In his speech, Suarez explored the effects that religion has on politics in American society.

His speech, titled “The Holy Vote: The Politics of Faith in America,” followed the subject matter of his 2006 book of the same title. The book, which is composed of a series of essays and anecdotes, investigates the connection between faith and the American political system.

He stressed the importance of understanding and appreciating the relationship between modern politics and religion.

According to Suarez, many political conflicts are grounded in religious norms.

“The economic crisis has taken focus off a lot of issues like abortion and school prayer…but there’s continuing speculation about Islam and America,” Suarez said. “We’re using our religious identity to try and work out ongoing social anxieties, and it’s going to continue.”

According to Suarez, it is important that people are able to respect the nation’s secularity and promote a live-and-let-live social standard, regardless of their personal religious fervor.

“I don’t need my faith to be affirmed or endorsed by having religious statues in public places,” Suarez said. “I don’t feel like America should use specific activities and venues that exclude people.”

Suarez said that the main argument in favor of creating a nationalized religious culture—that it engenders an intrinsic, guiding morality in individuals—is not necessarily true.

“We didn’t need Jehovah to tell Moses to tell us that murder was bad. Morality has a relationship to religion, but it might not be as intimate as religious people think,” Suarez said.

According to Suarez, political candidates should be considered based on their personal merit as opposed to their personal religious views.

Still, he says that personal values of politicians are influential and important for voters to consider.

Suarez cited President George W. Bush as one of the most publicly religious U. S. presidents ever, yet he left his presidency with one of the worst public approval ratings in history.

Ultimately, Suarez said that students should look past the personal dimensions of candidates and focus on the platforms they represent.

“All of this is more complicated than you’ve been told,” Suarez said. “It’s all part of the kind of discernment that you’re going to carry through your life.”

Erin Mitchell | Student Life

Just like the average American student is horrified when he steps out in Parisian gardens and sees couples (GASP! The horror) holding hands or even (shudder) kissing each other, so Europeans are often left dumbfounded by the complexity of the American dating game. You’ve been seeing a girl for two or three months, but you still don’t know what your “status” is? Welcome to America, where commitment seems to be the third biggest fear of college students, right after getting overly drunk and doing a Native American dance naked around the Clocktower, and listening to a mainstream band. I think Mark Zuckerberg invented the “It’s Complicated” status strictly for American students. In Europe, it’s regarded as nothing more than a funny oddity.

It seems to me as if the basic relationship that is being promoted is the drunken hook-up at a frat party, your senses (and most importantly, your sense of judgment) numbed by the shots and cans of Miller Light that you ingested. And if, by chance, you actually fall for a girl you like, well, the fun has only just started, because things can NEVER be straightforward. I blame game theory. If you feel that there is actually something worth preserving from that first alcohol-induced encounter, then you need to respect completely stupid rules like not calling the other person first, or other, achingly imbecilic protocols. I get that it’s supposed to make the other person like you more because they’re constantly wondering why the other is not calling, but not only does it make the whole thing slightly shameful and twice as irritating, it’s also completely counterintuitive. The entire concept of dating in France revolves around you showing that you like the other person, not ignoring them. But in America, the infamous P.D.A.s (Public Displays of Affection) are proscribed, and couples even vaguely acknowledging the fact that they are indeed an item are held up to public contempt before being pilloried. Or that’s how it feels, anyway.

Don’t get me wrong, I can understand why students don’t want to be “In a Relationship” in college. But that’s because relationships in America are altogether too serious. You can be seeing someone and not planning for marriage. You can be in a relationship, and still not be “serious.”

Only in America could a girl dump you because your relationship is going too “well.”

As I’m writing this, I realize that I sound more bitter than Moammar Gadhafi after last Friday’s U.N. resolution. I’m sure that American girls find Europeans pushy for expressing themselves, and American men find European girls distant (for not grinding them once they’ve had a cocktail). Let me just say that the prospect of dating in America leaves me cold. There’s already too much bullshit to deal with in college life without adding another layer. Who ever thought there was a need to overcomplicate the most simple and natural of human relations?

Audrey Westcott | Student Life

The Egyptian revolution is part of a much larger movement that has seen protests in Tunisia, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Algeria and threatening oppressive dictators throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa. It all began in Tunisia, where a 26-year-old found his street cart confiscated by local police because he lacked a permit to sell produce in the street. Unable to meet with corrupt government officials and too poor to afford bribing them, Mohamed Bouazizi decided enough was enough. On Dec. 17, the young man burned himself in the streets in front of a government building. He died 18 days later and the protests soon followed. Tunisians sent President Ben Ali into exile following a twenty-three year reign and the rest of the region became engulfed in flames as well. Over a dozen people have since lit themselves on fire elsewhere to protest oppressive and unresponsive governments. Bouazizi’s mother responded by saying, “I have lost my son, but I am proud of what he did.”

It is still unclear whether the revolutions will yield positive results or if more oppressive rulers will fill the void. What is clear though is that the United States is determined to be a winner, but can only come out as a loser. As people of differing backgrounds, economic statuses and religions all unite against a common cause, the United States continues to funnel billions of dollars to ruthless dictators. In Hosni Mubarak’s 30 year reign as President of Egypt, our government has funneled billions in military assistance. This was seen on the streets this past week, as US taxpayer funded tanks, planes and weapons were used against the protestors. The Egyptians have awoken, but the United States continues to follow the same foreign policy of intervention around the globe. Rather than allowing Egyptians to choose their own path, our government has played a heavy role in determining their political future.

Immediately following the revolutions, Vice President Joe Biden said that Hosni Mubarak was not a dictator, but instead an ally of the United States. Protestors held up tear gas canisters used against them with the label, “Made in the U.S.A.” As Egyptians enter their second week of protests calling for a new leader, our government has endorsed its support for newly appointed Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman. This course of action is misguided and can only lead to further unintended consequences down the road.

Despite popular belief at home that ours is a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” our track record in the Middle East and the Third World is horrendous. Rather than allow for local populations to decide their form of government, the American empire has been in the habit of supporting U.S.-friendly dictators around the globe for too long. This short-term solution creates artificial stability, but costly long-term consequences. Following decades of an oppressive U.S.-backed dictator in Iran, the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 still has lingering effects today. Should we continue to support Mubarak and his friends, this fate is likely in Egypt.

The protests by angry citizens throughout the Middle East have done more to spread democracy than the American-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Time will tell whether this is a repeat of 1989 or just a temporary breath of freedom. Eventually though, citizens will have enough of their governments, just as Mohamed Bouazizi had enough in Tunisia.

The United States must return towards a Jeffersonian foreign policy of “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.” The billions of taxpayer dollars pumped into governments around the world, including Egypt, need to be shut off. Our military, located in over a hundred countries around the globe, should be brought home. We need to accept that our involvement in areas around the globe creates resentment and anti-American sentiment. Regardless of our intentions, malicious or altruistic, our presence and influence is not needed to bring peace and stability. In fact, the uprisings are in spite of our presence and support for their dictators. Today, protestors are tossing the shackles off from decades of prolonged oppression. We must make sure we are not forging the shackles.

Katie Sadow | Student Life

Northeast

Maryland (GB): The Department of Education has replaced the lyrics of the popular playground game “Patty Cake” to “Ra-vens, Crab-cakes, Mar-y-land, we can’t stand the Steelers fans.”

New England (GB): Gisele would not approve of Troy Polamalu’s locks. That said, the whole of New England would not accept Ben Roethlisberger winning as many Super Bowls as Tom Brady.

New York (GB/PIT): If you’re a Jets fan, you’re pulling hard for the Pack. If you’re a Giants fan, you want Pittsburgh to win for vengeance against the team that denied you a spot in the playoffs. If you’re a Bills fan, make sure you’ve got some friends and a good drinking game.

Pennsylvania (PIT): While Pittsburgh residents are obviously rooting for the Steelers, Philly fans are still bitter about the Eagles’ 21-16 loss to Green Bay in the NFC Wild Card matchup.

Virginia (PIT): You’re still bitter about the shellacking Andrew Luck laid on the Virginia Tech Hokies in the Orange Bowl. Believe it or not, though, there are only three players from either Va. Tech or UVA in this Super Bowl, and all three are on the Steelers.

Midwest

Illinois (PIT): In case all you Chicagoans have never seen a “Real Friends Don’t Let Friends Be Packer Fans” shirt, or needed this article to remind you what city you’re from, you should be rooting for the Steelers on Sunday. Bears fans have been known to yell “Green Bay Sucks!” after games, even when they don’t play the Packers, so why change that now?

Indiana (GB): Colts fans believe Peyton Manning to be the best quarterback in the AFC, and, much like Patriots fans’ sentiments towards Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger’s third Super Bowl ring would challenge this.

Michigan (GB): When you are a Lions fan, you haven’t had much to cheer about. Ever. Beating the Super Bowl champions would be the best thing to happen to Detroit since Barry Sanders was drafted in 1989.

Minnesota (PIT): If the Vikings’ division rivalry with the Packers wasn’t enough, they also grabbed Green Bay’s Hall of Fame quarterback, inciting rage on both sides of the Minnesota/Wisconsin state line.

Missouri (PIT): While St. Louis fans might not even realize there is a football game this weekend, Kansas City fans will be cheering on the Steelers. Pittsburgh beat Baltimore, who embarrassed the Chiefs in a 30-7 AFC Divisional Round loss.

Ohio (PIT): Did you know that Big Ben is from Lima, Ohio? Did you know that was a city? The Steelers’ quarterback was in Ohio all the way through his college career at Miami University (Ohio), and would probably appreciate some hometown support on his road to redemption.

Wisconsin (GB): What is Wisconsin if not a state full of Packers fans? Grab your cheesehead and get your Aaron Rogers championship belt ready—if he wins this one, he has as many Super Bowls for the Pack as he-who-must-not-be-named.

Southeast

Georgia (GB): While the Packers did beat the Falcons handily in the NFC Divisional matchup, Georgians cannot forgive Ben Roethlisberger and his alleged encounter in Milledgeville.

Florida (PIT): Florida is known, in part, for its sandy beaches. Beachgoers usually bring towels, and Steelers fans love their Terrible Towels.

Louisiana (GB): Brett Favre is certainly hard to shake, and his influence upon the South is unquestionable. Hailing from Hattiesburg, Mississippi, Favre’s 16-year tenure with the Packers created a multitude of dedicated Cheeseheads in the region.

The Carolinas (PIT): The Panthers were absolutely terrible this season, but a Week 16 blowout loss to the Steelers clinched the No. 1 pick in the 2011 NFL Draft. Carolina fans can appreciate Pittsburgh’s help in accomplishing that feat. Go Steelers.

Tennessee (GB): The Steelers needed a goal-line stand to make it to the Super Bowl. We all know how Titans fans feel about goal-line stands and the Super Bowl.

Southwest

Arizona (GB): Santonio Holmes cradling the ball in the corner of the end zone with no time left still gives us nightmares. Down with the Steelers!

Texas (GB): It’s a down year for Texas football when TCU is the best team in the state, so a good game is all we can hope for. However, if Pittsburgh wins, they have two more Super Bowls than “America’s Team.” That is unacceptable.

West

Northern California (GB): Unless you’re a Stanford fan, it’d be tough for NorCal-ers not to respect the success of a California boy like Rodgers. Plus, they don’t want any other “Bay” teams to be claiming championships…

Southern California (PIT): Mainly just because they have to do the opposite of what NorCal does. Since neither of these teams has any remote chance of being relocated to Los Angeles, they don’t really care that much.

Colorado (GB): Surely, the Broncos faithful couldn’t stand to see Roethlisberger get more Super Bowl wins than Elway, could they?

Washington (GB): The 7-9 Seahawks were so ready to host the NFC Championship game before the Bears came along and ruined it. Seattle fans owe the Pack for exacting revenge. After all, we all know that the Seahawks would’ve won the NFC title game if they were in it…

Israel benefits the U.S. in all these areas and has been a stalwart ally.

The US-Israeli relationship helps make American citizens healthier, safer and better positioned for the future. Israel and the U.S. cooperate on research projects, which has led to 36 Nobel Prize winners equally funded by both countries who have invented cancer-curing drugs, made food safer and developed clean energy technology.

The relationship aids American security. As a result of Israel’s constant security needs, Israel has tremendous expertise in homeland security, from border patrol and airport security to counter-terrorism. Because of this strong relationship, American leaders travel to Israel to benefit from Israeli knowledge in these areas, bringing back what they learn to make America more secure.

American troops in combat are safer because of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Israeli-created equipment protects troops. Israel makes emergency bandages that save lives, unmanned drones that give America intelligence without risking American lives and armored plating that keeps American tanks safe. Israel helps America so much that Joe Biden said, “If Israel didn’t exist, we’d have to create it out of our own naked self-interest.”

Despite helping American civilians and troops, some say Israel is a strategic liability because it hurts American foreign policy goals such as defeating anti-American terrorists. However, American support for Israel helps solve these problems. America and Israel share invaluable intelligence critical to defeating these terrorists, and they do so because the terrorists are common enemies. Anti-Western terrorists like Al-Qaeda target both countries, Hamas and Hezbollah have launched thousands of rockets into Israel and killed hundreds of Americans, and Iran severely threatens both countries as it progresses on its illicit nuclear program. These common enemies make the U.S.-Israel relationship more necessary: one of many major jointly developed projects is the David’s Sling missile, designed to intercept ballistic missiles like Iran’s. Without this alliance, such a project would never get off the ground.

Strong American support for Israel also helps solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel will not take the necessary security risks for peace without the strong support of America. When Israel made peace with Egypt in 1978, they did so when America committed to Israel’s security through aid. With American support, Israel gave up thousands of square miles to a once-hostile neighbor in exchange for peace.

The most critical part of the U.S.-Israel relationship is the dependability of Israel. Democracies are more reliable allies, and as the only functioning democracy in the region, Israel has been closely allied with the United States since its creation. It makes sense for the Israeli government to have a close relationship with America: It is simply a representation of the Israeli people’s love for the U.S.

On Americans’ darkest day in recent history, Israel stood with us. When other countries in the region cheered and burned American flags after 9/11, Israelis poured out on the streets to mourn the loss of their American brethren. Jerusalem has one of the few 9/11 memorials outside America.Israelis stood with America on our darkest day and stand with America today. Israel has remained a reliable ally to America and helps its civilian, military and diplomatic goals, clearly making Israel a strategic asset.

It is notoriously difficult to define an American ethos in literature. When I visited Ireland last spring, pictures of Seamus Heaney were everywhere, and the role of poets in defining the social and political course of the nation was clear. Literature in America, though, is often cast aside, placed at the periphery of our consciousness. Ever since Ralph Waldo Emerson’s call in the 1800s for a definitively American national literature, authors have tried—and, by default, failed—to capture a consciousness that truly represents our nation. The challenge of a vast and pluralist society is that we often seem to have no definitive national culture, and our lack of a universal literature is a testament to this challenge.

What we often forget, though, is that literature takes many forms. While no novel necessarily captures the “great American” spirit—perhaps because there is no such spirit to be captured—I think we ought to remind ourselves that the story Obama told in his nomination speech was literary, not political, in nature. When Obama said that “only in America” can a white farm girl and an African exchange student father a boy who grows up to be president, he told the story of his own experience within the national ethos, a story of hope and change that provides a narrative foundation for a particular set of policies. He was writing a national poem, a song of himself that fit the moment in history that spawned it.

I think it is important to pay attention to what Elizabeth Alexander has to say this weekend, if for no other reason than to remind ourselves that perhaps we can, after all, capture America in literature. In the 20th century, poetry has become ever more abstract and personal, ever more difficult to identify with. But this need not be the case. Now, as our news is plagued by incomprehensible macroeconomic worries, and as we turn away by necessity from the materialism that pervades American culture, perhaps poetry is exactly what we need to get by.

//

The root of my frustration, however, stemmed not from the labor involved in retrieving the toy but the mentality that these children had. Whatever they demanded, they got, regardless of the inconvenience and frustration involved. When I was growing up, if I ever asked for a specific toy, my dad would simply respond, “Oh, you want that toy? How about NOTHING?” That shut me up quickly.

Does that mean I had a deprived childhood? Of course not. In fact, I probably had much less of a deprived childhood than the children growing up have right now. When I was a little kid, I ran around in the woods, rode my bike without a helmet and became scratched, scraped and bruised. I had fun, and more importantly, I built character. I never succumbed to the wussification of America, with its helmets, customized fast food and constant attention.

We’re raising a society of wimps, and the more we coddle them, the weaker they become and the more we feel the coddling is necessary—it’s a vicious cycle. This compounding of limited freedom and instant gratification leads to the all-too-common problem of the child whining in the grocery store, throwing a tantrum until the parents, too embarrassed to let this fiasco continue, assuage the child’s desires. How, or, more importantly, why, do we tolerate this? The child should never be in a position to demand anything, and the parents ought to be the ones in control, not the other way around. If I ever have kids, they’re going to have pizza with toppings, burgers with condiments and whatever random toy that gets thrown into the bag with the food.

Who knows, maybe the kid will actually find that vegetables are good for him and that there are several things worse in life than having two of the same toy.