Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Faculty, Students, and the problem of UWW parking (by anon)

In the February 8th edition of the Royal Purple, there was an article discussing the parking issues being addressed on campus titled, University must work towards parking reform. This article was formulated around the opinion of a staff member commenting on how difficult it is for them to find parking. If you were you to catch the previous week’s edition, you would find a similar article that shows a picture of a faculty member gathering his belonging for class. Not sure if anyone really caught it, but if you look in the background of the picture, the professor is parked really close to the buildings on campus (White Hall). If you are trying to make a point about struggling to find a parking spot, maybe an accurate picture to display their concern would be more appropriate. And I realize that it’s probably an inconvenience for faculty to have to walk long distances with all their belongings, but most faculty and staff have an office. We as students, who might have 4 classes in a row, have to carry all of that in a backpack for the whole day, along with books and possibly computers. As if struggling to find a parking spot isn’t hard enough, having to then hike across campus with your backpack and belongings for the rest of the day is just as difficult.
Now, do I think that the faculty should have their own parking lot? Yes, if the campus can find room to make one that will allow 845 faculty and staff to park in it. I think that they are just as in need of finding parking as a commuter student. The thing that really gets under my skin is the simple fact that the university parking sold 2,868 parking passes, when only 1,182 are available. Why over sell when you know the spots will not be available? And because of this mistake, the university might be changing their rules so that freshman are unable to bring a car to school? That doesn’t seem fair, even if it were to help with the parking situation. If anyone has ever tried to find a parking spot on campus after 9:30am (depending on where you park) it’s almost impossible. All you see are several cars circling around the parking lots, hoping that in the time it took them to drive around, someone might have left and they can take their spot (know this from personal experience), which usually results in students being late for classes; also a concern among the faculty and staff.
Following that, what’s up with all the “restricted” parking spots that are never filled in the Winther parking lot? Another lot that is usually filled up by 8:30am and everyone is struggling to find a spot to park. This article then goes on to say that the campus might begin to meter the streets, even though they believe that the high volume of parkers on the street is due to the lack of parking available in the lots. And I realize that they need to have the families of Whitewater in mind, but they know this is a University town, parking on the streets is an issue that the campus presented the students with due to the parking problems. If they being to meter the streets, they are going to be pushing commuters even farther away from campus, thus re-causing the issue on parking all over again.
To restate my concern, I do believe that the faculty deserves their own parking lot, if the campus can find a place to put it, and where it will accommodate all those who are in need. I also believe that the campus should also take the students concerns into consideration, and in hopes that they will accommodate for both parties. The campus should really reconsider how many passes they decide to sell each year to insure that those who have made the purchase to get a pass will be guaranteed a spot. The campus created this issue, now it’s time they reconsider and implement a different plan.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Get the f@*# off the stage! (by tortilla)

This is just a response to a particular strain of argument that Chris Brown apologists have been making lately in defense of his recent re-appearance at the Grammy awards, from which he was banned three years ago after savagely beating his girlfriend Rihanna.  The argument is as follows: "he's a musician!  Let him be a musician!"  
... That's it.  That's the argument.  And it's not entirely without merit!  I mean, there are plenty of musicians, and artists period, who have done awful things throughout the past, and we don't judge their music any differently for it.  And why would we?  I mean, whatever happened to "separation of art and artist"?
So let me first just say that there's nothing wrong with Chris Brown as an artist.  I mean yeah, I haven't enjoyed any of his music ever in my entire life, but the point is that none of his physical transgressions hold any weight when evaluating it; if I liked Chris Brown's music five years ago, there's no reason for me not to like it now (and if I hated it then, I probably don't hate it any more now than I did then).
That's not what the Grammys controversy is about, though.  The decision to allow him back on their (terrible and boring) award show is perfectly valid insofar as he is indeed a well-regarded musical artist.  But the Grammys aren't just about "well-regarded music"-- they're also about celebrity.  
The message of allowing Chris Brown perform on stage in front of millions of people and touting him as some sort of self-redeemer isn't "we're the Grammys, and we have respect for high-quality musical art."  It's "we're the Grammys, and we are perfectly willing to forgive someone for a terrible crime.  So much so, in fact, that we are rewarding them with positive attention in the public sphere."
It's unacceptable, plain and simple.  There are tons of talented musicians out there.  Why reward one of the despicable ones?

Friday, February 24, 2012

Murdering for dummies: Outraged at Casey Anthony (by anon)

Like most people, I was outraged by the Casey Anthony case that was the highlight of U.S. newscasts in July 2008. After years of trials, testimonies, and presented evidence, the court deemed Casey Anthony not guilty of murdering her 2-year-old daughter on July 5, 2010.
Although the majority of the hype from the trail has died down, it won’t be long before Casey Anthony’s name appears once again in headlines. It has been reported that Casey Anthony’s next step is to hopefully sell her story with a book deal. Although it’s only talk, there’s a good possibility that Casey Anthony could indeed write a book and become one of the richest women in the country. 
While they remain anonymous, book publishers have began negotiating for Casey Anthony’s autobiography. Literary agents suggest that if Casey Anthony were to write a book or sell rights to her autobiography, she could make as little as much as $750,000 to one million dollars. 
I find it appalling that readers flock to buy books written by public figures that were only made famous by committing terrible acts and being put on public trial. Another example of a book written by someone of the same demeanor, O.J. Simpson, who’s book “If I Did It” sadly reached the number two spot on the New York Times bestseller list when it was first released. 
I don’t believe it is right that people of this stature are able to make money off of their trails. Furthermore, I don’t think it should be legal for them to. Why? First and foremost, what lesson are we teaching anyone if we directly support a paycheck of someone that went on trail for murdering her own daughter? Second, if this is the way a woman can go from rags to riches, then who’s to say no one else will follow in her footsteps and do the same thing? Lastly, what has our society come to when this is the kind of leisure reading that entertains us and makes someone a millionaire? By buying their books, we’re essentially signing their paychecks, is that honestly what we as a society feels should be legal?

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Rick Santorum is the Antichrist (by anon)

Oh Holy God!!  We must be in the last days, the last days before the four horsemen, Armageddon, the harlot, and the lake of fire!  The “antichrist” has finally made his appearance that begins the sequence of our own destruction.  Alas, the Book of Revelation warned that the antichrist will come to unify the people, but in reality he’s the people’s undoing.  Alas, his name is “Rick Santorum.”
Seriously, I can hardly believe that Santorum is enjoying as much support as he is.  I’m not sure if people actually realize just how dangerous this man is if many of his ideas and ideology (really “theology”) are enacted.  I might be joking a little calling him the antichrist, but he’s really not far off the mark.  These are some of his positions:
1.  No more prenatal testing.  Why?  Because it leads to many abortions, especially the abortions of fetuses with genetic disorders and other maladies.
2.  No more abortions, period.  It doesn’t matter if the woman was raped or if it was incest.  That baby is going to be born.
3.  No more public education.  That’s right.  If Santorum has his way, the government would not invest in education anymore.  His reasoning is that public education is failing, so let’s pull the plug on it and have families teach their own kids.  Let homeschooling reign!  Who else can better educate their young than the young’s own parents, right?
4.  Obama isn’t Biblical enough.  Obama follows some weird, “phony” theology concerning the environment and other issues, instead of holding onto sound Biblical ideals and principles (interpreted in Santorum’s Evangelical way).
5.  Homosexuality is the primary cause for the troubles America finds itself in right now.  Homosexuality deteriorates the family unit, which is the key to America’s success (nevermind that most couples get divorced anyway).
What do all these mean if enacted?  It means the end of America.  Put the pieces together.  Points 1 and 2 mean that we would have a spike in births (especially if it is linked with the current debate on contraception).  Our population numbers would increase a bit.  Having the same number of resources with an increase in population means increased need – and increased need means increased prices.  If more babies are born and more babies are born with birth defects, parents will have to pay more for care and medical treatment.  Concerning point 3, if we now have to homeschool, at least one parent will have to stay home (and Santorum has motioned towards the woman.  Welcome back 1950’s!) thereby cutting down on a family’s income, and the quality of the education will decrease because most parents are not trained in all the school subjects to the degree that they are currently taught in our public schools.
So, first conclusion: our upcoming generations will be larger and dumber.
Second conclusion: the average family will make far less than they make now.
On points 4 and 5 (as well as back to 1, 2, and 3), Santorum’s own religious views are so grossly intertwined with his campaign that even a number of religious institutions are denouncing it (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/religion-politics_n_1291624.html?ref=religion-and-politics).  But Santorum is unapologetic about his faith and the role he uses it in his campaign.  Make no mistake, he believes he is running as God’s man (talk about hubris…).  This means that if you are a non-Christian or a Christian of a different stripe than Santorum, he doesn’t care about you.  He would be a president for Evangelical Christians and not much else.  As someone else quipped, Santorum is running for “pastor-in-chief,” ignoring the diversity of the American landscape in terms of religious and cultural pluralism.
Third conclusion: President Santorum would not care about the majority of Americans.
Put these three conclusions together and they spell disaster.  We would have an America that is growing in population, but getting dumber and vastly poorer, with a president that would only really care about his own like-minded folks.  For those not in the know, this is how poverty-stricken, failing nations come into existence.
What scares me most is not that I think Santorum would ever get elected even if he did get the GOP nomination, but that there are so many dumbasses who actually like this guy.  He should have been the first to go from the field of GOP contenders way back in early fall.  Rick Santorum is the antichrist.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Politics? (by Crap Choice)

I do in no way shape or form consider myself an expert or even a novice when it comes to knowing really anything about politics. In my opinion all parties have flaws as well as all politicians I cannot be grouped into one party because my ideas are all over the place and I don’t have a tough time picking between the candidates. In order to make my point I would like to reference one of my favorite episodes of South Park of all time. The episode in which the school they go to needs a new mascot and basically it comes down to picking between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. This is how I feel when I look at politicians today. It’s deciding which person I hate least.

But lately I have found myself wondering what shapes these ideas of mine about the different candidates. Listening to their speeches they throw all of these facts and figures and numbers at us to try and sway our opinion their way. In my opinion if one were to look deeply at all of the numbers given by politicians you can account for them being skewed in that candidates favor. Is it so much to ask for someone to just be honest and give us the facts the way they are and to have no agenda just to want to restore our country to the financial stability we once had. To be honest I’m not sure if I would know if that candidate came along because at this point I assume every politician to be completely full of bullshit. I know that this is wishful thinking and those of you who are political snobs will probably tear apart every thing that I have said here. To be honest I don’t care whoever can find a way to fix our country is fine with me.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Do you rely on yourself or your professor for your education? (by anon)

A professor of mine recently griped about a fellow colleague who proposed a radical form of lecturing in which he would enter the class and ask his students, “what do you want to know?”  The professor who relayed this to the class found the idea completely absurd and thought it to be a terrible way of teaching, saying something to the effect of “we professors are not banks of information to be tapped into for the benefit of our students!”   Weighing the implications of both propositions, I must disagree with the professor who has a problem with this form of teaching.
While instructors should have a well-organized lesson plan to instruct and elicit discussion from their classes, their students should come to class eager to learn and full of questions on the subject they chose to sign up for.  I will grant that (as many, MANY posts on this blog have shown) a great deal of students take classes simply because they are required and they have absolutely no ambition in these courses other than to pass.  Yet for those of us who are genuinely interested in the course (if this rare cohort still exists), we should come to classes full of questions that will either elucidate our understanding of material we find confusing or argue against points made by the prolific authors’ works we have read.

The problem with instituting either method is, however, full of problems that no simple solution can alleviate.  Let’s take the situations one at a time then, first dealing with the inquisitive professor.  If any student signed up for a class because they were truly interested in it, should they not come to class fully prepared to ask and answer questions to either gain a better understanding of material or to challenge an author’s propositions?  If so, a professor opening a lecture or discussion in this manner should be totally acceptable, but the more realistic case is subsequently discussed.

You may, at this point, be wondering what the problem is with not reading material since a professor will lecture and give you all the information you need to know without reading, right? A valid proposition since this allows nearly any attentive student to “skate by” in most of their classes.  The problems arise in several areas.  Is your professor engaging? If not, do you even pay attention in class, or spend most of it texting, facebooking, angrybirding, or anything else NOT academically related?   
At this point, I believe we are at an impasse.  The real question boils down to this: who do you rely on for your education? You, or your professor?  In addition, who is responsible for your education?  Consider your answers and your use of “should” when you evaluate these questions.  I look forward to the responses.  

In any feedback that follows this post, I implore the readers to candidly confess how much reading they truly complete for their classes, keeping in mind that these posts are anonymous.  I’m not interested in explanations for not completing assignments because explanations are not excuses.  I simply want to know how many people truly do the work they are assigned.  This will give an insight into why it is that the “ask me questions” method of any professor does not work.  I’ll leave my own level of preparedness out of this so as to not prime any answers, and I hope all are answered truthfully (there’s no stigma here, people!).  The point of this is to show that if you are not prepared, you cannot participate, either with intelligent questions or insightful comments, and whether the responsibility lies with the professor or the student.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Damn your cellphones and ipods! (by anon)

I would like to comment on the over abundant use of cellphones and ipods on campus. Whether it be the ipod or people texting, man its gotten a bit out of control.. Im tired of seeing the air guitar solos and hearing folks singing their favorite songs out loud..all the while, oblivious to the fact they are singing out loud..I cannot begin to count the number of close encounters I have had with students looking down into their screens, as opposed to paying attention to where they are going.. even in the hallways/stairs people are abating the flow of foot traffic because they are texting or programming their favorite song.

I know no one is going to give up texting or hand over their ipod..that is not what Im asking for ..I am asking for some courtesy..no one is waiting to see your rendition of the latest guitar riff, please stop!! You look stupid or have turrets or some other form of affliction.. American Idol has already began and you lost your shot...Save your singing for the shower!! Every once in a while, look up and watch where you are going..Better yet, take a seat, text whomever, then stand up and go on about your business..

In an age of new technology, a new set of ethics comes with it.  Please do what is ethical.  Behave as though you would hope others behave. If you dont want to be impeded by a random texter, when you're 5 minutes late to class, dont text in the hallways or on the stairs. If you pay for a ticket to a show then guitar solos are the shit, if not, leave the guitar hero at home when listening to your favorite music. Please just mouth the words and try to keep from singing them out loud!

Let’s grow with the times and create a new set of ethics that allows for all to be happy.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

A Closed Mind is a Wonderful Thing to Lose (by anon)

After a debate on God’s existence in my Philosophy class today, it became painstakingly apparent that some people just refuse to open their minds. It might be the most frustrating thing to me out of everything in this world that pisses me off, which by the way is a long list. It’s not that I deem some opinions “wrong” and others “right”, it’s just that unless you make an informed and well-rounded opinion, your belief, to me, isn’t valid.

Believing in something for the pure fact that that’s what your parents told you irks me the most. Go out into the world! Question everything! Create your own views! Your views don’t have to change, but at least then you’ll be more knowledgeable and concrete in your beliefs.

This doesn’t apply just to the existence of God, although that is an obvious point, but it applies to life! Experience different lifestyles! Or if you’re uncomfortable experiencing them for yourself, at least learn about them for God’s sake. Being ignorant about a certain topic doesn’t make your belief strong. Being informed and educated and accepting and still holding on to that opinion is what strengthens it.

I do tend to ramble when I’m pissed, so I’m sorry if this isn’t making any sense. My point is PLEASE open your mind. Just because something or someone is different than you doesn’t mean it’s wrong; it’s just that- different. If you’re a republican and someone you meet is a liberal who the fuck cares!? Having a certain opinion doesn’t make you a good or bad person. It won’t send you to heaven or hell and it shouldn’t determine how popular you are.

To summarize my furious ramblings I’ll leave you with this:
1. Don’t believe something just because it’s told to you! Find out yourself.
2. Don’t be so arrogant as to think that your way is the good or right way. Other people can be very different from you and still be very good, intelligent people.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Same-Sex Marriage Will Ruin Society! (a sarcastic interlude by Jango)


(And it won't be solved by clearing out your web browser.)

There is a gay storm coming! And before long, the winds will be blowing each other. We know it's completely unethical for two men to lie in bed together! Already, states have legalized same-sex marriage. It's like saying there's no such thing as gay marriage; there's only marriage. Why can't we go back to the good old days where marriage was between a man, a woman, and an emperor's club hooker? Our American forefathers wanted to establish religious principles as the basis of government! Had they not, wacko theories of evolution would be running rampant! Do we really want our public schools teaching children unverified theories? Like chemistry? Or Gravity? We should take those physics professors and throw them off a cliff! We'll prove to them that it's God blowing down on top of us from Heaven that keeps us from floating off the floor! People should just ACCEPT that God made the world 6000 years ago, exactly as is, and 4000 years later proclaimed that only Christians should run everyone else's lives so that they persuade God that Earth isn't so bad and he doesn't need to flood the Earth and kill us all.. again.

Some day all true believers will be thrust into heaven to suckle the almighty heterosexual nipple. Now, America, by true believers, of course I mean Christians only. We can die assured that only WE get into that private party. We know that the rippled bouncer at the Pearly Gates will only be stamping the hands of those of us who have our secret baptismal identification cards.  Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in the U.S. Remember, America! When the gay community is granted personal freedoms, our gets taken away! How?! My church used to be a typical, quiet, place to talk to talk to myself. Now, it's an Abercrombie n Fitch retail store! It's ArmaGAYden! Who knows what tastefully arranged destruction awaits us?    

"Reverend Pat Robertson says that if more states legalize gay marriage, God will destroy America. He did say that afterwards, gays will come in and do a beautiful renovation." - Conan O'Brien.  In a surprising difference of opinion, Dick Cheney says he supports same sex marriage because marriage qualifies as a form of torture.

DON'T GET ME WRONG THOUGH! I LIKE gay people, but only as best friends on T.V. and in movies. America, my point is: Gay is defined as happy. If they're allowed to be miserable, what hope do any of their single gal pals have? Single girls wouldn't go out to clubs and men would be slipping rufees into their wingman's drink leading to a very awkward breakfast for one man and a very painfully uncomfortable breakfast for the other. If Will was married, Grace would have no character development and America would lose it's most influential television show therefore making our wives go out of the kitchen to tell us how their day was leading to A MUCH HIGHER increase in divorces. And the only thing worse than a man and a woman agreeing to change their mind is letting two men agreeing to make theirs up.

America, heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children. Besides, kids can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children. And obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children. Legalizing gay marriage will encourage people to be gay in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall. I'm not saying being gay is immoral! Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

America! We need to force people to hear the truth! That is the word of our lord and savior, Mel Gibson.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Don't hate the player: Dating and the masks we wear (by anon)

            It happens to everyone and is a part of human nature.  Intimate relationships.  Despite the grumblings of a few temporarily embittered people (which has happened to myself at one point), humans do more than seek these relationships: we need them.  With few exceptions, we constantly search for someone to tell our deepest fears to, to hold us, to make fun of people at Walmart with. 
The process of getting to that point is my concern here.  We twist, turn, and squirm all in the pursuit of a partner.  Anybody who has gone through this process damns it to hell and wishes for things to be "simpler" and more "honest".  But would that be as effective?
"Just be yourself!"  Yeah, right.  That is one of the biggest lines of horseshit there is when it comes to dating.  For us to succeed (success as in being classified as a couple) we have to put on "masks".  While hiding our true self these masks function to project ourselves in a more pleasing manner for that special someone.  This can be in a physical form; wearing a button shirt, khakis, and some nice Kenneth Cole Reaction cologne.  This can be in a mental form; even though you are terrified of horror movies (like: anything classified as a horror movie) you watch several with the other person because they cannot get enough of them.  Without these masks it is harder to get the attention of the person of interest as anything more than a friend.  Why would they take special interest in you?  Your appearance may be nothing special to them and, more importantly, you may not seem to have much in common at first.  This leads to people trying to clean up their language, keep up their appearances, and try new things.  All with the goal of appearing more dating-friendly.  If you really want to attract someone, do not be your true self immediately.  Tailor the best possible mask for that special someone.

Nevertheless, one cannot make a mask too foreign to themselves or else it will come off as noticeably fake and lead to failure.  As a physical example imagine a man who normally dresses "Goth" and the woman he is interested in likes well dressed men.  The man will not and should not suddenly start wearing button shirts, belts, and the like.  Say he did though, then he would obviously be uncomfortable which would greatly hurt his chances with the woman.  As a mental example, imagine the man is a staunch liberal but the woman he likes is a staunch conservative.  Once again, he will not and should not try being and thinking like a conservative.  So when one crafts a mask, try to make it resemble yourself but with a few modifications.

Wearing a mask is not immoral, dishonest, or evil.  Nor is it moral, honest, or good.  It is a tool to be used in the pursuit of a relationship.  The tool is then evaluated based on how it was used and how effective it was.  Do not go about complaining how fake people are and how difficult it is to date someone.  Every single person wears a mask, whether it is intricate or simple, when trying to date someone.  You yourself have done this, whether consciously or not.  All I ask of you is to understand this is the way things are because, in general, it works and that no ill-will is meant by donning the mask.  Once one actually has that relationship or is near it however, they should slowly strip away the mask, but that is an issue better left to another posting. 

Friday, February 10, 2012

Why I hate the UWW’s dining services (by anon)

As a sophomore of this university, I have found myself thoroughly enjoying several aspects of my education. My professors are interesting, my friends are great, and the dorms aren’t nearly as bad as I thought they’d be. However, there has been one major complaint that has only grown into a passionate hatred the longer I endure it: the campus dining services.

We spend a little over a thousand dollars each semester on food, I understand in comparison to other campuses this is cheap, and for good reason. It’s all crap from the food to the service and anything in between.

First of all, I pay for these meals, so I expect to have one whenever I want. I am an adult capable of making decisions about my money and I don’t think the university has the right to tell me that I can’t have 5 meals in one sitting if I damn well please. I didn’t give them that money to control my intake of food, I gave them that money to have readily available when I want to go eat. In addition to this atrocity, my meals don’t roll over. I only get 14 a week and if I don’t use every one of them, they disappear into a university vortex and my money is just flushed down the toilet. They should roll over; in fact I shouldn’t be told I can only have so many meals in a week. I should be given a certain amount a semester so I can determine what I want when I want. Once again, I am an adult who can manage my own meal options. I feel like the university is stealing from me when they don’t allow me to have what I’ve already purchased.

Secondly, I hate the locations of where I can and cannot have my meal plan. The University Center is right next to all of my classes and much more convenient that booking it back to Esker, shoveling food down my throat, and then booking it back to class. Why can’t I use my meal plan at the UC? I understand the coffee shop allows me a coffee and a donut for a meal option, but seriously, what kind of lunch is that? Sugar and caffeine? Some of us are trying to live healthy lifestyles. Why can’t the Commons or the Café have a meal plan option? Then I wouldn’t have to skip lunch or run for it to get back on time for classes. In addition, to the slim meal plan dining location choices, the hours these places have are HORRIBLE. I like to stay on the weekend, and I know I’m not the only one. I understand this is a commuter college so I don’t expect all places to be open, but puh-lease! I can’t grab anything until 11am on a weekend day. What if I had to work at 10:30am and didn’t get a lunch until later? I would be so hungry by then I would be cranky and a poorly performing employee. It’s a little presumptuous to assume that because we’re college students we all sleep in super late. A lot of us actually like to get up early and enjoy our whole day, and those days would start off a lot better if we could get breakfast on our campus.

Lastly, the dining halls for residents are disgusting in every single way I can think of. Forget the occasional night when we have steak and shrimp or a chocolate fountain for Valentine’s Day, the vast majority of the time, we’re served slop. Prisoners get better food than we do and they don’t even spend a thousand dollars on it. Most meals are under cooked, over cooked, under seasoned, or just flat out slimy. Places like P Street or Drumlin rarely change their meal options and after a month, you’ve eaten everything they’ve had to offer so many times that you’d rather make yourself a dirt sandwich than ever even look at another dining hall burger.  I have also noticed that the dining halls are not cleaned very often and while I understand that a couple hundred college students can make a mess during the day, there are lulls and plenty of breaks where they can wipe down a few tables and mop up some of the sticky messes that get on the floors. I’m not saying to totally douse the place in bleach, but a little maintenance during the day never hurt anybody. 

Overall, I think the dining services offered here on campus are very bad and poorly thought through. If the budget is the reason for this horror, then charge us a hundred dollars more or something. We already have one of the cheapest educations in the state, a hundred dollars more would make a huge difference and not be that big of deal tacked onto our bill. If it’s just laziness on the university’s part then shame on them. We’re students working hard toward our futures, we need the basic human necessities available to us when we need them and because we aren’t a large group of felons we deserve better than the slop we’re served or the availability we’re given. I’m not asking for 5 star quality I’m just asking for some effort on UWW’s part.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Government and "true" freedom do not mix (by anon)

Inspired by a bumper sticker that said “no one is free if anyone is oppressed”

What is the role of Government? If you think government is meant to protect the freedom of others, you need to realize that the only way to protect the freedoms of others is to deny the freedoms of others. Allow me to explain: If I am free to shoot someone I want whenever I want, then I am denying the person I’m shooting the freedom of life.  To protect the freedom of life for the individual who I want to shoot, my freedom to shoot who ever I want is denied. All governments at their core deny freedom. The question is which freedoms override other freedoms. In my shooting example, it is obvious; my freedom to shoot anyone should and is denied to ensure the freedom of others. Complete freedom for all would be complete chaos. This “whose and what freedom should be denied,” is more or less at the core of most issues.  

Should illegal immigrants be denied the freedom to come into America just because they didn’t go through the rigorous immigration process? By the phrasing of the question it seems that this freedom shouldn’t be denied. Should law abiding citizens be forced to pay income taxes and contribute to the system while illegal immigrants don’t pay income taxes and receive all the benefits of tax payer dollars? Maybe illegals don’t receive all the benefits but most benefits we take for granted and don’t realize they are benefits like roads, schools, hospitals, police, and no fear being invaded by outside countries. Whose and what freedom is more important? And so the debate begins.

The whole point of this is to point out what appears to be a not so obvious fact. Governments deny freedom in an effort to protect freedom. A freedom being denied gives way to more important freedoms being protected. The tricky parts is how far is too far. I think we would all agree that N. Korea goes too far in denying its people freedoms. I think we would all agree that if America suddenly said no more laws will be enforced, then massive death and chaos would ensue. Again which freedoms should override other’s freedom and be protected by the government? Well, that’s all debatable. Just know that some freedoms are, will be, and should be denied. So, all this “freedom this and freedom that,” combined with “government this and government that,” is all an oxymoron. Government and (true freedom) absolutely do not mix.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Listen to me bitch about how I hate nightclubs (by Rant)

If you’ve been to a night club in one city, you’ve been to a nightclub in every city.  I just got back from a pub crawl featuring some of the hottest, excessively riddled with human beings floors in the entire world, and I can still say that after traveling to the (party capital of the world?), it’s the same exact thing and if anything more packed. Fuck yeah, come to London where you can be smashed into a tiny room with music guaranteed to be playing at volumes so loud that you won’t be able to hold a meaningful conversation for more than 14 seconds. 

Now I didn’t write this simply to bitch about what most people would give an arm and a leg to experience (although I’ll never accept why). I wrote this because I want people to understand that that for a large percentage of people, nightclubs are fucking stupid. Don't get me wrong, it was awesome to see firsthand the Friday night scene in London, to wander home drunk with the group, enjoy a delicious sausage from an unmarked street vendor (quite possibly an angel?) at 1 in the morning.. I loved tonight, but the one thing it did the most was to reaffirm my belief that nightclubs/dance bars are really fucking overrated FOR PEOPLE WHO DON’T LIKE DANCING AT CLUBS.  I can totally appreciate people who love to express themselves through dancing. However, I can have just as meaningful and spiritual of an experience listening to music sitting in a computer chair by myself at 3 PM.  

Unfortunately for young people like me, we often feel as if we are in the minority, a feeling that usually appears during trips to business places of social gathering (bars, clubs) blasting Billboard Hot 100 music at volumes only warranted by hearing aid safety experiments. Want to have a conversation with a good friend or acquaintance over a fine alcoholic beverage?  Tough shit, bitch.  Either get your ass to dancing or drink your beer in the corner with the rest of the dissenters. 

Now for many of you, the natural thing would be to tell me, “If you hate clubs so much then you don’t have to go to them, you whiny little bitch.” But that’s just the thing. As young people aged 21 (or 18 in Europe’s case) to 30ish, clubs are the default destination for them to wander over to on a Friday night.  But at every bar I’ve been to, I see TONS of people scattered around the perimeter of these clubs and bars looking COMPLETELY out of their element. At the very least these people would be better off in a quieter area, perhaps having some drinks in a place where they can hear each other talk without screaming across the 1.5 feet separating you and your buddy. We’ve let ourselves be taken over by this culture of nightclubs, where you’re expected to wriggle around in a sweaty b.o. sauna-pit of half-zombified humans (Well, if they had anything worthwhile to say I sure as hell couldn’t hear it).

I’m all for being social, but let’s try to put some fucking thought into it. So, basically, All I’m saying is when it comes to social get-togethers, the default choice shouldn’t have to be sweaty b.o. sauna bits filled with half-zombified humanoids.   

/ Rant.