It was generally accepted by anthropologists, historians, philosophers and others that as man armed himself with science, education, democracy, capitalism and other tools of the rational age, religion would find itself extinguished. Francis Fukuyama, when arguing how the relegation of nationalism to the private sphere would be similar to the historic route of religion, he assumed religion, on a global scale, had already been successfully dispelled from the public sector. Yet with the exception of Western Europe, this is not the case. In fact, the opposite has occurred. The Economist recently conducted a special report examining the state of religion around the world and its influences. The publication makes sure to note the imprecise nature of polls based on religious conviction, but comes to the conclusion religion is most definitely increasing in influence in the public sector (and private for that matter). So again we ask, why? The article’s author concludes two primary reasons have propelled the influence of religion onward: the result of “a series of reactions and counter-reactions” and globalization. We will see that these reasons are valid, yet do not due credence to the true reason religion remains especially influential in public affairs.

     Before venturing any further on the topic, we should define it. According to George Walsh’s The Role of Religion in History, religion is, “…a system of beliefs and practices resting on the assumption that events within the world are subject to some supernatural power or powers such that human needs, either physical or psychological, can be satisfied by men’s entering into relations with such powers.” This definition gives us a basis to understand why people believe in religion to begin with (the specific religion or denomination is irrelevant) and thus why it continues to endure and proliferate. The key words in Walsh’s definition are “assumption”, “supernatural”, “human needs”, and “satisfaction”. From these words we can infer that man is unhappy with certain conditions in his natural environment, yet he cannot fix them or believes he cannot fix them, and consequently calls on the irrational but comforting idea of a higher being to help him overcome these perceived challenges.

     The emergence of science and reason was supposed to conquer this system of belief in two distinct manners. First, rationality would usurp irrationality. We saw this occur as beliefs like the sun passing across the sky actually being the Greek god Helios to the story of Noah and the Ark were trumped by science and reason. Yet this trend has stopped in the last few decades as questions based on the physical nature of the world like “why does the tide constantly come in” and “what are those tiny lights in the night sky?” have been replaced by more vague questions concerning the nature of man, such as “why are we here?”, “who are we?”, and “where are we going”? To a certain extent, many of these questions have been answered (much to the chagrin of some believers), but for the most part, science is still in its beginning stages when these topics are brought up. As a result, religion is turned to for the answer.

     The second way (the one we are more concerned with) in which science and reason were to overcome religion was modernity. Technological innovation, economic prosperity, and political stability would all contribute to man’s abandonment of God and embracement of himself. This was the logical progression, yet it has not occurred except in West Europe. As a result, we must assume that religion is either compatible with these relatively new liberal innovations or not. As stated before, the fundamental basis of religion, belief in a supernatural being, is in direct conflict with rational thought, a defining root of modernist thinking. So that leaves incompatibility as the only option. Yet if this is the case, how has religion survived since the birth and implementation of Western liberal thought (although this thought was born centuries ago in the minds of the ancient Greeks, the thought was only applied in a societal manner recently in the post-French Revolution and post-American Revolution world).

     It is most likely not a coincidence that post-War Europe is both the most secular region of the world and the only post-modern one. Logically then, we would presume that as all nations progress towards a post-modern structure, their religious identity will be reduced to the “realm of culture”. Yet it is in the very nature of post-modern construction that we hit a roadblock. As Robert Kagan asserts in Of Paradise and Power, “One of the things that most clearly divides Europeans and Americans today is a philosophical, even metaphysical disagreement over where exactly mankind stands on the continuum between the laws of the jungle and the laws of reason. Americans do not believe we are as close to the realization of the Kantian dream as do Europeans… Americans apparently feel no resentment at not being able to enter Europe’s “postmodern” world. There is no evidence that most Americans desire to. Partly because they are so powerful, they take pride in their nation’s military power and their nation’s special role in the world.” For the sake of our analysis, in Kagan’s argument America represents America and all nations developing on the classic liberal course.

     According to Kagan, a nation cannot transcend into the post-modern world without a significant degree of the abandonment of their military, sovereignty and national identity. Religion is an aspect of national identity, whether explicit in the political constitution of the state or not. And as nations emerge in the classic liberal model and begin to attain these characteristics and degrees of distinctiveness for the first time, the last thing they will do is abandon them. That includes religion.

     Europe is in the final stage of History. Yet what restrains the rest of man from joining the Europeans is a surprising concept. It is neither something as complex as ideology nor as horrifically simple as nuclear war. It is, quite purely, choice. And that choice is between security and identity. We saw the disaster of extreme identity in the centuries of nationalism that plagued Europe. Does this mean to reach the realm of universal peace the world must undergo the pains of intense conflict? Most would say that is not a realistic option in a nuclear world. But even if such conflict was not part of the process, would mankind still desire the trend towards ultimate security? How much of one’s identity is one willing to give up to ensure security? This will be the defining question of the next century, and religion will play a vital role in the struggle.

     But there are other traditions besides being consistently uninformed at W&L. that, while fitting nicely with our self-contained environment and not being particularly unhealthy while we are here, just don’t mesh with the rest of the world. And on those rare occasions when we leave the bubble, we might find ourselves in for a surprise.

     Just what “traditions” am I talking about? To put it simply, life at W&L requires us to forget many of the basic truths we learned in childhood. Don’t talk to strangers? Always lock the door? Never leave your purse unattended? These rules just don’t seem to apply here.

     When’s the last time you locked your dorm room prior to attending class or going out? Never. The thought is absurd, we say. Well, no one uses the word “absurd” besides me, but you get the point. We never worry that anything is going to be missing. But would we practice the same habits at home, or on vacation in another city? Maybe some of us would, since this is what we’ve become accustomed to for 70% of the year.

     Now, I haven’t heard stories of houses being burglarized while unsuspecting W&L students are home on break. Hopefully “never leave the house with the door unlocked” is ingrained in our minds just like “look both ways” before crossing the street and “stop, drop, and roll” when caught on fire. (Though I’m not sure I would remember this last one when the moment came.) But what about leaving belongings—purses, backpacks, even computers—lying around in public? We know we live in a special kind of environment when we realize that losing a wallet isn’t really a big deal. Just post a campus notice, and it’s sure to be returned. This is a privilege worth appreciating. However, I’m sure many of us are guilty of this same trusting attitude when we are off campus. Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn’t operate on the honor system (or campus notices, for that matter). You might want to remember this the next time you think of leaving your jewelry on a public bathroom counter or your luggage in a hotel lobby. (In an airport, leaving your luggage will get you suspected of terrorism.)

     Another W&L tradition may create some awkward encounters when revived outside of the bubble. Yes, I’m talking about the speaking tradition. We may be creating a pleasant atmosphere when we greet our fellow students on campus, but we are likely to earn more than a few puzzled glances if we insist on speaking to every stranger we meet in the street. Now in this case, I’m not suggesting that we forget about the speaking tradition when we are away from campus. In fact, I’d say that we should keep it going. I just want to warn you about the possible awkwardness. And keep your guard up; we were taught “don’t talk to strangers” for a reason. But go ahead and greet everyone you pass. If they don’t respond, or if they’re busy talking on a cell phone, make sure you speak loudly and wave your arms wildly to get their attention. Maybe we will make the world a friendlier place this way.

     In summary, we should be glad to be at W&L, with all of these unique traditions. But we should also remember that there is a reason these behaviors aren’t found outside of our campus. Sometimes we are required to step out of the bubble and follow another set of rules. Don’t forget that the “real world” exists; it’s not just a TV show, and it’s pretty different from W&L. ]]> http://bloggery.wlu.edu/spectator/2008/04/stepping_out_of_the_bubble_lif.html http://bloggery.wlu.edu/spectator/2008/04/stepping_out_of_the_bubble_lif.html February 2008 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:45:19 +0000 1. The Japanese Team Room 2. Bringing Jesse Jackson to campus 3. INTR 201 – C-school graduates should instead be required to take a course in commanding secretaries. 4. C-School art – No business administration majors are loitering in the hallways cultivating a deep appreciation for either art or the holocaust. If they were, they’d be more inclined to get a real major. 5. Books in the library – Students these days rely on either JSTOR or Google. Welcome to the 21st century. 6. And by extension, library research specialists – Not only have I never used one, I’ve never even seen one, nor do I know anyone who has. 7. Campus Magazines - 8. Monogrammed waffle irons http://bloggery.wlu.edu/spectator/2008/04/top_ten_wastes_of_tuition.html http://bloggery.wlu.edu/spectator/2008/04/top_ten_wastes_of_tuition.html Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:43:47 +0000 By Scott Graham Centorino

     It doesn’t usually happen this way. Republicans usually coalesce around an heir and that’s that. Simple. Democrats usually flounder around with a handful until they find one who is electable. Leading into the 2008 presidential primaries, everything has changed. Democrats have all but handed Hillary a tiara and warmed the throne for her, while Republicans around the country dysfunctionally wander among five first-tier candidates.

     Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson all own a stake to the conservative mantle. All approach conservatism from different angles and appeal to different constituencies with surprisingly little overlap. Believe it or not, despite the confusion now, one of these men will eventually win the nomination and carry the Republican party’s banner into the general election. And regardless of the outcome of the general election, the GOP’s nominee will lead the Republican charge for several more cycles to come. Looking back on 2004 briefly, John Kerry became the first post-Clinton/Gore Democratic nominee. Despite losing the George W. Bush in the general election, Kerry set the precedent for this year’s Democratic primary process (think of the relevancy of flip-flops in terms of the Democrats’ various stances on the Iraq War). Each of the five first-tier candidates will set the course of the Republican party for at least four years, and if victorious, even more.

     Rudy Giuliani’s path to the nomination stands on solid ground nationally, but quite weak when polls in the earliest primary states come into consideration. Nevertheless, should Giuliani win the nomination, the Republican party would take the shift it never did in the 1960s when Nelson Rockefeller failed to win the nomination. The Republican party would stay where it is in terms of its emphasis defense and security, strengthen its message of fiscal conservatism, but become far more centrist in its social policy platform, with a more Northeastern slant. And while Giuliani would probably pick a strong, religious conservative such as Huckabee to balance the ticket, moderate Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter would become more powerful within the Republican party. Members of the religious right could potentially flock to the blooming "religious left" or even start a third party movement.

     Although considered a very liberal Republican in his 1994 Senate run against Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney’s campaign has aimed at framing him in a very conservative mold. His stances on immigration would ignite the base more than the current administration’s more liberal stance has, his business-like approach to economics and policy-making would define the future of the Republican party. Republicans would coalesce around more entrepreneurial leaders who still have political prowess. Fiscal conservatism would take more of a center stage, whereas military and legal backgrounds would become less emphasized.

     John McCain began this campaign acting as the Republican party’s heir apparent. He lost in 2000 to eventual nominee, President Bush, and remains on of the most powerful, popular, and appealing Republicans in Congress. His poor fundraising and stances on immigration began his decline. The success of his troop surge in Iraq, called the "McCain surge," mirrors his own surge in polls, but only in New Hampshire.

     McCain’s nomination would send the Republican party on a quest for heroes. Honor, service, patriotism, and sacrifice would dominate more practical issues such as fiscal conservatism in the party’s platform. And while Chuck Hagel, John Warner, and Duncan Hunter all plan to retire in 2008, those would represent the leaders of the Republican party.

     The candidate who would represent the least change in the Republican party would unsurprisingly be a Southern governor with personality, no military experience, appeal with down-home folks, and the mantra of "compassionate conservative"- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Just as Bill Clinton’s nomination saw the rise of charismatic Democrats from red states such as Al Gore, Mark Warner, and Evan Bayh, Huckabee’s nomination would signal the continued prominence of rural Republicans in the conservative movement. His religious character would keep the religious right strongly Republican, if not make it the dominant faction over fiscal conservatives and defense hawks. Slowly losing his support to fellow Southerner Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson finishes second in national polls, but can call no state before Tennessee on Super Tuesday firm "Fred Country."

     Thompson’s character and acting career resemble Reagan, but bumbling nature mirrors Bush’s image of incompetency. And while Thompson arguably appeals to the widest variety of Republicans, the other side of that coin is that he can call no constituency home. He plays second fiddle to Huckabee among social conservatives, Giuliani among moderates, McCain among character-driven voters, and Romney among economic conservatives. A Thompson campaign would most likely further the Republican party’s search for almost caricature-politicians, begun by Reagan’s dynamism and kept alive by Bush’s brush-cutting trips. People like George Allen would become prominent, as the gun-slinging cowboy image of the Republican party would crush the "compassionate conservatism" it competes with. Despite this mess of a nomination process, the Republican party will center around one candidate eventually. We think. This doesn’t usually happen this way.

     Bucking the conventional wisdom, Rudy Giuliani, the most liberal Republican candidate for president, is also the frontrunner for the nomination. Part of the reason is that he has pledged to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court—justices in the mold of John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

     The phrase “strict constructionists” became part of political dialogue in 1968, when Richard Nixon ran for president for the second time. Nixon promised to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court. By this, he meant that he would appoint justices who would stop inventing constitutional rights for criminals and who would turn back the Warren Court’s tide of liberal activism. Nowadays, conservatives tend to view the phrase “strict constructionists” as code-speak for “justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.” That’s pretty odd, considering that Giuliani himself has repeatedly said that strict constructionists, as he understands the term, might well uphold Roe. (It’s also worth noting that three of Nixon’s four Supreme Court appointees voted in the majority in Roe.)

     Even though Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion, many conservatives think that he will give the pro-life movement its greatest victory: overturning the Supreme Court decision that created the constitutional right to abortion. Giuliani obviously has made some effort to create this impression, and for good reason. He knows that he won’t get the Republican nomination if enough Republican voters unite behind a pro-life candidate.

     Can pro-lifers (or even pro-choice opponents of Roe) trust Giuliani to do what he says? Giuliani is reputed to be a straight shooter. If he disagrees with you on some issue, he’ll at least acknowledge the disagreement and find some way to work around that. You’ll always know where you stand with him. So the myth goes. In truth, Giuliani is as dishonest as any other politician, and this campaign proves it. Pro-lifers who vote for Giuliani in the belief that he’ll appoint strict constructionists to the federal courts will find themselves bitterly disappointed.

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

     At no point in this campaign has Giuliani said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He could easily say that while he’s pro-choice, Roe should be overturned because, under our federalist system, states should be allowed to decide whether to legalize or ban abortion. But he hasn’t said that. He has said that states should be allowed to make their own decisions on peripheral issues such as whether to have parental-notification laws or spousal-notification laws, but he always dodges the question whether states should be allowed to ban abortion generally. For instance, in an August 2007 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Giuliani expressly refused to say whether he thought Roe should be overruled. His stated reason for dodging the question was that he wouldn’t ask his judicial nominees that question, because he wouldn’t have a litmus test (meaning, he wouldn’t accept or reject a nominee based solely on the nominee’s answer to that question). But that makes no sense. Giuliani doesn’t have a litmus test on any particular legal issue; does that mean he’s not going to ask his judicial nominees any questions at all about legal issues? Besides, even if he’s not going to ask his judicial nominees, shouldn’t Republican primary voters know something as important as whether their candidate thinks that Roe should stand or fall?

     Be it noted that Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who refuses to say whether Roe should be upheld or overturned. All the other candidates have said it should be overturned. (Candidate John McCain is almost certainly lying about that, as I explained in my last article for this magazine, but at least McCain can be forced to keep his word because he’s now on record saying that Roe should be overturned. Giuliani, by contrast, doesn’t have a word to keep—he’s refusing to say that Roe should be annulled.)

     Would Giuliani nominate an opponent of Roe to the Supreme Court? On May 13, 2007, Chris Wallace asked Giuliani that question. The candidate pretended not to understand the question and tried to dodge it. Wallace interrupted to ask, could Giuliani appoint a Supreme Court justice “who had indicated an opposition to a woman’s right to choose?” Giuliani paused, then answered: “Oh, in the, in the context of their overall record. . . and if I thought that, that on 20 other issues they would be terrific. . . . (another pause, facial shrug) I-I-I-I might be able to, sure. I don’t consider it a litmus test.”

     Look closely at that answer. If the judge was terrific on 20 other issues, then Giuliani might be able to nominate that judge to the Supreme Court. (And that’s the answer he gave after pausing twice to ensure a well-thought-out answer.) That’s a pretty high hurdle, don’t you think? At the May 2, 2007, debate between the Republican candidates, Giuliani said that it would be “okay” if Roe were reversed, and “okay” if it were upheld. When Wallace interviewed Giuliani, he asked Giuliani how he could be “okay” with a decision allowing states to criminalize abortion. Answer: the country could handle it. (By that logic, since America was able to “handle” the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Giuliani must have been “okay” with the Pearl Harbor attack.) One almost misses the Giuliani who had strong opinions about everything—who, years ago, when asked “Is your support of partial-birth abortion firm?” answered, “All of my positions are firm.”

     Wallace asked if a decision overturning Roe would leave Giuliani “personally disappointed.” Giuliani’s non-answer began: “I don’t—I don’t think it’s a question of being disappointed or being, uh, or being, uh, happy about it.” Actually, the question was “a question of being disappointed”—Wallace asked Giuliani whether he would be disappointed with Roe being overturned, and Giuliani refused to answer. In the rest of his non-answer, Giuliani said for the umpteenth time that strict-constructionist judges could vote either to uphold or to overturn Roe. That, of course, was totally irrelevant to how he thinks judges should vote on that issue.

Was Roe rightly decided?

     But it gets worse. Not only does Giuliani refuse to say that Roe should be overruled; he won’t even give a straight yes-or-no answer to the question whether Roe were correctly decided in the first place. There’s a pattern in the interviews taken since Giuliani became a presidential candidate: whatever question the interviewer asks about abortion or Roe v. Wade, Giuliani will dodge the question.

     Not that we don’t know, of course, where Giuliani stands on Roe. In February of 2000, George Will interviewed Giuliani and asked him, “Do you think Roe v. Wade was good constitutional law?” Giuliani said, “Yes.” In April of 2007, when Giuliani was already a declared candidate for president, he said that he supports taxpayer-funded abortions for poor women because abortion is “a constitutional right.” (Incredibly, one month later, at the first Republican presidential debate, Chris Matthews asked Giuliani, “Why do you support the use of public funds for abortion?” Giuliani lied, “I don’t.”)

Whose side are you on?

     There’s more. You know how Giuliani keeps saying that he hates abortion? In 1989, when he first ran for mayor of New York, he said that while he would counsel any pregnant woman to keep her baby, nevertheless, “if the ultimate choice of the woman—my daughter or any other woman—would be that in this particular circumstance, to have an abortion, I’d support that. I’d give my daughter the money for it.” Obviously Giuliani doesn’t hate abortion all that much, if he’d pay to have his own grandchild exterminated.

     Fittingly, Giuliani and his second wife donated money at least six times to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s. He now says that this was to support Planned Parenthood for providing “information,” but it probably didn’t bother him that the money might have gone to kill someone’s unborn grandchildren, since he’d pay to kill his own.

     Does it count in Giuliani’s favor that he changed his position on partial-birth abortion? No, because he never changed his position; he merely pretends that he did. He says that he supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, even though he had publicly opposed similar legislation only a few years before. Why the change of heart? He explains that the 2003 law allows partial-birth abortion where medically necessary to save the mother’s life, and that Congress made findings that partial-birth abortion was not medically necessary to protect the mother’s health.

     What nonsense. Previous versions of the ban had an exception for the life of the mother, yet he opposed the ban even then. Moreover, in 1997, the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association released a report saying that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary. So Giuliani would have you believe that Congress’s medical judgment was more persuasive to him than the 1997 AMA report. It’s as if he thinks that Congress knows more about medicine than the AMA.

     The inescapable conclusion is that Giuliani is lying. He still favors keeping partial-birth abortion legal. He only changed his position because partial-birth abortion touches more of a nerve with pro-lifers than does garden-variety abortion. To them, a pro-choice candidate is bad enough, but a pro-choice candidate who supports partial-birth abortion is the worst thing imaginable. But a 180-degree turn on abortion—like Mitt Romney’s—would be too implausible. So Giuliani’s strategy is to admit that he’s pro-choice, but make a few false gestures of moderation to pretend that he’s meeting pro-lifers halfway. And yet he (alone among the candidates) still refuses to go so far as to say that Roe was wrongly decided. Just what does that tell you?

Conclusion

     Pro-lifers should stop kidding themselves. Giuliani cannot be trusted to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. He has expressed support for Roe, and has passed up every opportunity to withdraw that support, preferring to dodge the question that’s on every voter’s mind. He still believes that partial-birth abortion should be legal, but pretends to support a ban on it so that he’ll look like less of a pro-abortion extremist. He’d give his own daughter money to have an abortion. While pro-lifers cannot expect a perfect candidate, the problem with Giuliani isn’t that he falls short of perfection. It’s that he stands for everything pro-lifers hate. So far as abortion is concerned, the only difference between Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, ironically enough, is that the latter candidate is more honest about the opinions they both have.

Giuliani says Roe v. Wade was “good constitutional law”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM

Giuliani would give his own daughter money to have an abortion:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODY5NzBmZTYzZjA5ZThhMjc3MjdjZTY2MTJjOTg2YTY=

Giuliani favors public funding of abortion, describes abortion as “a constitutional right”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZe1j4csMq8&feature=related

Giuliani denies supporting public funding of abortion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1EN8u9AI64

Chris Wallace interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dqQ9mvXQYI

“All of my positions are firm”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giZx5i3Ntv0

Giuliani lies about changing his mind on partial-birth abortion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_xKHJanFKU

Giuliani lies about why he donated money to Planned Parenthood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sigujH9gp8A

     The best advice for freshmen I have heard so far this year? One dorm counselor advised her hall, “It’s really easy to look like a freshman.” Now, feign misunderstanding all you want, Class of 2011, but, deep down, you know it’s true. If you don’t understand, keep reading. The same goes for upperclassmen who have yet to realize that puking in your roommate’s closet does not make for a good story. If you follow these suggestions, we guarantee you social success at this fine institution of higher learning.

     Don’t talk about how much you like to/have had to drink. Yes, many people do this. Now think of all of the times you have heard someone slur on and on about how well they hold their liquor and all the incredibly fratty things they’ve done while intoxicated. Was it impressive? How about interesting? There is nothing unique or exciting about drinking to a school full of drinkers, and frankly, we all hope you have something more substantial to brag about.

     Sorry, ladies, but remember gender roles prevail at W&L. No matter how modern the rest of the world is, double-standards are persistent at W&L. You can say hooking up is all in fun, but grandma may have been right about something: he won’t buy the cow if he can get the milk for free. And guys always know who to go for to get the free milk.

     Guys, try not to be “that guy.” Once you do something unbelievably foolish at a school this size, it tends to stick with you. Our apologies to the freshman boy who has already been singled out as “that guy,” and possibly known only by an emphasized last name. Once you’re known for trying to hook up with anything with long hair, your name will be synonymous with “sketchy.” Girls will avoid you, no matter how nice a guy you actually are, because you are not worth the damage to their reputation your company entails. Even a drunk girl won’t believe you when you say you’re “only helping her home.” And, if she does, ask yourself whether it is really that good of a life decision to hook up with a girl that drunk.

     Restrain yourself Parents’ Weekend. Save the Stacy’s Mom fantasies—they’re just that. It does not make you a champ. Girls tend to stay away from the alleged (yes, I said alleged) guy who hooked up with someone’s hot mom (trying doesn’t count). Plus, being at your sketchiest in front of your parents/your friends’ parents is not the way to make a good impression.

     Don’t be too nervous during rush. We speak from experience on this one. Don’t be the girl who puts on a fresh coat of lipstick between each house, or the guy who immediately clams up around fraternity boys in fear of saying the wrong thing—honey, we can tell you honestly, it only makes things worse. On the flip side…

     Don’t get cocky about rush. They call it Tear Night for a reason. Informal rush may be fun and the attention may be exciting, but it comes with a caveat: as much as you are narrowing down the frats/srats, they are narrowing their potential pledge class down, too. Too much confidence could cost you an otherwise guaranteed bid.

     Careful with the freedom of Spring Term. Subcategory-snippets: Buffalo Creek: If you must “indulge” in the festivities, just remember what your mom said when telling you not to eat food with unknown origins: you don’t know where it’s been. And if it rhymes with “brooms,” it was probably just pulled out of the mud. Delicious.

     Slacking: We ourselves have felt the lure of a warm, sunny afternoon, and abandoned our 1 pm class for a quick snooze in the sun. Making a habit of such negligence, however, has been known to kill a GPA. Don’t believe us? Knock yourself out. And then learn “Do you want fries with that?” in Spanish.

     Drinking from early afternoon until early morning. While we don’t doubt your ability to put down an obscene amount of liquor (see #1), and we would like to encourage as much spring time frivolity as possible, we would caution you against causing the actual death of your internal organs. Spending six weeks in a semi-conscious stupor may not be the best use of your tuition.

     Tubing at Goshen: More trivial advice, but heed it nonetheless. Buy your tube early. Every conceivable place that sells them runs out by the end of the first week of Spring Term. And attempting to float down the Maury with a table top between two tubes in order to play beer pong is an awesome idea, and we commend you for the attempt, regardless of how successfully it is executed.

     Try and enjoy the ride. The W&L freshman experience is a unique one: not every schools puts freshmen on a pedestal (see right next door for details) for an entire semester, just to rip them down for the first half of the second and build them back up for the remaining twelve weeks. It is the proverbial roller coaster, yes, but completely worth it.

     Four Supreme Court Justices. Ninety-four members of Congress. Thirty-one state governors. And the nation’s most accurate mock convention since its inception in 1908. For a university that celebrates its two hundred-year tradition in influencing the nation’s politics, the student body is surprisingly – and disappointingly – disconnected from the real world.

     Remember over the summer when watching Fox News before work was a morning ritual? When the newspaper was more than just a possible costume accessory?

     At Washington and Lee, rare is the student who makes staying abreast of current events a priority. Already invested in rigorous academics, sports, social organizations, and service, we tune in Sunday nights for Desperate and Thursday nights for The Office. We spend most of our day on sensory overload, trying to absorb as much information as possible. After a long day of cell biology or differential equations, settling down to watch the news is less than appealing; it’s not a passive activity. We accept being required to synthesize, memorize, predict, discuss, implicate, analyze and analogize in class, but for most students, in front of the television is not the place for mental exercises. The news is meaningless if you can’t contextualize it both geographically and temporally, an effort that requires more energy than enjoying an episode of 24 does, with perhaps the same amount of violence.

     Of course, the next best thing to actually watching the news or reading the newspaper is scanning the headlines on the internet while waiting for Facebook to load. Yahoo conveniently provides its users with a daily summary of important events, no doubt determined by a politically-astute computer programmer. If, while procrastinating composing this article, I happened to glance through them, let me share with you what I would have learn. As of today, the Israeli defense minister approved electricity cuts in Gaza, Putin has no faith in Iran sanctions, smoke is a breathing hazard, some Neanderthals had red hair and fair complexions, and Che Guevera’s hair may fetch thousands of dollars at an auction. I hope I haven’t overwhelmed you with too many current events at one time.

     Let us pretend for a moment that you in fact did come across these headlines today. Later tonight, if you find yourself stranded at a table of C-school majors, to whom this article probably does not apply, and, discussing say, the negotiations between Israel and Palestine, they deign to ask the opinion of a lowly English major such as yourself, you can assert with confidence that the Israeli defense minister approved plans to cut off electricity and fuel to Gaza. Now, if you did not read the article, you may not have realized that this is not because Gaza failed to pay its electric bill. It is part of an effort to curb rocket attacks on Israel. You may not know that last month, the HAMAS-governed Gaza strip was designated as a “hostile entity,” having fired over one thousand rockets into Israel since June. We are pretty sure you didn’t read the article before attempting to impress the C-school majors with your worldliness, and now you just look silly. In fact, we think you chose to read the article about Che Guevera’s hair auction, instead. Bidding starts at $100,000.

     This lack of motivation to know about the outside world heightens W&L’s already intense sense of isolation. Our school is entirely self-contained, functioning like a well-oiled machine, provided no one has to step outside its boundaries. We graduate incredibly adept at both working in and manipulating the system. We know everyone who walks across the stage. During our four years here, we become experts at living in the world we create for ourselves.

     Unfortunately, Washington and Lee isn’t very much like the real world. Here, we are more afraid of a law enforcement officer after midnight than a stranger in an alley. We struggle to wake up before 9 and wouldn’t consider going to sleep before midnight. Perhaps our rejection of the news is a symptom of a bigger issue. By ignoring the news’s existance and temporarily forgetting about the outside world, we can become more fully submersed in Washington and Lee’s alternate reality. It allows us to escape not only a world of violence in Israel, but one composed entirely of our surroundings and consistently meeting our expectations.

     Said one junior who, embarrassed by her disinterest, wishes to remain anonymous, “China could be blown to bits and I would have no freaking idea.” I’m sure that’s not the case though. My Yahoo news feed would have told me

     Some research suggests that hormones may play a larger role in the hookup culture than one would expect, outside of the raging hormones of the pre-hookup. Laura Sessions Stepp, who wrote the recently published book Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both, contends that “In women, oxytocin is released. It’s a chemical that makes women want to nurture their young and stay close. Men get a huge jolt of testosterone, which suppresses oxytocin, and that’s nature’s way of saying, “leave the nest and go sire offspring somewhere else”. So when women think they can have sex and walk away just like guys do, they’re having to suppress thousands of years of evolution that tells them to cuddle, stay in bed, and look forward to tomorrow. When they get up and walk out, they feel depressed and don’t know why.”

     Beyond that, Stepp contends that rising alcohol abuse among women have the hookup culture to blame, “one reason we’re seeing alcohol consumption rates go up in women is that they are taking part in these sexual encounters . . . at some point it denies their own biology and desires, so of course they drink in order to prepare for it, because it’s not what they want to do.” She credits rising depression among women to hooking up, “we know from surveys that . . . due to oxytocin — the shorter a relationship, the more likely it is for depression to occur afterward . . .and hookups are nothing if not brief. Also, casual sex may make later relationships more difficult, particularly if it becomes a pattern, because cheating is common.” Dr. Luder, a psychologist in Washington and Lee’s University Counseling Center, agrees with Stepp, “the “hookup culture” of casual, uncommitted relationships is an important factor in increasing the risk of depression in women; having close, stable, supporting relationships is probably the most important single protective factor that reduces the risk of depression.”

     Dr. Luder also suggested that “While oxytocin clearly plays a role, I think it’s too reductionistic to attribute the differences between men and women in relationships primarily to differences in oxytocin levels; culture is a more important determinant…a lot of the men I see through University Counseling are also unhappy with the relationship scene at W&L. Many of these men feel pressure to demonstrate sexual prowess, achieve sexual conquest, and disavow their own emotional needs in ways that mask what they really want: close, stable, and nurturing relationships”

     One must ask, then, what about the college experience in general, and Washington and Lee in particular, become a catalyst for this type of dating? What about our social scene and campus life fosters this type of interaction between men and women? Stepp has one answer to that question: “A lot of the women…say one of the reasons they have casual sex is the fear that if they get tied up emotionally with someone, they won’t be able to do their work or get ahead in their jobs.” Certainly, Washington and Lee is home to many driven and ambitious men and women. In addition, the instant, if temporary, gratification of a hookup is easier to obtain and theoretically less complicated than a functional relationship. It seems that regardless of the long term consequences of the hookup culture, both women and men see any kind of connection, no matter how limited, as better than no connection at all.

     Many accounts of the Civil War are riddled with holes, inconsistencies, and contradictions. The museum would have complimented the strong academic community in Lexington, providing a unique source of education to the citizens of Rockbridge County in addition to professors, college students, and tourists. The Confederacy is usually described as having fought for ignoble principles until it was defeated by a righteous Union. The primary claim for the Confederacy’s illegitimacy is usually that it fought to protect its right to own slaves.

     The Confederacy did allow slavery. Of course, the Union also allowed slavery, and it allowed slavery to exist in the North longer than in the South. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he denied freedom to slaves held in Union states or regions under Union military control in an attempt to incite slave revolts that would disrupt the Southern war effort. He didn’t stand on any moral principle, but acted in the hopes of gaining a strategic advantage over the South. The slaves not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, the Union’s slaves, were not freed until 1865 by a constitutional amendment.

     Lincoln’s speeches do not reflect a moral character, intent on freeing slaves, but instead reflect views on the superiority of whites to blacks. Lincoln vocally supported a constitutional amendment to protect slavery during his First Inaugural Address. Jefferson Davis did not mention slavery at all in his Inaugural Address, but stressed peace, liberty, and free trade. In addition, the central motive for Lincoln’s opposition to slavery’s spread into western territories was that they did not want competition for white labor. Abraham Lincoln, so often seen as the “Great Emancipator,” freed Southern slaves for purely political reasons and left Northern slaves under the whip. To characterize the War Between the States as a “war to end slavery” is a blatant contradiction to the ideas of many people at that time and today.

     The North was not nearly as noble as it is often perceived, waging an all-out war on its Southern neighbors’ liberties, property, and lives, resulting in a stronger, centralized government with more power over all of its citizens. Much as the American Revolution’s rebels wished for self-determination and an end to unfair, economic controls and trade barriers, the seceding states left the Union in fear of increasing pro-Northern tariffs that harmed the Southern economy. Following Southern Secession, a Northern Congress quickly passed the Morrill Tariff in 1861 against the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century’s advancing arguments for economic liberalism given by economists such as Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste-Say, and Frédéric Bastiat.

     Free trade and free enterprise were further offended by growing trade barriers in the Republican attempt to return to the broken and corrupt system of mercantilism. Many southerners saw the dangers of the Republican protectionist agenda, and the Confederate Constitution explicitly outlawed protective tariffs and subsidies to private businesses citing their corruptive influence and economic illogic. The War Between the States can best be characterized ideologically as a Second American Revolution, a people dissolving their bonds to their national government in order to seek a better system of self-government and free enterprise unhampered by unfair, harmful trade barriers and centralizing authority.

     Not all of the seceding states left with Lincoln’s election, which some southern states viewed as beneficial to the Union. It was upon Lincoln’s call for troops to invade and subjugate the seceding southern states that Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina left the Union, joining the Confederacy. Virginians saw Lincoln’s action as a tyrannical, unnecessary, and aggressive use of power, and they heeded their state motto: Sic Semper Tyrannus, or All thus to tyrants. Maryland would have likely seceded as well, but Lincoln clamped down on the state, jailing many state legislators and unconstitutionally revoking the writ of Habeus Corpus. The Baltimore newspaper editor Francis Key Howard was jailed in Fort McHenry, the same place where his grandfather Francis Scott Key wrote “The Star-Spangled Banner,” for criticizing Lincoln’s war and his suppression of civil liberties.

     The southern cause was not aggressive, but defensive and classically liberal. The secession echoed of Locke’s political philosophy and of the American Revolution; many European observers characterized the conflict in this way. The southern states did not wish to be subjugated by Northern tariffs and tired of wealth and power transfers benefiting only Northern industry. Recognizing that their government no longer served their interests, the southern states left the voluntary union they had formed, making a contract for a new federal government in the form of the Confederate Constitution. In the face of unfair trade barriers and the unconstitutional loss of civil liberties, the Confederacy sought more liberal values as reflected by President Jefferson Davis’s statement: “I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”

     Lexington would have been an appropriate town for the Museum of the Confederacy to be located, benefiting the academic community in addition to the town and its tourists, despite the controversy it incited. Free discourse is vital to the integrity of our history, and the stigma attached to the Civil War, as well as the misconceptions surrounding it, could have been better explored through the museum. Opinions should be exchanged and interpretations of history challenged in order to continue to learn from our past. The Confederacy serves as an essential part of American history, and ignoring it because it can be distasteful does no one any favors. The history of the Confederacy is one that teaches the lessons of the War Between the States, lessons that remain relevant in a time characterized by an overbearing centralized government, aggressive and unconstitutional warfare, suppression of dissent, unfair economic protections, and dissolving liberties. The Museum of the Confederacy is one of the best instruments to tell this story. The museum’s decision not to come to Lexington is not a victory for those who opposed it, but instead a loss for the entire community.

Correct Mock Convention predictions since 1908: 18 out of 23
College-age citizens who voted in the 2004 election: 47%

Applicants to W&L (class of 2010): 4,215
Americans who have college degrees: 27%

W&L students who own computers: 95%
Americans who own computers: 66%

George Washington’s gift to W&L: $20,000
Current W&L tuition (4 years): $169,080

American colleges, including W&L, in 1785: 9
American degree-granting institutions in 2005: 4,216

Birth date of Robert E. Lee: 1/19/1807
Grooves on a US quarter: 119

Undergraduate majors offered at W&L: 41
The meaning of life as suggested by The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: 42

We at the Spectator take researching out articles very seriously. In the course of carefully exploring what we like to call our “imagination,” we discovered the unedited, still classified version of the freshman orientation schedule and have published the highlights here for your viewing pleasure.

Saturday, September 1

9:00am-2:00pm

CHECK-IN FOR ALL FRESHMEN AND NEW STUDENTS
     If you have already arrived on campus, the vast majority of this time would best be spent nursing that hangover from what was likely your first college party the night before. Try and remain under you covers until at least noon. If you are unlucky enough to have a roommate moving in, then it is absolutely essential to be coherent for your roommate’s parents, lest they be convinced their son or daughter will be brushing their teeth with a complete social and moral degenerate. If you do need to leave your room, make sure you are clad in something more than boxers. At some point you will need to surface to pick up an envelope of undetermined contents and get an ID made. You will spend the rest of your college career wishing you had showered first.

DINNER
    You should first report to the D-Hall where you will be informed not so kindly that you can’t eat there, and you should walk to Evans Dining Hall. You will then struggle through the most awkward meal of college, seeing as you probably know no one. Your best bet would be to find someone you talked to for more than 3 seconds today or talk to the people around you in line. Since those parents who can’t let go will be joining you, try to keep the volume of the discussion of how drunk you are going to get that night to a reasonable level.

FIRST PARTY
    The instant whatever activity the university has scheduled to occupy alcohol-seeking freshmen has ended, rides will begin leaving in the Quad. Hop in the back of a stranger’s pickup truck and go wherever the night takes you, probably to Old House.

CHURCH TIME
    This is intended for you to go to church, but you will probably use this time to curse the worst hangover you have ever experienced in a very sacrilegious way.

LANGUAGE PLACEMENT EXAM     Take the exam in its designated place at far too early an hour. It is almost certain that you will be wrongly placed, but don’t worry, the drop-add period lasts two weeks.

HALL GROUP BRUNCH     Get to know your hall better and meet you brother or sister hall, who you will then hope to never interact with again. You would be best served to schedule a placement exam during this period.

PRESIDENT’S WELCOME TO NEW STUDENTS     Since this is your first time in Lee Chapel, remember at midday it is going to be about 100 degrees, so men make sure to wear a jacket and tie, so you can really sweat it. Women should feel free to wear just about whatever, as long as it is a dress. As always cell phones are inappropriate, but feel free to set to vibrate and text away,

CLASS OF 2011 PICTURE     Has anybody ever seen this? Will anybody ever see it?

LIFE: PIECES OF THE PUZZLE & DISCUSSION     You will be subjected to re-enactments of “real life” situations and think to yourself, “Do I look that stupid when I do that?” If you are a male this will be the first of many times you are told that you are inherently a rapist. Discussions will follow; make sure to talk about your feelings. Rides will be waiting in the Quad as soon as the meeting is over, so sprint. Tonight is the first night you discover country houses, and for the first time fear being stranded. Make sure and apply everything you’ve learned thus far in determining whether or not you are making healthy choices.

ACADEMICS FAIR     Walk around in the blazing midday sun and have professors pressure you to take their courses. Remember that you are in school to party; don’t mess that up with real classes.

STUDENT GOVERNANCE ORIENTATION     You will be introduced to the approximately twenty organizations that govern have disciplinary authority over you in a long-winded, confusing amalgamation of acronyms. Remember, the SFJC and EHB are always watching.

WHY IDENTITY MATTERS?     A panel will discuss race and diversity on campus with perhaps the most undiverse audience possible. Remember, if you’re a white male, it’s entirely your fault.

SWIM TEST     Corresponding to your name, go to the gym and take the test. Who knew it could be so hard to swim after drinking so much? You will probably feel like you are going to die, but if you throw up in the pool, you will not have any friends. Ever. Also, take a good look around, because this will probably be the last time you are in the gym for a while.

CLASS REGISTRATION WITH ADVISOR     Make sure to roll out of your alcohol-induced coma at the right time so you get a good schedule. If you have a late time, you’re screwed anyways. How does 8am 5 days a week sound?

CAMPUS ACTIVITIES FAIR     Be prepared to get pressured into signing up for clubs. It’s best to sign up for about thirty, even though you have no intention of participating. The list of people who signed up to write for the Spectator, but neglected to attend the meetings has been turned over to a death squad.

     The process for evaluating presidential candidates is a procedure that is dictated by a select few criteria. Stances on current issues, past voting records, experience, charisma, demographic orientation, and other basic measures have been determinants of the process for decades. But such a process fails to provide the public with a true understanding of each candidate. By “true understanding” we mean the individual course of reasoning and rationalization performed by each contender. Obviously we can only go so far in such a process, and we must be careful how much speculation we incorporate into our own conclusions, but the implications of doing such can result in invaluable information concerning each candidate.

     A vote on a one bill provides the perfect opportunity to decipher the reasoning of seven of the ten democratic presidential candidates. To briefly summarize the event, on May 18, 2006, Congress passed a bill 62 - 35 that would “preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America.” The bill does not officially designate English as the country’s official language, but gives no one “a right, entitlement or claim to have the government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services or provide materials in any language other than English.” Significantly, seven out of the ten current democratic presidential candidates voted against this bill.

     We can conclude there were three possible motivations for the candidates to vote the way they did. One, they were pandering to a specific demographic group. We believe this is unlikely based on the widely accepted assumption that pandering is not particularly effective when the constituents are composed of many demographics. Two, they believe that a “natural selection” type process will take care of the issue in the future. Or three, and the possibility that is most alarming, they actually believe that all languages should be given equal treatment in the state and federal arenas.

     This situation is indicative of a more important issue than the way seven out of ten Democratic presidential candidates voted on one specific issue. Anyone can examine the matter at face value and make simple judgments: the candidates are un-American, anti-patriotic, and ignorant of American history. The true issue here is why they made the decision, not what the decision was. Do they believe that English should not be the official language of the United States? A rush to judgment concerning this question is unfair and dangerous, but it does warrant further investigation.

     As stated before, with pandering set aside, candidates may believe that the bill is pointless because the overwhelming dominance of English will eventually weed out Spanish as it did to other European and Asian languages in the 1800’s and early 1900’s. If this was the belief of the candidates, then I have no quarrel with them. Personally, I believe this will be the case and a federal law mandating English will only expedite the process, but if not implemented will not put the “culture” of this country at risk. Our issue is not with this belief though. The concern here is the belief that other languages have every right to be practiced - in the federal and state arena, not privately - in this country as English. Is it possible that this mode of thought - irrational and short-sighted, yet aesthetically pleasing - will be transposed to other issues, such as healthcare or immigration or the war in Iraq? The potential for this method of thought frightens me far more than whether these candidates believe in the sanctity of the English language in the United States.

     The bottom line is that we as a people need to abandon knee-jerk, biased reactions to candidates’ stances and take a more insightful and enlightened approach so we can effectively evaluate them. This manner of evaluation can be applied to all issues concerning all candidates: why do they stand the way do? For example, conservative Mike Huckabee refuses to believe in evolution. Many accuse him of being ignorant. But again, this is a lazy reaction. The true issue and potential danger is why he believes as he does, considering Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is as accepted in the scientific community as Newton’s Laws of Motion. Is it stubbornness? Is it a refusal to deny his roots and upbringing? But most importantly, again, is there the potential for Huckabee to transpose such a way of thinking to more relevant and important issues of the day? If so, there is far more to worry about than one man’s scientific ignorance.

     Examine the people, not just the issues. ]]> http://bloggery.wlu.edu/spectator/2008/04/knowing_your_candidates.html http://bloggery.wlu.edu/spectator/2008/04/knowing_your_candidates.html November 2007 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:27:02 +0000      The W&L Spectator is a non-partisan publication dedicated to promoting the free exchange of ideas in an environment where meaningful debate and ideological diversity are often lacking. We, at staff, seek to serve the W&L community by infusing it with the ingredients necessary for a balanced educational experience. These ingredients include conservative, libertarian and classical liberal thought. We believe that peace is best achieved through strength, that utopia is nowhere, and that true equality is blind to race, creed, sex, and sexuality. We take it as our mission to expose the inadequacies of the non-traditionalist ideas that do not understand and fail to work with our student body. We strive to adhere to the beliefs of the student body that the administration often overlooks. We invite the active participation of any student or alumnae who shares our vision and would like to join our movement.

Dear Senator Kerry,     We at the W&L Spectator would like to congratulate you on your latest remark. We appreciate the support it generated for the Republican Party, especially so close to midterm elections. We applaud your complete and utter disregard for liberal convention, choosing to verbally attack our troops outright and abandoning the often snide, underhanded methods of your party. Just when we were worried the left had become completely entrenched in its ideology of political correctness, you speak up and remind us that, fortunately, there are still those few ready to alienate an entire population demographic. No doubt our soldiers are thrilled to be protecting your right to doubt their intelligence – on national television. We applaud your ability to jeopardize an election you aren’t even participating in. But don’t worry, sir; you were right. It is all about education. If you make the most if, study hard, do your homework, and make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you end up losing the presidential election to a man who thinks an arbolist, or perhaps an arbo-tree-ist, is someone who knows about trees.