to a script reveals just how much of a media sideshow elections and politics have become.

Candidates are now asked meaningless questions like “Coke or Pepsi?” Candidates jumping through flaming hoops and balancing balls on their noses will likely be next in the circus the debates have become. Our candidates for public office have been reduced to mere stage actors giving a performance for a witless audience. And while TV networks rake in all the advertising dollars, American civic life dwindles further.

One day Americans will all wake up and ask, “Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?” On that day, it’ll be too late.

Manning was arrested on May 26, 2010 and has been under U.S. military detainment ever since.

Recently, Manning’s defense attorney, David Coombs, filed a motion stating that Manning’s charges should be dismissed because his right to a speedy trial has been completely violated.

“As of the date of this motion, Pfc. Manning has been in pretrial confinement for 845 days,” Coombs said. “With trial scheduled to commence on Feb. 4, 2013, Pfc. Manning will have spent a grand total of 983 days in pre-trial confinement before even a single piece of evidence is offered against him.”

Whether he is labeled a whistleblower or a cyber-terrorist, the handling of such a nonviolent criminal case by the military’s judicial system is absolutely horrendous. The underlying motive for journalists and the press is to inform an otherwise uninformed democratic society so people within can choose their political candidates accordingly.

Never in the history of the U.S. has any administration utilized the Espionage Act so frequently as President Barack Obama’s administration, and the exponential expansion of information into the hands of people through technology undoubtedly plays a role in the increase of these cases.

It’s ironic that Manning’s imposition of restraint could be more than 630 days before the trial for exposing the espionage acts of our government and then get charged as a spy.

We are entering a new age where government officials cannot protect their classified information from the people, and we are starting to see an increased vigilance among the Internet community as a form of civil disobedience.

Users’ understanding of the Internet is increasing at a remarkable degree. The advances have been rapid, and it’s getting harder for anybody, including our government, to hide anything.

Manning’s case proves that Internet-related activities are going to fall under ever-increasing scrutiny until it is no longer a forum for the people.

Granted, Manning most likely had animosity toward the military and his peers because of the treatment toward his alleged “gender confusion,” as the military calls it. Wherever his motives to leak the information came from, Manning kept the military’s over-reaching arm in check.

The crimes blatantly committed on the videos are far worse than anything Manning has done, but none of these personnel were convicted or tried for any of these crimes.

This case will undoubtedly set a precedent to decide how much the government can get away with in regards to military operations and prisoner detainment.

While the media tried to generate ad revenue off other stories like the Trayvon Martin case, the Manning case fell to the wayside. It’s easy to get the public riled up over issues like race, but getting the public riled up against the military-industrial complex is against the corporate conglomerates’ and governmental institution’s interests.

Barack Obama:

When he first took office, President Barack Obama seemed like a dream come true for those concerned with civil liberties. He decried his predecessor’s record of torture, overreaching presidential power and secrecy, and he ran on promises of an open government.

He did fulfill some of those promises. He banned torture (including waterboarding), promised to close our prison at Guantanamo Bay and closed the CIA’s secret prisons. But it quickly became apparent that Obama was not the white knight civil libertarians had been hoping for: His record of abuses matches, if not outdoes, that of any president who came before him.

• He gave in to a stubborn Congress and ceased efforts to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

• Obama has continued indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay and brought the policy home by signing the National Defense Authorization Act this year. The act gives the military the power to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone, citizens included, who is suspected of terrorist connections.

• He has continued the warrantless surveillance of American citizens started by his predecessor.

• Obama has demonstrated an enthusiasm for targeted killings and drone warfare, which not only cause large numbers of civilian deaths but also raise troubling questions about the bounds of executive power.

• Perhaps worst of all, he has proven he can and will order the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad based on suspected terrorist connections. Obama bragged about the CIA-orchestrated death of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim cleric who had not been charged for a crime or tried before a court when a U.S. drone strike ended his life.

• His administration has refused to prosecute CIA operatives or other officials responsible for the program of torture under former President George W. Bush. In not investigating and prosecuting those responsible for war crimes, Obama violated international law, and his actions justify the refusal of other states to investigate their own alleged war crimes.

• Domestic dissent also has seen its share of attacks in the form of police harassment and harsh repression.

The White House counsel has tried to explain this radical departure from the views Obama campaigned on in 2008, telling the Wall Street Journal, “Until one experiences [the presidency] first hand, it is difficult to appreciate fully how you need flexibility in a lot of circumstances.”

It’s clear that no one but former presidents truly can understand the pressures and necessities of the job, but no pressure is great enough to justify the violation of the basic individual rights that underlie our society and protect us from federal power.

No, it’s more likely that Obama simply is continuing a long presidential tradition. Since the 1930s, presidents have chosen national security over civil liberties — whether it was the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, the Loyalty Program that paved the way for McCarthyism or the embracing of CIA covert actions and “management” of the press.

Between the president’s duty to protect the nation, the daily briefs on a steady flow of threats and the opposing party’s readiness to strike at any perceived weakness, presidents are pressured to favor security over vital civil liberties.

Obama is not excepted from these pressures. And in response, he has sold out the American people in order to vastly expand the reach of executive power. Obama has eroded citizens’ most vital protections against state abuses in the name of supposedly protecting them from outside threats.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, declared himself “disgusted” with Obama’s record. We have to agree.

Mitt Romney:

Without four years as president, Republican candidate Mitt Romney has no national security record to scrutinize. But his campaign statements say enough.

• Romney has no plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. In 2007, he said, “I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. … My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.”

• In 2012, Romney said in a debate he, too, would have signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the power to indefinitely detain citizens suspected of terrorist ties. Obama signed the act on Dec. 31.

• He has vocally supported the same warrantless surveillance used by Obama and condoned by the PATRIOT Act. In a November 2011 debate on National Security, he said, “We need tools when war is waged domestically … We’ll use the Constitution and criminal law for those people who commit crimes, but those who commit war and attack the United States and pursue treason of various kinds, we will use instead a very different form of law.”

• In the same debate, he shrugged off concerns about individual rights being eroded by government power: “And I hear from time to time people say, ‘Hey, wait a second, we have civil liberties we have to worry about.’ But don’t forget the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive …”

• He also agreed with Obama’s assassination of an American citizen in Yemen without due process.

• His campaign spokeswoman said last year Romney does not believe waterboarding is torture and would not promise to ban the technique. She said he would not specify the “enhanced interrogation techniques” a Romney administration would use against terrorists.

• In 2009, he decried the possibility of investigations into CIA torture allegations. He worried that such investigations might cause other nations to refuse future partnerships in which prisoners are shipped to those countries for interrogations that violate international law (known as extraordinary rendition).

Unlike Obama, Romney has every reason to stick to these stances. His base would expect nothing less, and the appearance of being tough on national security has won him major points.

But for those in the Republican Party who lean more toward Libertarian views — or anyone concerned about government overreach and human rights — there seems to be no good choice come November.

Low voter turnout has been a point of complaint for spirited citizens for decades. Civil-minded types will point to dismal returns from the ballot box as a failure to perform basic civil duties. This is especially true at crucial local and state elections where a single vote carries much more weight than one vote in large national elections.

But registered voters staying home may be a sign of an improving and established democracy rather than a failing one.

On Nov. 6, millions of Americans will perform their “duties” and walk out of a polling place proudly displaying an “I Voted” sticker, proving to their communities that they care about their country. The Get Out the Vote and voter registration drives sprout up across the country in election years to preach that regardless who you cast a ballot for, showing up to the polls is positive.

It’s not negative to feel good about participating in government or influencing others to do so, but isn’t strange that a major motivation for influencing elections is personal pride?

More importantly, we should question whether pushing citizens to the polls at all costs is truly beneficial to our democracy.

Every vote casted should be made by an educated and informed citizen who has a stake in the effect of their selection. The most inconsistent voters, those who show up to one election but not another, are also the most likely to be less educated voters.

There are two reasons why low voter turnout can actually benefit government and even representation.

First, those who aren’t motivated to show up to the polls are unlikely to be educated on or have an opinion about the issues and candidates on the ballot. Sure, apathy is never a good thing, but is ignorantly casting votes any better? Just the opposite: it’s worse.

Second, voting on any and every issue as a matter of civic duty means that voters will inevitably select between options on policy or platforms that don’t affect their lives, diluting the weight of every vote cast by an affected citizen.

In some cases, this is okay; an educated voter can choose an option likely to benefit the whole of society. However, in most instances, an unaffected voter will find it hard to understand the reach of their vote and how they are changing other citizen’s lives.

Voting is a citizen’s right, not a duty. Those who choose to vote, however, ought to understand the civic duty of being an informed voter. There are no points for bubbling in ballot choices without researching their meaning.

Sooners, show up to the polls this November. Being involved can, and should, be absolutely positive. Show up prepared and for the right reasons and you will be part of the most important part of our democratic system.

But, afterward, understand that the “I Voted” sticker on your chest doesn’t tell the whole story. Maybe that sticker should include a modifier in the form of an asterisk:

“I voted*

*responsibly.”

Maybe, despite killing of Osama bin Laden, the Obama team is actually a bunch of “soft” warriors who want the United States to be liked, especially in the Middle East.

I, for one, called it right when the attack took place on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, which left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. I wrote it was “probably a group related to al-Qaida and its offspring is behind the escalating crisis.” I concluded so on Sept. 13. (See my Des Moines Register blog.)

I wrote on Sept. 19 for Insider Iowa: “The United States clearly underestimated the strength and intentions of radical groups in Libya. There is now little question. The group is Ansar al-Sharia, which sympathizes with al-Qaida and appears to have a base in Derna near the Egyptian border. What now becomes a huge political issue is whether President Barack Obama and his administration failed in his obligation to be the steward of U.S. national security and conduct robust foreign policy.” You can look that up.

Now the Obama team is finally saying it probably was a deliberate attack and probably connected to terrorism.

Why did I get it right on Sept. 19? Because being a great intelligence analyst does not include having “political waffling shields” that slow me down. I screened all the possible information that came out on the days after the attack. From news media, from officials in Libya, from European and Latin American news sources. All of the information pointed to a terrorist attack.

It was an “elegant” attack. It involved very precise powerful weapons. It was followed by a superb intelligence operation in which the attackers found the “safe house” to which the dying U.S. ambassador was taken, and they finished him off at this venue.

Reaching a quick and accurate assessment on what this event might have been would have been easy.

“Spontaneous” demonstrations caused by anger at an obscure video insulting the Prophet Muhammad caused the Tripoli attack? Not on your life. Maybe Hitler’s invasion of the Sudetenland on March 16, 1939, was also a “spontaneous attack.”

That’s not how the real world rolls.

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who spun the spontaneous attack notion until a few days ago, should be able to make a quick judgment on what is a demonstration “gone bad” and what’s a coordinated, sophisticated attack.

The Republicans are now launching a concerted attack on the Obama administration, claiming a cover up and calling it “Libya-gate” (after the infamous Watergate break in that brought down the Nixon administration). Are the Republicans right? Was it a massive intelligence failure not to know who’s who in Libya? Was it sloppy security work to have a virtually-unprotected consulate in Benghazi? Was it an act of extreme political correctness for the United States to virtually apologize for the anti-Muhammad video that was thought to have triggered the demonstrations in Cairo and other parts of the Islamic world? Will all of this have an impact on the Obama reelection campaign? Could this be an “October Surprise,” one of those last-minute events that have so often shifted the outcome of a presidential election?

Why, so many weeks later, is the FBI team still in the capital of Libya, 400 miles away from where the attack occurred? It’s all very disturbing.

Of course, the intelligence agencies also missed the horde of killers who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

Whoa. Capitalist?

The idea of the “invisible hand of the free market,” an idea introduced by 18th-century Scottish social philosopher Adam Smith, manifested as a metaphor to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace. It has come to be a cry for the deregulation of the free market, a staple of “pure” capitalism.

But Smith never mentions capitalism in “The Theory of Moral Sentiments.”

We have come to view economic systems like those in the United States as pure capitalism and revolted against what is broadcast as pure socialism or pure communism. We even bristle at the idea that the slightest socialism might be creeping into our marketplace. (It’s part of the reason the new health care law is so highly debated.)

Capitalism, defined as, “an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth” is lauded in the United States. Here, it is held up as the example of what a democratic society can do, as the pinnacle of freedom, being able to have complete control over “the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth.”

Socialism, on the other hand, is defined as “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” So what does that mean?

It means that, as a whole, as a community, the people decide what to make, what to fund and how to divide up what is made and funded. Generally this is taken to mean that the government has control, and while that might operationally be the case, it is not in principle. The government stands for, acts for, the people. The community as a whole.

Countries like Sweden and Norway are commonly defined as “socialist” because they have this strong central government. However, most of their industries are privately run, standing against the idea of a purely socialist society. Some countries, like Sri Lanka and Portugal, discuss socialism in their constitutions, but still others ascribe to various branches of socialism: democratic socialism, African socialism, Arab socialism.

Then there are those countries that identify as socialist in their constitutions but are seen as communist by the rest of the world. How does that happen?

Communism, which branches off socialism, is defined as “a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.” Here, then, is where the state — not the people — makes decisions for the country.

Countries like China, Vietnam and Cuba officially describe themselves as communist, while other countries like North Korea are described externally as communist. (North Korea is an interesting example because, although it is state-run, its military class is elevated above the rest of the population, contradicting the communist idea of a classless society.)

These distinctions are important. Incredibly important. They illustrate the nuances that make economic systems so complex and resistant to the single labels “capitalism,” “communism” or “socialism.”

The United States, with our capitalist economic system, already has aspects of communism and socialism. We operate government-run prisons. We provide health care for soldiers and the elderly. We require drivers to have car insurance. We pay taxes to support national infrastructure. We have copyright and patent laws that limit what we can produce. We have labor laws that limit how we can produce.

The laws that we have now allow our market to work. They allow entrepreneurs to open new businesses, to expand and create jobs. They protect your great idea from getting stolen by me. They protect my land from getting taken by you. They create the opportunity for competition and creativity that would not happen if we relied solely on the concept of supply and demand.

We don’t have a free-market economy because we need government intervention to make any concept of a free market possible. The system that exists now, as flawed as it is, is a blend of the better parts of a myriad of systems. Whether the balance is the one we need (whether we need more capitalism or more socialism or more regulation or more monopolies) will always be up for debate. But it is only when we can understand the accurate definitions of such complicated systems that such a debate can even begin.

A spokesperson for the Swedish furniture retailer said “IKEA Saudi Arabia is run by an external franchisee who created the catalog” and that the company “should have reacted and realized that excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the IKEA group values,” according to TIME.

Removing women from its catalog’s pages is a reflection of Saudi Arabian culture. Saudi Arabian women are prohibited from engaging in certain activities. It’s understandable that the country would want a catalog that reflects those beliefs.

Does it mean deleting women from the catalog’s pages was right? No. Many people would argue that prohibiting women from fulfilling certain roles is unjust. However, are we in the place to tell Saudi Arabia what is and isn’t just? No. We’re not.

Whether or not IKEA should condemn the Saudi Arabian catalog for printing a “women-less” issue is a gray area. If the images in the catalog conflict with IKEA’s values, then it seems the company would be justified in asking them to print images that do adhere to IKEA beliefs.

It is interesting that the furniture company has responded the way it has. Sometimes with large companies money takes precedence over morals. While allowing “women-less” pages may preserve its customer base in Saudi Arabia, IKEA has emphasized that is goes against company beliefs and is wrong.

Would this scenario occur in the Western world? Would an American business condemn an alternate, “women-less” issue? Or would it go to all lengths to please another customer base for the purposes of making a buck? It’s hard to say.

There is some confusion surrounding the meaning of socialism. In the economics discipline, these colloquial “isms” are generally not used. Economic systems are described as market economies or command economies, roughly analogous to capitalism and communism, respectively. In the former, prices are determined by markets and capital is privately owned. In the latter, prices are determined by a planning board and capital is publicly owned.

From time to time I hear befuddling discussion about the socialist economies of Europe. Many Americans seem to consider much of Europe, especially Scandinavian countries, as socialist because of their expansive programs for wealth redistribution. However, these are economies with private capital, successful corporations and prices determined by markets. If Norway, Sweden or Denmark were socialist economies, it would not be a stretch to say the same of the U.S. Among Americans, there is some ambiguity surrounding the term socialism, but for most of the world, and for much of history, the varieties of socialist theory have been recognized as roughly synonymous with communism.

This ambiguity resulting from conceptual discussion points to the second major flaw in the debate between capitalism and socialism. These are theoretical concepts. They do not actually exist in reality.

Since the Constitution was written, the U.S. has operated a publicly financed post office. Milton Friedman even referred to the military as a socialist activity because the capital is owned by the state and proposed that the U.S. is 45 percent socialist. These examples illustrate how the United States’ economy has never consisted of complete private ownership of capital. In the 20th century, with the surge of entitlement programs, the economy shifted much further from strict capitalism. We must recognize the inadequacy of simply labeling the U.S. with capitalism.

For real world observations, it is necessary to imagine a spectrum. Consider a pure market economy on one side and a pure command economy on the other, from complete private ownership to complete public ownership, from markets to collective planning as the sole mechanism to determine prices. Like the U.S., there are no pure market economies among developed nations. At no point in the history of the Soviet Union or any other planned economy was capital ever 100 percent publicly owned or markets completely abolished. What we must recognize is that there are no examples in modern history of an economy at either extreme end of these spectrums. In other words, all developed economies of the world consist of some mix of capitalism and socialism.

Has capitalism failed? Is capitalism in crisis? These are not constructive questions. Pure capitalism is not the economic system of the U.S., or any country for that matter. The real question we need to ask is this: Where is the optimal place on the spectrum between private and public ownership, between free markets and planned controls?

So how do we determine the optimal place? Economics is a relatively young science, and it is still clouded with some theoretical subjectivity. Additionally, scientific experiments are impossible. It is not feasible to instruct two countries into a situation where all but one variable is held constant. However, data collection methods are improving, available data is expanding and every day we have more history to analyze.

For example, modern empirical evidence supports the incentives argument of neoclassical economics. Edward Prescott, a former University of Minnesota professor and Nobel Prize-winning economist, has done substantive research comparing the tax rates of G-7 nations. Americans now work more than Germans, French and British, when this was not the case in the 1970s. Prescott’s findings show that the large disparity in marginal tax rates that has arisen between the U.S. and other G-7 nations since the 1970’s accounts for the decreased productivity in Europe, Canada and Japan. Prescott’s studies show that even relatively small moves along the spectrum from private to public ownership of capital can have large, disincentive effects on the productivity of workers. Workers are most motivated when they earn the reward for themselves.

While increasing equality is a noble goal, we must not forget the adverse effects of redistribution. When you try to cut the economic pie more evenly, the pie gets smaller, and there’s less to share.

Americans need to change the way they talk about capitalism and socialism. The appropriate discussion is not a debate of alternatives. It’s a question of balance. The next time you hear someone say capitalism has failed or advocate socialism, remind him or her that those economic systems don’t truly exist.

Theoretically, affirmative action is no longer necessary. Perhaps it was 30 or 40 years ago, but society has evolved beyond discrimination, and now affirmative action only serves to discriminate against applicants who have enough merit but not the right pigment — or so critics of affirmative action policies say.

Still, research shows that most minorities, primarily black and Hispanic students, lag behind their white peers in college enrollment, retention and graduation. Evidence also suggests that race-conscious admissions policies positively influence college graduation rates, enrollment in graduate and professional programs and job prospects.

The case, Fisher v. University of Texas, was filed in 2008 by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who wanted to go to U. Texas, Austin. After she was rejected, Fisher filed suit, saying that the university’s inclusion of race in its admissions process is unconstitutional.

Lower courts sided with U. Texas, citing the earlier decision of Grutter v. Bollinger. The court’s opinion in the Grutter case established that a “narrowly tailored use” of race as a factor in admissions supports a “compelling interest” in diversity.

Last week, the Obama administration filed an amicus brief in support of U. Texas, saying that the use of race in the admissions process furthers a “vital interest” of the government. The brief argues that having a “well-qualified and diverse pool of university and service-academy graduates of all backgrounds” is critical to the future labor force.

But Fisher’s lawsuit against U. Texas and debate in other states makes it clear that Grutter, and earlier cases like Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, did little to clear up confusion.

States have used ballot initiatives to remove race-based affirmative action in college admissions, such as California and Arizona.

Arizona’s Proposition 107, which passed in 2010, banned the consideration of race, ethnicity or gender by units of state government, including public universities.

Prior to Prop 107’s approval, Robert Shelton, U. Arizona’s president at the time, vowed to find new ways to recruit diverse students if the measure passed.

In response, the “Yes on 107” campaign issued a press release, challenging Shelton to “walk his own talk” and give his job to someone else. The campaign argued that, if Shelton was so interested in increasing diversity, he would seek it in all positions, unless he believed “discriminating quotas should only apply to other people, but not to him.”

But critics fail to realize two things. First, people who suspect they are victims of reverse discrimination probably outnumber people who are actually victims. Colleges, especially schools with higher standards, often reject applicants of all races for reasons that don’t have anything to do with race.

Second, affirmative action isn’t about reversing discrimination or its history. Minority students don’t get a free pass as reparations for discrimination leveled against their ancestors.

Rather, a university must reflect the multicultural society that it will send its students into. Affirmative action is about making sure that a diversity of voices — shaped by experience and identity — contributes to the learning environment.

There’s no denying that affirmative action can be risky, as demonstrated by Princeton University, which is under federal investigation for allegedly requiring Asian-Americans to have stronger test scores and grades than other applicants. It must be exercised with caution. But diversity remains a compelling interest, no matter what year it is.

Contrary to what some people think, who gets to participate in the presidential debates is not governed by law. The debates are managed by an independent non-profit organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates, which works with major news organizations to put the events together. The Commission has three requirements for a candidate to be included in the debates: they must meet the Constitutional requirements to be elected president, they must be on the ballot in enough states to win the Electoral College and they must have received at least 15 percent support in five national polls.

These first two requirements are completely understandable – it would not be worth hearing from a candidate if he or she was under 35, not a citizen or not on the ballot in enough states to win the election. But it is the last requirement that we take issue with. Requiring candidates to have at least 15 percent support nationwide has effectively guaranteed that only Democrats and Republicans will qualify. And this is not because Americans love these two parties – a solid third of voters choose not to be affiliated with either of them.

Many polling organizations actually do not even include third-party candidates in their lists of options, making it impossible for them to garner 15 percent support. This exclusion, along with the minimal coverage in the mainstream media, leads to most Americans not being familiar with these candidates even if they agree with them wholeheartedly. In a recent Rasmussen poll that included Johnson, 63 percent of respondents said they did not know enough about Johnson to have any opinion on him at all. Despite this, Johnson is polling around 5 percent nationally, and as high as 13 percent in some states.

Americans deserve to be presented with as many viewpoints as is feasible. Of course, this must be balanced with the need for debates to be productive. Having dozens of candidates on stage would do little to educate voters on any of their options. A reform that would balance these competing interests would be for the Commission to throw out its 15 percent requirement and replace it with a graduating polling requirement. For example, there could be no polling requirement for the first debate, 7 percent support needed to participate in the second and 15 percent support needed for the third.

This would give the American public the opportunity to hear the voices of all candidates that could be elected. The field would gradually be narrowed, eliminating the candidates whose ideas are wildly unpopular and allowing the electorate to learn more about the viable candidates. While this would not solve all of the problems with American presidential elections, it would be a giant leap in the right direction.

Only recently have plans for new nuclear facilities been drawn up, but these projects are still only in the preliminary stages of planning.  Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of our nation’s electrical energy, and it is my firm opinion our goal should be to increase this number. I’m sure many of you are sitting over lunch shaking your head in disagreement. You may be thinking of the disasters at Fukushima or Chernobyl as proof nuclear energy is not safe, when in fact the meltdown of these facilities can be attributed to poor design. Just look online and you will find plenty of reliable sources outlining the causes of these meltdowns. However, I’m not here to change your mind about nuclear energy. Instead, I am here to introduce you to the up and coming nuclear reactor: The thorium-powered molten-salt reactor (MSR).

In an MSR, liquid thorium, a radioactive element, replaces uranium as the main fuel source of the reactor.  The benefits of this are immeasurable.  Thorium is four times more abundant than uranium, and the mining of this fuel is minimized by the large stockpiles.  In fact, Thorium is plentiful enough to satisfy the energy demands of the U.S. for thousands of years. One pound of thorium can produce as much power as 300 pounds of uranium or nearly 3.5 million pounds of coal.  This means less waste than current nuclear facilities, and since this waste is less radioactive it will only remain hazardous for a few hundred years compared to the tens of thousands of years uranium waste remains radioactive. For those of you concerned with nuclear weapons, you can breathe easy.  Thorium is even harder to weaponize than uranium, which is pretty difficult to do in the first place.

Thorium plants can be much smaller than current nuclear facilities in both size and power production.  Currently, nuclear facilities are generally built further away from large cities to minimize the potential damage of a worst case scenario meltdown.  Since thorium is already in a molten state, the chance of a meltdown occurring is slim to none.  Because of this, smaller facilities can be built closer to cities, eliminating a large portion of the energy lost due to transmission and bringing us cleaner, more affordable energy.

With the combination of safety features, new designs and the physical properties of thorium, nuclear power plants of the future will become even safer. If this quells the fear of reactor failure, widespread use of these plants could usher in a new era of energy production. With no greenhouse gas emissions, safe production and disposal methods and cheap, reliable power, there can be a significant reduction in the amount of coal-burning plants and other less-clean forms of energy production, thus helping the environment.

If you’re thinking, ‘Yeah, that’s great, but this is all theoretical,’ then think again my friend. In the 1960s, a thorium-powered MSR was built in Tennessee and ran for a total of 22,000 hours. We’re talking about a live reactor built and run by engineers.  That’s some promising evidence MSRs could be the next best thing.

Now that I’ve got you anticipating the arrival of the first commercial MSR, I have some bad news: These facilities probably won’t be around in the near future. The amount of funding and planning for such a nuclear facility is at a minimum. Don’t expect to see one of these plants until after 2030. That being said, there is only room for improvement.  Thorium MSRs may be the (theoretical) energy of the future today, but the sky is still the limit for energy production possibilities.

Obama’s failure to follow through on plans for immigration reform during his first term was highlighted in the Univision forum. Moderator Jorge Ramos accused Obama of going back on his word, saying, “A promise is a promise and with all due respect, you didn’t keep that promise.”

Obama openly acknowledged this failed promise, thus directly damaging his re-election campaign and relationship with a key voter base that has consistently supported him since 2008. Mitt Romney, however, has not been in a position to affect change for the last four years, nor has he made unfulfilled promises.

The Univision forum will not have a huge impact on Latino voters’ opinions of Romney, whose potential for election relies on other voter demographics’ support. Obama, on the other hand, might need the support of this voting bloc now more than ever and will now have to come up with some concrete immigration policies if he is to hold onto the Latino vote.

Rewind to 2008, with Ramos again interviewing Obama, but when he was still a presidential candidate. Ramos asked if he would commit to immigration reform.

Obama’s response: “I cannot guarantee that it’s going to be in the first 100 days. But what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support and that I’m promoting and that I want to move that forward as quickly as possible.”

This bill did not happen in his first year. A major 2008 campaign promise to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants materialized in the form of the DREAM Act,