NY Times to Washington: Save Us From Ourselves!

A headline and summary from the NY Times editorial page today:

Plastic Card Tricks
Before more Americans get so deep into credit card debt that they cannot dig out, Washington needs to change the way credit card companies do business.

I get the point they’re trying to make in the  editorial about deceptive lending practices.  But here’s what I’d like to know: How much of the debt that the NY Times is so worried about is the result of deceptive lending practices?  And how much of it is the fault of people who simply weren’t responsible about their money?

The NYT had a similar editorial a few months ago bemoaning how many students were graduating with credit card debt.  I may not have the lofty perspective of a reporter in the NYT news room, but I do have plenty of opportunities to observe college students in their natural environments. Very few are the students who rack up credit card debt just trying to survive.  More often, students just aren’t particularly responsible about money.  They want a certain lifestyle, don’t have the means to afford it, and buy it anyway.  My heart does not exactly weep for them when they graduate with credit card debt.

The moral is this: some people (many, in fact) will make bad decisions regardless of how clear and open lending practices are.  So let’s stop playing like the fault rests on credit card companies instead of individuals.

 

MySpace Journalism

It strikes me as incredibly strange to see the New York Times print an article on the prostitute whom Eliot Spitzer allegedly bedded based largely on the woman’s MySpace page.

I have no real objection to using information from MySpace but it just seems so…collegiate?  It’s one thing for a reporter from the George Street Observer to mine Facebook for incriminating pictures of Student Government Association.  It’s another for America’s newspaper of record to write about the life and times of a Ms. Ashley Alexandra Dupre based on what she has to say about herself on MySpace.

 

In Honor of Spring Break

There was an interesting article from the NY Times health section on binge drinking today:

In a series of studies in the 1970s and ’80s, psychologists at the University of Washington put more than 300 students into a study room outfitted like a bar with mirrors, music and a stretch of polished pine. The researchers served alcoholic drinks, most often icy vodka tonics, to some of the students and nonalcoholic ones, usually icy tonic water, to others. The drinks looked and tasted the same, and the students typically drank five in an hour or two.

The studies found that people who thought they were drinking alcohol behaved exactly as aggressively, or as affectionately, or as merrily as they expected to when drunk. “No significant difference between those who got alcohol and those who didn’t,” Alan Marlatt, the senior author, said. “Their behavior was totally determined by their expectations of how they would behave.”

I know I’ve seen this happen.  And if you’re in college, you probably have too.

And because I’m on spring break, chilling at Disney World, that’s all I’m going to bother to write.

 

You’re Not Important Enough to Be Impeached

In a move sure to lack profound implications for the College of Charleston community, our Student Government Association voted 20 to 10 to impeach Vice President Seaton Brown.

Every non-joiner college student knows that SGA exists solely to build the egos and resumes of a select few students. It’s like a fraternity for kids who like to feel important. But surely they realize that their organization is not important enough to warrant impeaching a vice president. At first I thought that SGA had obligingly decided to create a controversy in order to give the journalists of the George Street Observer something more important to cover than the latest goings-on of MTV reality shows. But the more I read, the more I realized that they’re actually serious.

The full coverage is here and here, with a video of the proceedings on the homepage here. Frankly, the whole thing is a little boring, so feel free to read up on the minutiae from those sources. I only have a few observations.

First, I feel sorry for Brown. He seems like the kind of bow-tie wearing SGA enthusiast who would wear on me quickly because he takes the organization so seriously, but from what I’ve read, it doesn’t sound like he deserves to be impeached.

Second, to illustrate the inanity of SGA, I’d like to note that there was another VP a few years ago who faced the impeachment process:

According to Hinds (SGA President), in the 2003-2004 academic year, the SGA Vice President did not place a bill on the docket due to his personal feelings. The bill proposed that C of C acknowledge the Boston Red Sox as it’s official team.

Talk about your important issues. One of the charges against Brown:

[Secretary Peter] Neiger wrote that Brown interrupted and belittled senators that supported the bill during debate, and, after its passage, Brown spoke to the Senate in what [Freshman Senator William] Porter described in his letter as a tirade.

“Vice-President [sic] Brown abrasively addressed the Senate to such an extreme that he made many people feel uncomfortable,” wrote Porter.

My heart weeps for you.

The best part of the whole spectacle, though, was during the proceedings when Chief of Staff Jamie Shafer, one of the students who initiated the impeachment proceedings, actually started getting weepy on the floor of the Senate. She even did that little hand-wave thing that beauty pageant contestant winners do when they tear up while getting crowned Miss America.

Finally, a description of Brown’s misdeeds:

“His violations fall under two categories: failure to exercise the powers and duties of his office and failure to refrain from activities which may bring shame and/or disgrace to his office,” Neiger said.

Here’s a question. Would breaking the law be considered an activity that brings shame or disgrace to the office? And if that’s the case, I’d hypothesize that at least half of SGA could be impeached on violations of the drinking age alone.

Let’s check the bylaws:

SGA By-laws, Section 1500.000:

1500.000 Impeachment of Executive and Legislative Officers

1500.001 Impeachment charges may only be brought against an official
if he/she is found to violate an article in the Constitution and/or
any rules of conduct in the Student Handbook, College of Charleston
Honor Code, or the oath of office.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the College of Charleston frown on illegal alcohol consumption?

 

I Did a Very Bad Thing

I bought the fabric for the Capitalist Pig dress.  Once I make it, I’ll have counter-protest  at a socialist rally  just so that I have a chance to wear it.  Unfortunately, the Charleston area isn’t home to a great deal of socialist activity, unless you count the College of Charleston.  So maybe I’ll just wear it to class.

On an entirely different, apolitical note, I also went to the local Hancock Fabrics for their Warehouse sale, and spent an obscene (for me) amount of money on fabric, patterns  and assorted notions.  I used to be dismayed when I realized how much fabric I had lying around from projects planned but never started.  Then I found out that every seamstress, including my new heroine, has large fabric stashes squirreled away for those days when you realize that you don’t need more fabric (or a nightmare future in which there is no new fabric to be had.  You just never know).

 

Islam, Gender, Race and Witch Hunts

The New York Times had two stories today with some interesting material.

The first looked at the inclusion debate in Muslim student groups:

The intense debate over whether organizations for Muslim students should be inclusive or strict is playing out on college campuses across the United States, where there are now more than 200 Muslim Students Association chapters.

Gender issues, specifically the extent to which men and women should mingle, are the most fraught topic as Muslim students wrestle with the yawning gap between American college traditions and those of Islam.

I can sympathize with wanting to be strict about your religious traditions, and wanting to create a community that encourages those traditions, especially with regards to the rampant drunkenness and promiscuity of the American college campus.  To some extent, Christian groups try to do the same thing, creating a safe haven for values that may not be celebrated on the rest of the campus.  But what I find so profoundly disturbing about Islam (aside from the propensity to be terrorists) is the insistence on segregating men and women:

Some members push against the rigidity. Fatima Hassan, 22, a senior at the Davis campus, organized a coed road trip to Reno, Nev., two hours away, to play the slot machines last Halloween. In Islam, Ms. Hassan concedes, gambling is “really bad,” but it was men and women sharing the same car that shocked some fellow association members.

This rigidity is a manifestation of the belief that men and women cannot be trusted to be sexually pure while in close quarters.  More specifically, that men can not and should not be expected to control themselves sexually in the presence of women.  And from this belief, we get a blunt form of rape apologetics, which says that it’s OK to sexually assault a woman if she steps outside the very narrow boundaries of the strict interpretation of Islamic law.

On the bright side, this interpretation of Islam is in conflict with prevailing American assumption that men and women have equal rights:

“As American Islam gets its own identity, it is going to have to shed some of these notions that are distant from American culture,” said Rafia Zakaria, a student at Indiana University. “The tension is between what forms of tradition are essential and what forms are open to innovation.”

American law says men and women are equal, whereas Muslim religious texts say they “complement” each other, Ms. Zakaria said. “If the law says they are equal, it’s hard to see how in their spiritual lives they will accept a whole different identity.”

On a different note, a Columbia University professor is under investigation for plagiarism.  Her response?  Play the race and sex card:

Dr. Constantine, in an e-mail message to faculty and students on Wednesday, called the investigation “biased and flawed,” and said it was part of a “conspiracy and witch hunt by certain current and former members of the Teachers College community.”

“I am left to wonder whether a white faculty member would have been treated in such a publicly disrespectful and disparaging manner,” she wrote.

She added, “I believe that nothing that has happened to me this year is coincidental, particularly when I reflect upon the hate crime I experienced last semester involving a noose on my office door. As one of only two tenured black women full professors at Teachers College, it pains me to conclude that I have been specifically and systematically targeted.”

I wish I could use my race and gender to avoid accusations of plagiarism.  Her claim starts sounding stupid by the end of the article:

Dr. Luthar [chair of Constantine's department] said that any suggestion that the inquiry was about race was “misguided and wrongheaded at best,” noting that she herself is “a woman of color,” as is Dr. Yeh [A junior colleague whose work Constantine may have plagiarized].

So, the Department Chair who is responsible for the “witch-hunt” and the woman whose work she may have stolen are both women of color, belonging to the same double-victimhood category that she says is responsible for the allegations in the first place?  Have either of them been systematically targeted?  No?  It’s just Dr. Constantine?  Sounds like someone is getting a little paranoid.

 

How Not to Write an Opinion Column

Today’s lesson brought to us by Katie Bartter, writing for the George Street Observer.

I’ve re-read her article three times now, and I’m still not sure what exactly her point is. Mostly, I’m getting that “I hate religious conservatives with a fiery passion” vibe, and it seems like she’s arguing that the US should be more like the society of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World when it comes to sex.

The first part is common enough. Most college students are allergic to being told that there might be a right and wrong. It’s the second part that has me reading the article over and over again - didn’t anyone tell her that Huxley’s book is about a dystopia?

I get the feeling she might actually be residing in an alternate universe, because the world she describes seems to have little relation to reality.

Merely thinking about a sexual fantasy screams heresy, and shame creeps into the minds of those conjuring up such awful thoughts. Disgrace showers on anyone who allows the wave of vulgar thoughts to break down the dam of morality carefully built by busy, saintly beavers.

Hasn’t she ever watched TV? Or had a conversation with other students? What’s really taboo is not wanting to talk and think about sex all the time. Our very own college hosted a seminar called “I (Heart) Female Orgasm.” Where is all this shame she thinks exist? Also, every sentence she writes is just as overwrought as these two. It makes for slow and boring reading, because her sentences never seem to get to the point. An example:

Regressing due to a conservative belief system pouring steadily into the country via government officials, American society appears to steadily sink lower on the sexually accepting totem pole of the world.

What does this sentence actually mean? I think her clarity issues are caused by overuse of adjectives and metaphors. My favorite professor at the College had some advice that most writers could learn from. He said that you should first try to write without any adjectives, so that you can learn to write sentences that are powerful because of their structure rather than their excess words. Once you master that, you can use adjectives again. The same could really be said of metaphors. The “totem pole” of the world? You really thought that was a good idea? She also doesn’t seem to know how to make a convincing argument. Take this sentence, for example:

From Sunday school to church services, children begin learning from a young age that contact with the opposite sex in an inappropriate manner results in damnation.

In other words, children are exposed to moral messages in explicitly religious settings. Not exactly proof of a plague of conservatism upon the nation.

Midway through her op-ed, Bartter even manages to bring in abortion, gay marriage and President Bush, and each attempted put-down is more tired than the last. I could quote more, but I don’t want to bore you. Or myself. So I’ll finish with her last paragraph:

Though experiencing a relapse, the United States may have a fighting chance. The same media responsible for advocating multitudinous religious commandments increasingly advertises positive sex related commercials and television shows. Individual networks that influence numerous young adults, such as MTV and Vh1, have begun to hold benefits to promote sexual education about protection and administer healthcare to eradicate diseases. Cultivating an attitude similar to Brave New World, the media helps establish that sickness causes destruction, the promotion of safe intercourse fosters better results than attempting to enforce abstinence, and moral views ultimately need to remain within an individual. Finally developing moral obligations of their own and escaping those of older generations, adolescents lead the way in abolishing ignorance and embracing acceptance about sexual activities.

Saints be praised - MTV and VH1 will save us yet.

 

Gene Nichol ousted; liberals everywhere hyperventilate

Gene Nichol, the president of William and Mary, resigned on Tuesday after the Board of Visitors declined to renew his contract.  You may remember him as the president who had a cross removed from a chapel on the campus, in order to make non-Christians more comfortable.

Predictably, howls of outrage are sounding across Facebook and other internet outlets, declaring his removal a disgrace, bemoaning the death of academic freedom, and calling the pressure from state legislators and others to remove him a right-wing hit job.

My first observation is that the students of William and Mary are more than happy to have their educations subsidized by the good people of Virginia.  But God forbid these taxpayers and their elected representatives object to what goes on at the college they fund.  Here’s the fun reality, kids.  If your college is funded largely by taxpayers, then your campus had better conform to the standards set by that community.  Want pure, unadulterated freedom?  Don’t accept taxpayer funds.

From Daily Kos, we have an illustration of the hypocrisy that goes into liberal thinking:

He defended the right of students to bring the Sex Worker’s Art Show to campus and resisted vigorous calls for him to censor the production. When some members of the W&M community expressed to him that they were made uncomfortable by the presence of a cross in an open campus space, he took steps to accommodate people of all faiths.

So, if he had refused to allow a troupe of strippers to perform on campus, that would have been censorship. But removing a cross from a chapel is just making students more comfortable.  I can’t imagine that there weren’t plenty of folks made uncomfortable by the Sex Workers Art Show.

 

Next thing you know, she’ll want to give them booze and driver’s licenses too

I rarely see a decent argument made for lowering the voting age to 16, and this op-ed from the New York Times is really no exception. It made me think, for about 5 seconds, that maybe it wasn’t such a terrible idea. Then my higher reasoning powers kicked in and I shook off my temporary stupidity.

The author, Anya Kamenetz, writes that the gradual phasing in of rights and responsibilities helps teenagers learn to exercise both with care, and points to the learner’s permit to driver’s license progression as an example of the wisdom of this approach.  The same principle, she believes, ought to apply to voting:

Similarly, 16-year-olds who want to start voting should be able to obtain an “early voting permit” from their high schools upon passing a simple civics course similar to the citizenship test. Besides increasing voter registration, this system would reinforce the notion of voting as a privilege and duty as well as a right — without imposing any across-the-board literacy tests for those over 18.

It’s an interesting idea in theory, but what exactly would go on this test?  I can imagine that if you put me in the room with a dozen other random people, we would all have very different ideas of what a young person should have to know to prove that they are responsible enough to vote.  The problem with such a test is that the content is going to be purely subjective.  Granted, 18 year olds vary greatly in their preparation to handle various life tasks, but at least by applying an across-the-board age standard, we are being just in the most easily-defined sense of the term.

The more interesting question here, I think, is why the Kamenetz feels it’s important to lower the voting age:

  We should hasten the enfranchisement of this generation, born between 1980 and 1995, by lowering the voting age to 16.

Okay, but why does it matter how quickly we are enfranchised?  She doesn’t really give a satisfactory answer except for the idea that giving people rights makes them more responsible.  Usually, the argument for lowering the voting age is that it will get more people involved in politics, and increase voter turnout.

But is increased participation as measured by votes cast really a worthwhile goal?  In some sense, politics is self-selecting.  Those of us who read the newspaper everyday and really care what’s going on are more likely to truck out to the polls on Election Day and punch a ballot then those who care more about what’s on Lifetime than what’s going on in Congress.  And in all the hyperventilation that goes on over whether young people are really invested in the process, no one seems to want to make the obvious point that maybe college students don’t vote because they don’t care.  They have classes to go to, parents to pay for them, a cold beer on Friday night and no inclination to follow current events - why should they vote?  And if they did rouse themselves from their apathy long enough to vote, but without caring very much about the issues (or being very much affected by the outcome), is that proof that the system is working?  Those young people who care, vote.  Those who don’t care, don’t vote.  That, to me, is a working system.

So, I don’t think there is much to be gained from enfranchising us faster.   Kamenetz makes another point that is well worth considering, though:

The more we treat teenagers as adults, the more they rise to our expectations. From a developmental and vocational point of view, the late teens are the right starting point for young people to think seriously about their futures. Government can help this process by bestowing rights along with responsibilities.

I agree, in principle.  I think that parents who expect their teenagers to act like rational adults will have a far easier time raising rational adults than indulgent or negligent parents.  But my key word is “parents” and hers is “government.”  I think there is a problem.  I think that today’s young adults are taking advantage of the prosperity around them to extend their adolescence to a dangerous degree.  But I think this is a problem with parenting, and not a problem that can be solved, or even ameliorated, by adding Advanced Placement rights and responsibilities.

Anyways, the whole article is well worth reading, because she has some interesting ideas about phasing in of credit cards and drinking.

As an aside, riffing off Kamenetz’s comments on credit cards, I’m always annoyed by the nightly news show attempts to paint credit card debt as the plague of college campuses and graduates.  You idiots, credit card debt is the symptom, not the disease.  The real problem is students whose parents never bothered to teach them the value of a dollar.  It’s not like college students get handed a credit card, and that mysterious piece of plastic compels them to buy things they don’t need.  Kids these days.  I feel like I should be wearing my Grandpa cardigan as I write this.

 

Now you can obsess over your weight for the whole world to see

Have you ever wanted to chart your weight loss, share your calories burned each day, journal  what you eat at every meal and compare statistics with friends, all out in the open so that everyone you know can see how you’re doing?

Well, thanks to Facebook and Fat Secret, this dream is now a reality.   That’s right, my friends.  Now you can obsess about your body in full view of the public eye.  Let it be known to the world that you waste minutes of your life actually figuring out the calories in everything you eat and recording it so that you can berate yourself over it later.

Better yet, if you don’t want the whole world to know how much you weigh, you can share with a chosen Support Circle, that way you and your diet-minded friends can offer each other advice on getting the best body ever.  Where best, of course, equals skinny.

Maybe exposure to the compulsory women’s magazine January makeover obsession is starting to get to me.  Why is it assumed that women need “A New Body for the New Year”?  And why is being obsessed with your weight and denying yourself foods that you enjoy such a badge of pride?

And it’s not just young women, either.  When I working today, I got to listen to a group of 40-something women compare physical faults with the kind of one-up-manship that should be reserved for actual contests.   I’m sure you’ve seen it happen (and, if you’re a woman, probably engaged in it): One woman says “Ugh, my thighs are so big.”  The next woman chimes in, “At least your arms aren’t flabby like mine.”  A third woman, trying to top them all, says “I have a big butt and a pudgy tummy.”  It’s like my mom says: when you’re forty years old, you’ve earned the right to be fat and sassy.

I think the world would be a little bit better of a place if we would resist the urge to compete over whose body is uglier, and whose diet is more extreme.  At least, women might be a little saner.