Student Life Archives

In this modern day and age, most people see Thanksgiving as a time to step back and see what really matters. Not cars, nor the newest iPod, but family, friends and stellar turkey basting and pie-making abilities. Not me. Not this year. This Thanksgiving, I decided that I would move beyond the basic realms for thankfulness. This year, I am thankful for the technology that both makes our lives easier and causes mass hysteria at electronic stores when the newest gadget makes its debut. Call me shallow and materialistic, if you must, but I wouldn’t be writing right now if it weren’t for technology.

After a normal, family Thanksgiving that involved two of my little cousins sitting on my feet and demanding that I drag them around the living room all night, I found that, all too soon, it was Sunday, and my return to Wash. U’.s hallowed halls was imminent. After a frenzied morning trying to cram everything I needed into my suitcase (is it just me, or do I always go back to school with more stuff than when I left?) I checked the status of my flight online and found it to be delayed half an hour, giving me an extra half hour to get ready.

The first thing I am thankful for this year: the Internet. Thank you, Southwest.com, for allowing harried and neurotic passengers to check the status of their flight, thus making travel preparations easier.

Once everything was bundled into the car, my mom and I hit the road, zipping down the highway towards the airport. However, after thirty minutes or so of quick, unimpeded driving, we hit a wall of solid traffic. A wall that, according to the radio (another thing to be thankful for, but not in my top four), was caused by a two-lane accident four miles away. Four miles of bumper-to-bumper traffic between our car and the accident. And my flight was leaving in a little over an hour. Panicked, I called my dad at home while my mom activated the GPS system in the car. After much conversation, an alternate route to the airport was found, and my mom pulled an illegal driving-on-the-shoulder-past-the-cars-ahead-of-us move to the nearest exit.

The second and third things I am thankful for: cell phones and GPS systems. Thank you, satellite gurus, for understanding that the ability to contact someone in your five at all times, and that the need to discern your exact location, is necessary to an overall feeling of security and to good mental health.

After a hug goodbye in the Departures drop-off lane, I rushed inside, schlepping two stuffed bags and causing a bit of a scene. It must have been the scarily determined look on my face. The line at Southwest’s electronic check-in station was short, and I was able to check my bag and breeze through security. I made it to my gate before the plane did, magazine and water bottle in tow, and I was able to make my triumphant return to St. Louis in order to finish off the first semester of my senior year.

The fourth and last thing I am thankful for: electronic check-in. Thank you, Southwest (and all other airlines with this capability), for allowing passengers to check-in and print boarding passes in the comfort of their homes. This measure saves time at the airport, and heightens the possibility of snagging the coveted A1 boarding spot on Southwest.

So you see, faithful readers, without technology, I would have missed my flight, and thus would have spent many frustrating hours at the airport trying to bribe a flight attendant into smuggling me onto the next flight to St. Louis. Technology, the possible new opiate of the masses, saved the day. And that is what I am truly thankful for.

Michelle is a senior in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

It is a common misconception that America has a free press. Our talking heads love to point out that Hugo Chávez recently closed Venezuela’s last independent television station or Vladimir Putin has slowly expropriated the last of Russia’s non-state media. Media people-news anchors, journalists, pundits, etc-then hold themselves up as the better opposite, and we usually accept this. This ignores, however, two realities: the dependence of our private media on the government for information and the direct manipulation of these outlets by the government.

Open any major national newspaper, and the majority of articles deal with government politics. Being in the middle of a war, every day is dominated by casualty figures, reports about bombings, military deployments, and the like. These casualty numbers are provided by the Department of Defense. Information about a bombing-its size, location, who was behind it-is provided by the same people. Ditto for military deployments. The point is that when we read about Afghanistan and Iraq (or troops in Korea or Germany), this does not consist of original facts and analysis on the part of these newspapers. These “stories” are Department of Defense talking points fit into article format. This regurgitory nature of news is reflected in articles’ structures, which usually consist of an introductory paragraph followed by quotes from random “esteemed” individuals. Articles rarely break this template, making the transcriber’s (a.k.a. the journalist) task nothing more than attending the right briefings and calling the right people to have neat numbers and brief quotes to plug in.

This parroting is true for more than just military news. When there is a major crime, like the D.C. sniper attacks of 2002, the news consists of government spokespeople, usually law enforcement officers, relaying information to the gathered media people. This then gets uncritically broadcast on Fox News or run in the New York Times.

But the spokesperson holds a very powerful position as the gatekeeper of information (who is also controlled by other individuals), and it is only what that person says which is reported. There is hardly ever effort to look past the press conference for more information; the reporters have the quotes to fill the blanks in their templates. For example, the recent assassination attempt on Benazir Bhutto should raise numerous suspicions, but all that was printed and broadcast was information from the Pakistani government, a source even more dubious than our own. It does not take a mental giant to doubt the government of Pakistan’s reports that the attackers were two suicide bombers, “Islamic fundamentalists,” but the only news given was from spokesmen for the Pakistani government. There was no critical analysis, at least not from any major American news outlets.

In 2005, it was revealed that the Department of Education had paid Armstrong Williams $240,000 to speak favorably about President Bush’s education policies. It was later revealed that several columnists were also on the dole for two years. This was nothing more than buying news, which is hardly different than propaganda. It is more dangerous, however, because of the pretense of independence. While these media people have since been fired, it is difficult to believe that this practice has stopped; if anything, it is probably just more covert.

This is not to say that our media outlets are exactly parallel to media directly run by a state. Periodically, newspapers and broadcasts do reveal independent news which alters the political landscape; the Pentagon Papers, classified government documents detailing the government’s duplicity throughout the Vietnam War which were leaked to the New York Times, are one such example. The coverage of Hurricane Katrina, which demonstrated how cronyism and classism directly influenced our government’s incompetence, is another example; the subsequently quick national response to the California fires this summer shows how the media can positively influence government action.

Nonetheless, examples like those above are the unfortunate exception, a grand irony because it is these events from which media people construct their myths of independence and critical analysis. When our media relies on the government for its stories and the attached data, it becomes a mockery and a greater menace than true state-run media outlets. At least in Venezuela it is known that the news is state-dictated. In America, we maintain the illusion of separation between government and media outlets.

Our myths make us ignorant of the distortions we are being fed.

Zachary is a senior in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Scott Bressler

Yes, I know, this subject has been well covered. Bon Appétit is one of the more frequent targets of Student Life editorials, and complaining this late in the semester is little more than hackneyed bandwagoning. And yet, I feel compelled to say something.

As more and more students encounter the desperate and embarrassing problem of running out of points while trying to buy breakfast, it strikes me that a very good question to ask is this: why? Why are they not managing their points better? Why are they eating so much? Why didn’t they buy bigger meal plans?

Why have the prices for food gone up so much?

I’m sure I’m not the first to have noticed, but every fall it seems that the price of many (if not most) food items on campus goes up by a quarter, fifty cents, sometimes even more. My freshman year sushi cost $3.95; last year it was $4.95; this year it’s never below six points. A flavor shot in a cup of coffee has gone up from 50 cents last year to 75 now; small, to be sure, but for those who drink coffee regularly that really adds up. A bagel has gone from $1.50 to $1.70; pasta has gone from $2.95 to $3.25; a cookie has gone from $1.50 to $1.95.

Granted that the cost of living has gone up with rising gas prices and other changes in the political economy, and granted that some of these changes may have taken place last year (I don’t recall having bought a cookie last spring, so I can only contrast the price this week to that my freshman year), that doesn’t change the fact that $8.75 a day (“Grab-a-Bite”) means eating either lunch or dinner, but never ever both. Even the larger meal plans often require skipping breakfast, lunch and/or coffee to stay within a point allocation, or else surrendering early on to the fact that more points will have to be added. I have a friend who’s already added over $200 worth, and it’s only just after Thanksgiving.

Prices have to go up, fine. Again, gas prices (ergo transportation of food) have gone up substantially, I’m sure the Bon Appétit employees deserve a raise, whatever. My beef is not with the prices themselves.

What bothers me is that first of all, earlier this fall many of the signs in our eateries hadn’t been changed to reflect new prices, so unless you were watching the monitor you wouldn’t even know you’d been charged more than last year. From a student budgeting perspective that’s kind of a big deal; who really thinks about the price of what they’re buying after the first few weeks of school? More importantly, if the prices have been going up pretty steadily (since at least fall ’05, probably earlier but I can’t speak to that), why haven’t the meal plans been changed accordingly?

What it comes down to is an issue of transparency, not in the same sense as the “tell me I lost my major” in the Engineering school or the “holy crap that’s more than double” with cable/Internet fees, but in the “if you’re going to raise prices for food, reflect that in the projected living expenses by reflecting it in meal plan prices” kind of way. That way the parents, who aren’t here to witness the changes on the ground, won’t lecture on about the irresponsibility of not sticking to a budget, and those with financial concerns will have a more realistic idea of their financial commitment. That $200 has to come from somewhere, and it’s easier to deal with it if you know from the get-go that it will be an expense. Again, whether or not food prices increase is not the issue; rather, if food prices are going to increase, meal plans should increase accordingly. To eat or not to eat, to stay on budget or to stay healthy, really should not be a question.

Sara is a junior in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Dear Editor:

On Friday, November 16 Student Life published an article titled “Each One Teach One adds tutoring program for needy students” on the top centerfold of the front page. This article did a good job to highlight the new Each One Teach One: College Bound program, one of the many opportunities that Washington University students have to volunteer in the St. Louis community. However, two days later, when a regular College Bound tutoring session took place in the Lopata House, not a single copy of the current edition of Student Life was left on the newspaper rack. The reason for this was that the director of College Bound snatched up all the newspapers and tucked them away so that her students wouldn’t see the condescending label that the article’s title assigned her students: needy.

As a conscientious caretaker of her students, this action was certainly justified. The word needy has pejorative connotations that are completely inaccurate to associate with the College Bound students. This word conjures up the idea that these students are in some way incapable. Instead of highlighting the heroic tenacity and commitment that each of these students brings to his or her education, the article’s title unjustly labeled them with a word normally reserved for the incapable or destitute. After regularly working with many of these students for over a year, it is clear to me that they are certainly not needy.

I am frustrated that a more illuminating and accurate adjective was not used. These students are dynamic, ambitious, intelligent and sharp; these adjectives show the formidable capabilities that each student has. Students in the College Bound program are stars among their peers, with the desire to overcome the odds that haunt under-resourced youth who lack essential support that can make succeeding in college a reality. It is this ambition that makes these students newsworthy, and it is this ambition that should be resounded.

-Alex Gillula
Each One Teach One: College Bound Coordinator

I want to be a billionaire. Not a millionaire (millions are pretty measly these days). A billionaire. My resume will soon reflect this new life goal. In my fantasy future, money will have no special day-to-day meaning. I’ll simply be rolling in it, wearing it, sautéing it and eating it for breakfast. I’ll be burpingly disgustingly rich. Is this shallow? Sure it is. It’s also pretty unoriginal. Wanting to be filthy, stinking, wildly wealthy is not really a new concept. But in a way, it is to me. And I have my Wash. U. education to thank for this new perspective.

You see, I’ve never been all that into things. At least not expensive things. And it’s not like I’m striving for sainthood or anything. I like my worldly possessions just fine, and I’m pretty fond of my creature comforts. Good food, soft sheets and my beat-up, old-school iPod are some of the things that make my life worth living.

I just don’t desire or require so much stuff that I dream each night about bringing in the big bucks.

I mean, what do fantastically rich people spend their money on anyway? In the world according to MTV, the rich burn cash on sports cars, outfits for their designer dogs, kitchen Jacuzzis and private alien space shuttles. I could live without those things. In fact, I’d actually prefer to live without them. I find Chihuahuas obnoxious and Jacuzzis make my fingers all pruny. I don’t like Choo shoes or ritzy handbags. Shopping can easily give me a mini migraine. And if I had a fabulous mansion, I’d probably get lost each morning on the way to breakfast (no wonder the rich have breakfast in bed).

So why my sudden passion for billions? What’s happened here at Wash. U. that has me thinking so green? Basically, I’m getting really into this collegiate lifestyle, and I figure it’ll take major bucks to keep it going. Billions. You know what I’m talking about: doing pretty much all the things you really want to do, wearing sweatpants a lot of the time, going to a few concerts, occasionally shopping at Whole Foods, even getting to volunteer to help other people some of the time. Billions wouldn’t change this life, but just might be able to keep it going.

Please, don’t tell me to see the big picture or come to terms with my responsibilities. I’m in no rush to be an adult. My reasons for wanting to accumulate so much ka-ching are very different than yours. I’m not trying to take over the world; I’d just like to preserve this one for a lot longer than four years. Donations welcome.

Tess is a junior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum Editor. She can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Recently, Student Union and the College Republicans announced plans to bring former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to campus to speak next semester. The speaking engagement, which will cost $35,000 from Student Union funds, includes $30,000 for Gonzales’ honorarium.

Many students, including those who disagree with him politically, believe that inviting Gonzales to campus is a unique and valuable opportunity. We agree with this assessment. We should, however, note that our desire to see him speak on campus does not mean that we approve of the policies he helped shape and defend while he worked for the Bush administration.

To be frank, our list of concerns about Gonzales is too long to adequately summarize in one editorial. His role in sanctioning the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program has established dangerous precedents regarding executive power. As White House Counsel, Gonzales also participated in an attempt to get Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to reauthorize President Bush’s domestic surveillance program by visiting Ashcroft at his intensive care hospital room. It should be noted that Ashcroft had previously refused to reauthorize the program citing concerns over its constitutionality.

Our gravest concerns, however, involve Gonzales’ opinions regarding the treatment of enemy combatants. According to the Washington Post, Gonzales played a key role in preparing an August 2002 memorandum advising that torturing alleged al-Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad “may be justified.”

Gonzales also played a key role in shaping the Bush administration’s positions toward the Geneva Convention. In a January 25, 2002 memorandum to President Bush, Gonzales argued, “there are reasonable grounds.to conclude that [the Geneva POW Convention] does not apply.to the conflict with the Taliban.” As White House counsel, Gonzales also referred to certain portions of the Geneva Convention as “quaint” and “obsolete.” In his capacity as Attorney General, Gonzales also made repeated statements asserting that the Geneva Convention did not apply to military tribunals for enemy combatants, an argument that was later rejected by the Supreme Court in its Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision.

We are also concerned by Gonzales’ misrepresentation of facts regarding President Bush’s November 13, 2001 military order establishing military tribunals to try enemy combatants. In defense of this order regarding the “detention, treatment and trial of certain non-citizens in the War Against Terrorism,” Gonzales penned a November 30, 2001 Op-Ed in the New York Times stating this: “Under the order, anyone arrested, detained or tried in the United States by a military commission will be able to challenge the lawfulness of the commission’s jurisdiction through a habeas corpus proceeding in a federal court.” In fact, according to political columnist Andrew Sullivan, President Bush’s order states exactly the opposite by directing that these individuals “shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceedings, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on [their] behalf in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.”

Finally, there is Gonzales’ involvement in the scandal surrounding the firings of U.S. attorneys for political reasons. The former attorney general’s frequent refrain of “I don’t recall” when questioned by the Senate showed contempt for Congressional oversight of the Justice Department. Gonzales set a dangerous precedent by polticizing what should be one of the most impartial agencies of the government.

For these reasons, we do not support the work of Alberto Gonzales in his various capacities inside the Bush administration. That said, we also believe that his right to speak on campus should not be called into question.

For starters, the decision to invite Alberto Gonzales was enabled by the Student Union Treasury, which approved the additional funds required to bring him to campus. Every treasury representative is elected by the student body in order to make these kinds of decisions, and that is exactly what happened. Unless this was a gross abuse of power, and we have absolutely no reason to believe this was the case, then their actions are meant to reflect the will of the student body. We see nothing wrong with the decision to invite Gonzales.

Moreover, the Washington University community should maintain a certain level of respect for Gonzales during his speech. During a recent speech by Gonzales at the University of Florida, Gonzales was booed and heckled by students in attendance. We must emphatically ask that Washington University students avoid engaging in similar behavior. There will be appropriate venues for protest outside the 560 Music Center, and we certainly encourage students who disagree with Gonzales to exercise that right. But shouting down a man who was invited to speak at this campus in an attempt to drown out his opinion is a disrespectful and shameful action that takes attention away from any valid criticisms of Gonzales.

We do not believe that students should sit back and passively accept his opinions, but there are proper avenues for expressing your disagreements which do not involve rudely interrupting him. Whatever you may think of the man, the least he deserves is the opportunity to speak to the Washington University community.