The Pioneer » Opinion

Nader: A different kind of Green

Rebecca Fish — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:01:16 +0000

This is a caption.

Ralph Nader might have run for president twice as a Green Party candidate. He might have played a vital role in the passing of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency. But he is not your typical progressively-minded environmentalist.

In 2000, Nader declared that Al Gore and George W. Bush were both dominated by corporate interests, as similar as “Tweedledee and Tweedledum.” Not many environmentalists would equate the political godfather of the climate movement with a Texas cowboy who led his state towards the bottom of national environmental rankings while governor. Even when it became apparent that his place on the ballot was taking desperately needed votes from Gore in key states like Florida and New Hampshire, Nader refused to drop out of the race.

Throughout his career, Nader has shown his inability to settle for the ‘lesser of two evils.’ Whereas many progressive individuals and organizations focus on working within the system by supporting the least-worst candidate and donating small amounts of money in hopes of countering corporate power, Nader is repeatedly in conflict with both business and government for his relentless consumer advocacy.

In 1965, after Nader wrote “Unsafe at Any Speed,” a book detailing resistance of car manufacturers to spend money on basic safety features like seat belts, he was harassed by private detectives hired by General Motors. His four presidential runs were widely criticized by the Democratic party and yet he persevered. He started the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG), a now widespread organization that seeks to protect consumer rights. More recently, he wrote “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us,” a novel that suggests that if the very wealthy harnessed their power for good, they could fix the world’s problems.

In a sense, Nader is still an idealistic college student. While the trend among environmentalists seems to be partnerships with business—take the recent move of the President of the Sierra Club to consulting for Wal-Mart—Nader continues to hold out for a more radical reformation of the system.

A test post to demonstrate styled elements

admin — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:26:13 +0000

Images captions will look like this. Ideally images will be in the second paragraph so as to not mess with the dropcaps.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.

Images captions will look like this. Ideally images will be in the second paragraph so as to not mess with the dropcaps.

Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraverunt lectores legere me lius quod ii legunt saepius. Claritas est etiam processus dynamicus, qui sequitur mutationem consuetudium lectorum. Mirum est notare quam littera gothica, quam nunc putamus parum claram, anteposuerit litterarum formas humanitatis per seacula quarta decima et quinta decima. Eodem modo typi, qui nunc nobis videntur parum clari, fiant sollemnes in futurum.

And here’s an ordered list:

test element
just to show off what happens when you insert an ordered list

And then an unordered list

this is an unordered test element
and another test element to show off the styles of the unordered lists

This also should appear to the right as a pullquote, fancy that. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.

Heading 1

Heading 2

Heading 3

Heading 4

Heading 5

Heading 6

Point: Keep it down there

Alex Kerr — Sat, 30 May 2009 18:00:45 +0000

We have become a culture dependent on having background music throughout every moment of our lives. On most Whitman bus rides we don’t talk to each other, we shut each other out with earbuds and stare at the sky. Whitties run by Bennington lake listening to their iPods instead of just listening to the lake. We are creating a world for ourselves without natural sounds. That’s fine. That’s our choice.

There is a new invention in production right now, however, that will destroy the one last time and place where everyone, no matter where they live, gets to just curl up and listen to nature at work—in the womb.

It’s called the Blaby, and it straps around the belly of a pregnant woman. The woman uploads her music onto a small hard drive on a broad fabric strap and then it vibrates her amniotic fluid to the song of her choice, creating a surround-sound system for her very startled child. It also offers her the option to play a recording of her voice, or anyone’s, at the child.

It’s not the thought of what people will play for their kids that terrifies us, it’s the notion that people will use the Blaby in general. The reasons why the Blaby is a terrible and essential piece to the end of humanity are clear. Just in case you are one of the many fools who disagrees, here are just a few:

1) It’s already loud up in there.
For most of your kid’s waking life your heart has been bigger than it’s face and has been pumping an insane amount of blood all around and INTO it. If you don’t think the cardiovascular and respiratory systems are loud already, go sleep in the Hoover Dam. Now imagine that while you try to sleep some omnipotent jackass decides it would be a good idea to blast Bon Jovi at you so that it vibrates literally everything you touch.
2 ) She can already hear you talking! Hearing your voice louder is just terrifying!
The idea that you need an mp3 of your voice to talk to your baby is ridiculous. Your voice box is your child’s upstairs neighbor. You don’t need to use the Blaby to oscillate your whole uterus to get your message across. Just imagine how terrified your child will be when the voice she has been hearing softly from a distance her whole life suddenly appears high-def like it’s RIGHT BEHIND HER. Don’t give her PTSD before she’s born.
3) Let’s see how YOU like it.
When was the last time you were blind, underwater, upsidedown and squeezed in on all sides? Before you strap on a Blaby, let’s see if you can handle it. Get a giant balloon, the size that are tethered to the roofs of auto dealers, get in it with a breathing tube and a blindfold, fill it with warm water and then put stereos on either side of it and play a recording of your mom so that it reverberates the skin of the balloon itself like an air-tight jacuzzi. Would this be more comforting than just hearing your mother speak to you from the outside? No.

Silence is golden. Let’s allow our future generations to have just nine months of peace and quiet because with our affinity for incessant noise, that’s the last they’ll ever get.

An amusement park built for our times

William Lawrence — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:00:56 +0000

Over 100 days into the new administration, the nation is still grasping for an answer to the recession.

Look no further.

The solution to our problems has arrived, and it’s MAX XTREME! Welcome to Collapseland, the official amusement park of the economic crisis. Collapseland provides an interactive, fun guide to the still-unfolding meltdown and—this works, trust me—creates a national cathartic experience that will lift America out of the recession.

Only Chinese currency accepted, please.

Upon entering the park, you see the Housing Bubble, a supersized bouncy castle with an exciting twist. You’ll want to be there when it explodes—the thrill is seeing where your kids land!

Collapseland is family fun for all income brackets. For meals, those with cash to spare will enjoy the atmosphere of the AIG Board Room. Your Kobe steak will be served on a luxury old-growth mahogany conference table and followed by a full spa treatment.
Those on a budget will prefer the prices at the Soup Line.

Walking past the Bear Sterns Plunge, you come to the Madoff House of Mirrors, where you can spend hours lost among the shimmering profit margins. Elie Wiesel will be your tour guide.

Don’t miss the Geithnerizer, one of Collapseland’s signature rollercoasters. The Geithnerizer is brand-new, but we built it with the oldest techniques in the book. Its wooden planks positively rattle with experience and confidence! The Geithnerizer excites despite dozens of missing support beams. Prepare to be genuinely thrilled as the train nearly careens off the track several times!
If you begin to overheat, head over to Colbert/Stewart Falls, our premier water attraction. Several Geithnerizings take a toll, but a plunge over the Falls will cool you off. Don’t mind Jim Cramer floating around at the bottom—we think he’s just swimming.
Of course, every amusement park needs a signature attraction, and Collapseland is no different. At the center of the park is our towering rollercoaster, simply named the Dow. Famed for its volatility, the Dow hits peaks and valleys faster than Glenn Beck’s manic mood swings.

Look up at that train right now—there’s a foolish small boy sitting by himself! The train is slowly climbing, but he’s too short to see when the plunge will come, or even if there is one.

For now, he’s just sitting there in nervous anticipation, unsure whether to laugh or cry.

Counterpoint: we are all cyborgs

Spencer Janyk — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:00:50 +0000

“Some differences are playful; some are poles of world historical systems of domination. ‘Epistemology’ is about knowing the difference.” – Donna Haraway

What is nature? That’s a useful question that people have been asking for a long time, but one that I prefer is: what does it mean to be natural, and with what consequences?

My fellow columnists Alex and Lisa are also concerned with issues of technology and nature, and the relationship of the two, and I would like to forward a way of looking at the use of technology and nature that I think will yield fruitful insights. In this, I am deeply indebted to the writing and thought of Donna Haraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto.”

Most progressives in the United States seem to insist that technology is always an instrument that dominates the organic, and call upon us to recognize our bodies as a sacred site of resistance against it.

I suggest, following Haraway, that a “slightly perverse” shift of perspective gives us more room to contest meaning, exercise power and experience pleasure.

The distinctions between organic and machine have been broken down. Our brains are computers, our hearts are run by pacemakers, our nervous system is electrical. Our robots climb stairs and have conversations.

At the same time, the boundary between physical and non-physical is broken down. Like most binaries, the more we learn about them, the more we find that they run together.

I think that we are all already cyborgs. Our worldview, our understanding of bodies and objects are already mediated by, through, with and against technology.

We can’t see bodies without understanding that they are a series of molecules and DNA structures. We have the capability to “flag” certain stories and events for later transcription into Facebook, blogs, etc. and everywhere we collect photographic images to aid in our memorization and ability to explain.

For many people and ideologies today, a cyborg world is a controlled one, a destruction of the planet in the name of defense based on an appropriation of women’s bodies.

It doesn’t have to be that way. We do not have to be afraid of or pick sides between our connections to animals and machines. There is no forced choice between iPhone and organic patchouli incense.

This is not to say that there aren’t problems associated with technology. It can be used to control, discipline, hierarchalize, organize and violently destroy. Some people like being dominated, controlled and organized, but others don’t.

The relationships we have with our bodies and with other people are highly personal, but we should afford people the right to do what they please with their bodies and their minds. To some this means plastic surgery and iPods, to others, dropping off the grid and living in a food forest with no shoes.

There’s nothing wrong with either of these paths. To take either is to remain and affirm our cyborgism.

New weapons ban follows footsteps of past gun legislation failures

Bryant Fong — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:00:44 +0000

The Assault Weapons Ban is a failed attempt at gun control and will not work again.

Taking its cue from sophomore gun enthusiast Harry Hixon, the government should not mandate to the population what they need, and instead should punish for actions rather than possessions.

The ban is more of a show to prove to citizens that politicians are doing something to protect the states and citizens that elected them. Bans on the local and state levels were found to be ineffective in Gary Kleck’s book “Point Blank.”

The previous ban and the current proposed ban do not provide a safer America, but merely a cosmetic anticrime legislation.
Previous bans on firearms have proved ineffective. After instituting a firearm ban in 1996, Australia experienced a 3.2 percent increase in homicide countrywide and 300 percent increase in the Victoria state. Australia also had a 45 percent increase in armed robberies, with assaults up 8.6 percent. For the preceding years, Australia had a slight decrease in crime (worldnetdaily.com).

Gun control did not work in Australia, and would not be effective in the United States.

According to research by Christopher Koper in a report to the National Institute of Justice, the ban’s effects on gun violence were too small for reliable measurement. If the previous ban produced no noticeable results, then gun control should not be an issue.

The assault weapons ban was cosmetic at most and was not effective. A stricter control would only bring catastrophic effects like those of Australia.

Many people think that assault weapons, due to their semi automatic and automatic firepower, are more hazardous. Criminals could kill more victims faster with assault weapons.

Assault weapons are more effective due to features such as a flash suppressor, folding or retractable stock and pistol grip. Yet the pistol grip makes shooting more difficult, according to Hixon. The folding stock supposedly makes a gun easier to conceal, but decreases its effectiveness in aiming.

Before the ban, Koper states that between 1 and 8 percent of guns were assault weapons.

The banned guns could also be replaced with legal substitutes or other exempt semi automatic weapons.

Gun rights are indeed a conservative value, but also a liberal one. Allowing citizens to carry guns means that the government trusts its citizens. If the government treats people like children, they will soon behave like children.

Guns also give equality. A 100 lb. man has no chance against a 250 lb. thug, unless he has a gun and can disable the thug in order to run away.

Gun control did not work in the U.S. before and will not work in the future. Banning guns eliminates the first crime deterrent: protected citizens.

Instituting another permanent ban is first, against the U.S. Constitution and second, an ineffective anticrime legislation.

It’s ridiculous: easy professors waste my time

Derek Thurber — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:00:30 +0000

Everybody knows bad professors should be avoided. One of the first things I learned when I was a first-year was that it was better to select classes for professors than for topics. But what I have been running into recently is not bad professors, but easy ones.
Professors who don’t care about grading —who don’t want to push me to do my best— are a waste of my time. It’s ridiculous that I should spend so much money to come here each year and not get pushed to learn as much as I can.

I know it can be nice to know you don’t have to try your hardest on a paper for a certain class. But if you know the professor is going to be easy grading it then you won’t try and you won’t learn.

I had class at Whitman that was flat-out the easiest class I have ever been in. I went and sat in the room each week listening to a lecture that was very straightforward. And I wrote papers that did little more than scratch the surface of the topic. It should have been the easiest “A” I have ever had.

But I got a “B.”

I don’t blame the professor. I think he or she did the right thing in giving me a “B,” but he or she did not do the right thing in teaching me. If I had cared about what I was doing… if I had thought I was going to get anything out of class… if I had been pushed to try harder by the professor… then I am sure I would have gotten a better grade.

It is an interesting but very true phenomenon that occurs at Whitman and probably at almost every other college and university around the country. The classes that are the hardest are the most rewarding. And ultimately, we do the best in those classes despite their difficulty.

Another class I took at Whitman stands out as challenging me to always do better. At first I wanted to cry and give up—to throw in the towel and exclaim that nothing could make this professor happy.

But after my initial frustration at the first bad grade on a paper, I was that much more determined to do better on the next paper. I was going to show my professor that I had what it took to be in that class.

I ended up getting an “A” in the class.

Logically, it should have been the other way around. I should have gotten the better grade in the easy class. But I didn’t. I didn’t care in the easy class. The hard class and the hard professor made me want to try my best. They made me do my best.

It is one of the best feelings in the world to get a paper back with a good grade on it and know—I mean truly know in your heart—that you earned it. That paper was a good paper because your professor wouldn’t give you an “A” if it weren’t.

These classes are the ones that stand out. So here is what I would say to the professors: Don’t go easy on us. We want to earn our grades and we will try so much harder if we respect you for only taking our best work.

From now on, I am only taking the classes with professors that have a reputation of being hard graders. Those are the classes I do the best in and the ones I like the most. Those are the ones I remember as the best.

Musings from abroad: We can’t all be trained monkeys: Higher education in France

Margaux Cameron — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:00:26 +0000

Because of the nation-wide strike in French public universities, my experience in the Parisian education system has been limited to my one hour per week at the Catholic university in Paris, where I am enrolled in a history class which I believe has been held six times (easiest three credits ever). I was very disappointed at not being able to enroll in the Sorbonne, and felt that the “study” of my study abroad was rather lacking, since, let’s face it, the courses at the IES center for us American students leave much to be desired.

However, my host mom kindly took it upon herself to enrich my perspective of the French education system by spending an entire family dinner explaining to me and my American roommate exactly how pointless the U.S. undergraduate liberal arts schools are. Why would you waste four years of your life and money attending school to learn general information that isn’t tailored specifically to your future career? Isn’t that what high school is for?

French teens usually decide on their career paths much earlier than Americans, because in their education system, changing majors often results in losing a semester or whole year of credit. As such, their classes at the university level are generally much more tailored to their future career plans, and are more or less equivalent to U.S. graduate school. (When I brought up the fact that neither of my parents attended graduate school, my host mother’s response suggested that their jobs could be just as well executed by trained monkeys.)

While initially I felt angered and insulted by this encounter (not to mention frustrated—I mean, I am spending four years of my life and money on this), it got me thinking about high school attitudes toward academics. Everyone’s been that kid: “Why do we have to learn this? I’m never going to use calculus in real life. Is this on the final? Because otherwise I won’t bother.”

While I won’t argue with the fact that taking classes you’re not interested in is incredibly boring and frustrating, hopefully by this point we’ve all come to the conclusion that a liberal arts education is actually a good thing. If I’d had the presence of mind and the French skills, I’d like to have responded to my host mother by saying, “Alternatively, we’ve got the rest of our lives to spend on our careers— why start that now?”

Our life isn’t a race to see who can climb the job ladder faster—at least, it’s not supposed to be. The Parisian students in my entry-level history class at the Catholic university whisper, text and Facebook during the entire class, because to them, it doesn’t matter. Since their entire grade is based on one test at the end of the semester, they don’t even have to attend class, as long as they do enough research on their own. Yeah, maybe they’ll be able to start earning a paycheck in their chosen career before I will, but will their limited academic knowledge really make them better at their jobs? I don’t think so.

Besides, a mixture of classes I have to take and classes I choose to take is just plain more fun than jumping directly into graduate-style courses. I know we all get tired of hearing it, but college is a holistic experience. If you rush through it just in order to move on to the next stage, who’s to say you’re not going to spend your whole life doing that? Talk about wasting time—who wants to constantly keep rushing ahead? Pushing for the next promotion? Enjoy the moment, French people!

Even if my host mother will never understand this, I’d like to think that the supposedly “useless” knowledge I’ve gathered during classes completely unrelated to my career goals will someday pay off. If anything, I like to think they make me more interesting to be around.

Sure, I’m an English major, but I can also discuss life cycle nutrition at great length. I mean, who doesn’t love learning random facts? Maybe I’m just a complete geek, but I’d rather be at least somewhat familiar with a variety of subjects than feel limited by my career path. And most U.S. students do get the opportunity to eventually immerse themselves in “useful” knowledge that will help them in their job. Maybe it takes a little longer, but honestly—what’s the rush?

Enough with the greek bashing

Unknown Author — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:00:16 +0000

EDITOR,

ENOUGH with the greek bashing. I know, I know, you were really pressed for time this week. Let’s see…I know! I’ll write an article about the greek system! That way, I don’t have to waste any time actually checking my facts, and I can practice my self-righteous indignation, which needs work anyway.

I’ll start with the easiest and most obviously misrepresented fact. Panhellenic wants to add another sorority in order to make each chapter smaller. Each group currently has about 90 members. Most sororities at campuses across the country are around 60 or less. Panhellenic would seek to maintain the same number of women in the greek system, but each sorority would take a smaller pledge class.

The next misleading allegation is that recruitment would be intensified in order to “convince women who would have otherwise opted for an independent lifestyle to join a sorority.” Unbeknownst to many independents on campus, we have very explicit and very strict rules for recruitment. Each female freshman section gets one Recruitment Counselor who is disaffiliated during recruitment (meaning she doesn’t reveal her particular greek association). Beyond that, and the three recruitment events (Activity Day, Philanthropy Day and Closing Day), no affiliated member of a sorority is allowed to be in a freshman dorm that they do not live in, nor spend time with freshmen (excluding siblings, class and things like sports teams). These rules will stay the same. Panhellenic can advertise for recruitment all they want, and the Recruitment Counselors can do their best to convince girls in their sections to rush, but ultimately it is each freshman’s decision.

Which brings me to my next point: the author admits that he spends a lot of time with a certain group of friends, but says that “it is my decision to do so, not that of a socially limiting hierarchical structure whose implementation I pay for.” Well, guess what? It is my decision to be a member of a sorority, and it was hands-down the best decision I have made at Whitman. Socially limiting? Don’t pretend like you hang out with everyone on campus. Personally, I don’t consider a social network of over 90 incredible women “socially limiting.”

You want to talk about exclusivity? One could just as easily pin exclusivity on the Outdoor Program, which is not dictated by a national hierarchical structure but by the socio-economic (that’s right, I can use big words too) pressures that determine whether or not someone can afford to have the entire Patagonia winter collection. Or the drama program, or varsity athletics, or the Young Dems, or whatever group you want. Human beings naturally form groups in order to socialize.

Whenever I read articles bashing the greek system, I think the same thing as I do when reading pro-life editorials: If you don’t like [abortion, sororities] don’t [get, join] one. The only reason greek life is “mystified” is because people outside of it find it easier to make assumptions and spread false rumors about our practices than go out of their way to find out the truth. I challenge anyone to ask me a question about the greek system and my sorority. I think you’ll find that we’re more open than you think we are.

- Alice MacLean ‘11

Questions about us: I know you are but what am I?

Gary Wang — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:00:14 +0000

One of the most telling characteristics of the Whitman student body revealed itself a couple months ago when this paper ran a column concerning the greek system. The particular column alleged that the greek system promotes conformity and ran counter to the goals of the College for churning out creative and independent minded students.

Now, whether or not you agreed with the column doesn’t matter. The controversy over the column and subsequent ones (greek shirts?) published in this paper exemplify how we easily fall into a habit of defining ourselves on the basis of what we are not rather than what we are.

Let’s think about it this way. We went to college to find ourselves, especially because we chose Whitman. There’s no vocational program here; everybody does different things, from ultimate frisbee to keg lock-ins. The campus is so small it’s easy to find and then keep a circle of friends after our first year. This, along with Facebook and gossip, leads to the phenomenon of people only knowing of each other and not really knowing each other.

Now, with stereotypes, pretending to know other people becomes even easier. After all, a stereotype already gives you a lens to look through. No point in figuring someone else out if you can label them a Kappa (and all the subsequent stereotypes) and be done with it. She’s boring now because you already think you know everything there is to know about her. Similarly, there’s no point to finding your own self if you’ve already initiated and can assume the mantle of Beta brotherhood.

Put that stereotype into print and everyone gets a little offended or emboldened. Unintentionally, writing about the greek system is a sure-fire way to generate tons of letters to the editor!

It’s not how bad the economy is, nor how Whitman’s facing budget challenges, or anything about climate change that can make people take ten minutes out of their day to pen a letter to the editor: it’s the greek system. It’s a way to write “At Least I’m Not A” and then fill in the blank.

Why does the greek system, as a relic from an era of reckless drunken rioting or an integral part of Whitman’s community, mean so much to those in it and outside of it? It’s just an easy way to label someone and save yourself the trouble of checking out their Facebook, much less talking to them. And for those of us within the system, they’re identities and patterns of behavior already laid out for us to try. How easy.

I can’t speak for you but I can’t sit down and write my autobiography just yet.

The first step to that process of finding yourself is to figure out what you’re not. So, this whole college experience is a constant struggle to find out what you like, who you like to be around and what kind of person you are, and part of that is figuring out what you don’t like.

The trick to finding yourself is to know the balance between defining yourself positively as, let’s say, a student activist rather than negatively as an independent, or a non-greek.

The first four definitions from dictionary.com for the word “independent” all start with “not influenced,” “not subject,” “not dependent” and “not relying.” Well then, what exactly does an independent stand for?

Is that even the right way to think about Whitman students first and foremost in terms of the greek system? Doesn’t thinking about whether or not you are a member of the greek system first makes the greek system more relevant than some want it to be?
You see, the real trouble with defining yourself in terms of what you’re not is that it creates the illusion that you are somehow closer to figuring out who you are. Instead, thinking about your identity only by process of elimination prematurely closes off some experiences that may actually get you closer to yourself.