7 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/27/05 12:00pm)
Since this is my eighth semester here at the College, I would be eligible to write a farewell column.
Of course, that would imply that I am graduating. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
I spent several semesters as a music education major before finally getting student teaching experience last fall. It was enough to convince me that I didn't want to be a teacher and forced me to delay my graduation while I pick up a minor and consider another career path.
My dilemma represents a fatal flaw in the curricular transformation the College recently implemented this academic year. The prospect of an extra semester is nothing compared to the problems underclassmen will face.
The College conducts its student-related business with the belief that taking classes outside of our majors will make graduates well-rounded and open-minded.
However, it is a well-known fact among students that certain popular classes (Global Women Writers, anyone?) will knock off all but two or three humanities requirements.
Students will then fight over the seats in these classes to ensure that they can have more free time.
This has the effect of causing students to take classes to fulfill requirements instead of taking classes that interest them.
I would love to take extra history classes, or more statistics classes or maybe even a writing or journalism class.
However, because I already have to take nine classes for my major, whatever knocks off more than one requirement goes into my schedule, whether I care about the subject or not.
Transformation only exacerbates this problem.
Now, instead of being able to fit six three-credit classes into my schedule, I can only fit four four-credit classes.
If I want a fifth - which would have been no problem under the old system - I would need to be signed in by the department chairperson.
If I want to take a sixth class, which would have topped me off at the 18 credit limit a year-and-a-half ago, I need to pay extra tuition.
Because students can now take fewer classes, classes that fulfill multiple requirements will become virtually impossible to get into as students bank their credit hours to fulfill requirements within their majors.
On the other hand, classes that only remove one requirement will dwindle in size, leading to possible cancellations.
As far as I can tell, taking up a minor is a better way of becoming well-rounded than superficially skimming the surface of five different subjects.
Fears that students won't broaden their horizons if left to their own devices are unfounded. For example, my major and newly declared minor have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
I've always had an interest in the workings of the justice system, and, with the knowledge gained from my first two criminology classes, I feel competent enough to do things like write an opinion column for The Signal.
With the current requirements, we will each be a "jack-of-all-trades" when we graduate, but, unfortunately, a master of none.
Instead of being required to take an unorganized list of classes (many of which will have nothing to do with the career we have decided to pursue), we should be given the opportunity to concentrate our "Liberal Learning" credits into the field of our choosing and pick up a minor.
Currently, this is possible, but only if we are willing to juggle our schedules, take summer classes and/or graduate late. As tuition-paying students, we have the right to demand an easier way.
Of course, a minor is not for everyone and the current Liberal Learning checklist may actually benefit students with broad interests and time to spare.
My proposal, however, would ensure a little more freedom for the rest of us while still allowing us to become diverse, well-rounded citizens.
After all, we gain more by exploring a subject deeply than we do by taking introductory courses in several different subject areas that may be of no use to us after we graduate.
Speaking of graduation, I would like to wish the senior class the best of luck in the future. I wish I could have been there with you on May 13. And, to my underclassman readers; don't worry - this supersenior will see you next year.
(04/06/05 12:00pm)
For politicians, abandoning a costly, ineffective program is a lot like retreating in the face of battle. They would rather suffer a crushing and decisive defeat than regroup, change strategy and live to fight another day. This is especially true of the federal government's expensive and inefficient war on marijuana.
It goes without saying that there is an obvious monetary cost to running such a war. It comes complete with government-funded combatants (drug enforcement agents), as well as prisoners-of-war (convicted drug users) that need to be housed.
The police are funded billions of dollars annually to protect us from marijuana use while that money could be used to benefit their other protective work, such as catching rapists, thieves and murderers.
In addition to the money, resources such as equipment and personnel are funneled into this war on drugs when they could be used elsewhere.
After all, we are also involved in a war on terror. Departments around the country are scrambling to meet requirements and investing tax dollars and training hours to ensure that they will be prepared and effective in case of a true emergency.
A new war has been declared, but the needed capital is difficult to find with our economy on shaky ground.
Much of that capital is diverted to the convicted drug offenders that we have been forced to house. It costs thousands of dollars in food, energy and personnel to keep these criminals behind bars. This is in addition to the money it initially costs to arrest and try them.
Furthermore, after these criminals are freed, they find themselves without the means to support themselves. They have a conviction on their record, which keeps them from being hired.
Suddenly, the ex-convict finds himself in a worse place than where he started. Now, he is either reliant on government funding in the form of welfare or he must return to the battlefield, armed with dime bags and crack vials in order to make a living.
Not only do the costs fail to justify this war, but the rationale behind it is lacking as well. Most convicted drug offenders are not given any rehabilitation and are still addicted, leaving prison with a need for their fix.
This is not the case with marijuana users, however. Studies have shown that at least one-third of Americans age 12 and older has used marijuana at least once. And those studies don't even include the past two presidents of the United States!
Given this, it isn't surprising that those charged with fighting this war aren't too thrilled about it. In a 2004 study by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., 300 police chiefs were interviewed on the subject of the war on drugs.
Two-thirds believe that the war on drugs is ineffective and almost as many (61 percent) feel that incarceration is not the answer.
If the soldiers on the front line recognize the need for change, why don't the politicians?
Perhaps politicians feel they have a duty to protect us from marijuana use, just as they felt they had a duty to protect us from alcohol use in the 1920s.
As we have seen by the passage of the 21st Amendment, alcohol prohibition did not work. Most of the population resorted to smuggled or homemade alcohol, so consumption and drunkenness were still problems.
Furthermore, since alcohol was illegal, it was not regulated. There were no minimum standards for safety. When prohibition was repealed, gang activity diminished. The turf wars over alcohol distribution "rights" ended. Alcohol use was then taxed, which forced citizens to pay for their vices and provided a source of revenue.
Logically, it would follow that a similar situation would occur after the marijuana prohibition is lifted. Production facilities would need to meet a minimum safety standard, so the form sold to the consumer would not be laced with another drug.
This is a safeguard one cannot find on the street.
It would also follow that there would be fewer gang disputes, because one market will have been removed from the hands of gang leaders and put into the hands of the government.
Finally, following the cases of alcohol and tobacco, marijuana would be taxed, which would provide additional revenue.
With marijuana a legal substance, researchers would be granted the ability to truly study the effects of the drug. Patients who use marijuana for medical reasons do not know the risks of the drug. It might be safer than cigarettes, or it might be more dangerous than breathing asbestos fibers.
Unfortunately, not enough research has been done either way. Even the potential research benefits should be enough of a reason to lift prohibition.
Politicians have long used the argument against marijuana and other vices (prostitution, gambling, other drugs) that we, the citizens, are being protected against ourselves.
However, if that truly is the reason, why is only marijuana banned?
Alcohol is the direct cause of more crime, in the forms of assault and property damage, than any other single substance.
Tobacco has been linked to a number of cancers, as well as other diseases, with fewer beneficial side effects than alcohol (possible cancer protection) and marijuana (possible glaucoma treatment). So, why are these "cancer sticks" not banned?
The answer is that they offer sizable government revenue in the form of taxation. Why not do the same for marijuana?
If politicians are looking for a positive to campaign on, they might want to consider the drop in the crime rate that would come with legalization.
Illegal drugs only cause crime because they are designated illegal. The mere act of using the drugs is a crime.
Additionally, because the entire market is taboo, individual dealers often have no qualms about resorting to violence to protect their territory.
To ensure that their benefit (in terms of profit) outweighs the risk of incarceration, prices are artificially inflated. The consumer, in turn, resorts to theft to finance the habit.
None of these crimes, however, are caused directly by using the drug itself, only the illegal environment in which it exists.
The generals of this war, mostly educated politicians, need to take an honest look at its progress so far. They should consider a strategy that is more cost-effective, both fiscally and socially.
Prohibition needs to be dropped in favor of regulation. In other words, it's time to retreat.
(03/30/05 12:00pm)
This column was inspired by a rude instant message I received. Out of the blue, someone I'd never met decided to tell me one of my columns was "bad" and I was "fucking stupid" for writing it.
It got me thinking about rudeness in general and how prevalent it is across campus. Writing on rudeness seemed like a joke at first, but after witnessing some truly inconsiderate acts, I became convinced it was a good idea.
Rude behavior is often fueled by impatience. Getting things done as quickly as possible is the American way.
This explains why damp clothes are removed from dryers 20 minutes before the dryer stops. It isn't justified, but I can see why you would feel that your clothes are better than anyone else's.
The problem, of course, is that this only leads to more rude behavior. When a student reaches the laundry room and finds his still-wet underwear out on display, he will take someone else's clothes out of a dryer to make use of it. The next student that shows up will become frustrated and the cycle repeats itself.
In some cases, rudeness is caused not by impatience, but by delay. If, for example, the person using a dryer leaves his or her clothes in the dryer for a long time after it has stopped, he or she is being rude in denying someone else its use. This is especially true when a laundry room is shared by nearly a hundred people.
For a reason I can't quite fathom, driving in bad weather causes people to be rude as well. In case anyone missed them, there are a number of signs across campus that make the following helpful suggestion: state law - yield to pedestrians in crosswalk.
That means stop and let people cross. Does it happen often? Think again.
Look at it from this perspective - you are the driver of a climate-controlled car. Pedestrians are braving the elements, having snow blown in their face in sub freezing temperatures, getting soaked by rain and stung by wind or sweating in 90 degree heat. Who suffers least by waiting?
Impatience behind the wheel is hardly confined to snow days. I had an unfortunate encounter with ice and the Garden State Parkway, so I tend to drive a bit more cautiously than the average college student. By this, I mean I only speed by about 10 miles per hour.
In the parking decks, I have been known to go more than double the posted speed limit (15 miles per hour in a five mile per hour zone) and still was tailgated nonetheless.
Has anyone almost been hit by a maniac peeling out at 30 miles per hour? I have, and I was fortunate enough to get my ass out of the way.
I realize not everyone has flipped a car and needed a hundred stitches in their face, so I guess I should let minor driving offenses that haven't gotten me killed slide, right?
Sadly, the rudeness in the laundry rooms and parking garages pales in comparison to how careless some people are with their own refuse.
There is absolutely no excuse for not throwing out your own garbage. I don't want to look at a half-eaten box of chicken fingers, nor do I want to smell them as they slowly get rancid. That is what a trash can is for. I don't want to clean up after you and the custodial staff gets paid to empty the trash can, not put garbage into it.
The job of cleaning up after unappreciative college students sucks enough as is. Why make it worse?
While not throwing out garbage can be attributed to laziness, I'm at a loss when it comes to the wave of anti-chalking chalkings. The stupidity it must take for someone to respond to an advertisement with vandalism is baffling.
Here's a tip, people: no one wants to hear about the "penis monologues" when they are paying to see the Vagina Monologues. If a basketball game is "old news," grab an eraser. If you do not want to hear about Jesus, then don't go to the forum.
If a chalking legitimately offends you, there are people you can contact to ensure that your rights are not violated.
When you pick up the chalk and retaliate, you are stooping to the level of the "offenders." Be a better person.
Finally, this brings us to my reason for writing this column in the first place. If you disagree with a columnist, the correct forum is the "Letters" page. Throwing personal insults at a columnist without presenting any arguments besides saying the column is "fucking stupid" will not further your cause.
If you write to the editor, the whole campus will be able to read whatever proof you can offer that a column is wrong. You might be able to change someone's way of thinking. On the other hand, abusing columnists will solve nothing.
Laundry courtesy, driving etiquette, cleanliness, chalking restraint and constructive criticism are not difficult, but all require some measure of thought and consideration, and nobody likes that. Sometimes, it's easier just to be rude.
However, if everyone were to take a moment to be considerate, the College would probably become a more bearable place. Isn't that what we're really after?
(03/02/05 12:00pm)
By the time this column is published, Acting Gov. Richard Codey will have already submitted his budget proposal for the 2006 fiscal year.
Programs that have not spent money wisely will feel the squeeze, but we cannot put that same squeeze on programs that have already used their meager funds frugally.
Planned Parenthood is one such program that deserves every cent it can get.
Over the last few years, Planned Parenthood has lost a lot of its federal funding, leaving the states to pick up the tab.
While it is not fair that Washington cut funds, it would be equally unfair for the states to cut funds, too. Planned Parenthood provides more services to the community than we realize.
Contrary to popular belief, Planned Parenthood's main function is not to provide abortions, although, like any obstetrician-gynecologist. that offers comprehensive healthcare for women, it does so.
However, its services go far beyond that.
First of all, Planned Parenthood is comprehensive women's healthcare.
Any woman who is a patient at Planned Parenthood needs a yearly gynecological exam to use the other medical services Planned Parenthood offers.
Every year, these patients are screened for heart and blood pressure problems, breast and cervical cancer and any other abnormalities.
Women are not the only people Planned Parenthood focuses on. Many of the larger centers offer full physicals for all members of the family. For a nominal fee, testing for Sexually Transmitted Diseasess (STDs), such as HIV and AIDS will be performed.
Planned Parenthood also provides prenatal care for unborn children and adoption counseling as an option to women who do not want an abortion, but cannot keep their children.
Patients are given psychological questionnaires that screen them for potential emotional and mental disorders.
If a patient is at risk, she is referred to a psychological counseling center.
In fact, Planned Parenthood will refer a patient with a need for any specialized treatment.
It is known that one of the services Planned Parenthood offers is contraceptives. There, women can obtain contraceptives at or below cost (and condoms are free).
Many women will find that Planned Parenthood charges less for hormonal contraceptives than their pharmacy does, even if they are covered by a health plan.
Now, here's the kicker - by funding contraceptive coverage, the number of unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, the number of abortions, will be reduced.
Only two percent of women on the birth control pill will become pregnant if the contraceptive is used correctly.
By providing money to Planned Parenthood, there will be fewer abortions.
That's all well and good you say, but why should the taxpayers' money cover a doctor? There are doctors everywhere. Why should Planned Parenthood get federal and state money?
Planned Parenthood operates on a sliding pay scale. The more money a patient makes, the more she (or he) pays for a visit or for other services with a charge.
Patients who make the least pay the least.
For example, women on the lowest income tier will pay only $17 per month for coverage on the pill.
That is less than four hours work at the federal minimum wage. For some, this is the only health care they can afford.
Next, over five million people nationwide use the services provided by Planned Parenthood. Over the course of a lifetime, one in four American women will have visited a clinic.
Looking at these numbers, it is apparent that this service is in demand. Why reduce funding for a program used by so many?
Finally, Planned Parenthood educates patients who walk through their doors.
Patients are instructed that abstinence is the only foolproof protection against unwanted pregnancy and STDs, but those who choose to be sexually active are taught how to adequately protect themselves.
They are shown the right way to use condoms, and are given consultations on the proper way to take hormonal contraceptives.
Planned Parenthood fills an obvious need of society and, without adequate funding, will not be able to live up to the high expectations it has cultivated.
One can only hope the policymakers see the need as well.
(02/23/05 12:00pm)
The past months have ushered in a new chapter in the immigration debate centering on the question of allowing illegal immigrants to obtain state-issued driver's licenses.
Not only is this practice unfair, but it could potentially be dangerous to the entire American public.
First of all, as we all know by now, "they'll do it anyway" is not an acceptable argument. The same argument has been used in favor of doing away with victimless offenses - such as prostitution and drug use - and has yet to work.
Furthermore, driving illegally, unlike vice crimes, is potentially dangerous to people other than the driver, as the illegal driver does not know the rules of the road.
By driving without a license, alien drivers are now committing two crimes simultaneously: driving without a license and being in the country illegally.
When they get pulled over for a road violation, it is their third offense. They should be punished the same way as a drug user who also possesses drug paraphernalia would be.
Proponents of this change in the law will say that issuing licenses to illegal immigrants will ensure that these drivers will know the rules of the road and therefore make the roads safer.
To a certain degree, they are correct. Illegal immigrants will have the knowledge to drive.
However, they will not necessarily be safe drivers. The driver's license knowledge test in New Jersey is offered in a number of languages and permits the use of an interpreter for other languages.
This represents a fatal flaw in this system, as road signs are only in English.
It is easy to identify certain signs, such as stop and yield signs, by their shape and color scheme. Some, like deer crossing signs, do not contain any words at all.
However, information and warning signs, such as detours, parking rules and "bridge freezes before road surface," all require some knowledge of the English language.
Because legal immigrants need to pass citizenship exams in English, they have the ability to interpret these sorts of road signs; the first-language exams are merely more convenient for them.
However, illegal immigrants do not have a responsibility to be minimally proficient in English and therefore will still pose some danger on the road.
In a similar vein, issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is unfair to the 900,000 legal immigrants who enter this country every year. These people have taken the time to fill out the myriad forms, have paid the fees (which, depending on the person's status, can amount to over $2,000) and have waited to be granted permission to enter the country. With a backlog of over 600,000 applicants (as of 2003), this wait time may be months.
Put yourself in their shoes. You have gone through the work, wait and stress of the application process, all with the knowledge that your entrance could be denied.
Now, the benefits you have put in a substantial effort to obtain are being given to someone who bypassed all the wait and work.
Offering the same privileges to legal and illegal aliens is inherently unfair to legal immigrants.
In the post-Sept. 11 era, issues such as this one are important on more than just the superficial "fairness" level. Issuing licenses to illegal aliens creates security problems.
If an illegal immigrant is given a state-issued driver's license, he now has a form of identification that does more than merely allow him to drive.
In California, where this proposed change could soon become a reality, a person can purchase a gun with only a driver's license.
What if a terrorist posed as an immigrant and was granted a license?
Driver's licenses are used by all states as proof of age, residency and citizenship status.
This creates more problems for the legal citizens of California. Some states may no longer accept California driver's licenses as forms of identification, penalizing law-abiding citizens for others' disregard for the rules.
Allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses is foolhardy, at best.
It creates new problems for legal residents, lessens the importance of following immigration laws and poses a potential terrorist threat.
(02/09/05 12:00pm)
This just in - an eye for an eye won't only leave us all blind, it will leave us cash-strapped and judicially impotent as well.
Since the reinstatement of the death penalty nearly three decades ago, 948 people have been tried, sentenced and executed, paying the ultimate price for their crimes.
While the removal of these convicted felons from society should no doubt leave the streets safer, we must question whether or not the costs outweigh this potential benefit.
First and foremost, the death penalty is simply not a deterrent. No one commits a crime with the idea that they might actually be caught.
You didn't expect your mother to catch you when you would sneak cookies before dinner; you knew that you'd get swatted if you got caught, but you did it anyway.
Crime is no different.
In fact, the region with the highest murder rate is the South, which also happens to be the region with the highest rate of executions.
If that isn't enough, the Northeast -- the region with the lowest murder rate in the United States - has executed less than one percent of those 948 felons. Aren't deterrents supposed to deter something?
If the death penalty isn't meant as a deterrent as much as it is a punishment, then at the very least, it should be applied with a fair and even hand. This, however, is not the case either - the application of capital punishment is unfair and arbitrary.
A crime that would likely fetch the death penalty in conservative states such as Texas might not in a more liberal state, such as New Jersey.
If this felony was committed in Alaska, North Dakota or in one of 10 other states, the death penalty would not even be brought up at sentencing, as this handful of states has banned executions.
The geographical area where the crime was committed is more important that the crime itself.
The death penalty is biased against certain groups of people as well. Most defendants in capital cases are poor and cannot afford decent counsel.
Certain groups, such as juveniles and the mentally retarded, are apt to submit false confessions under duress.
The punishment is racially biased as well - most death row inmates are minorities and most of the victims in capital punishment cases were white.
Without uniform application across the board, the death penalty is laughable at best and chillingly unfair at worst.
Almost as important in this time of economic worries is the fact that the death penalty does cost substantially more than life imprisonment.
Not only do we, the taxpayers, have to pay for the room and board (not to mention the 24-hour surveillance) of these felons while they live their last days but we also have to pay for their legal fees.
Every inmate on death row is guaranteed one appeal and many make more than one.
A report released by the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury shows that death penalty trials are 48 percent more expensive than trials in which the prosecutor seeks a term of life imprisonment.
A study conducted by Duke University found that the cost per execution in the state of North Carolina was a whopping $2.16 million more than the cost of life imprisonment.
Not to be outdone, Florida spent $3.2 million per execution from 1973 to 1988.
In contrast, the cost of life imprisonment (based on an average term of 40 years and the national average of $16,100 spent per inmate per year as determined by the General Accounting Office) would only run about $644,000.
Not only does life imprisonment remove these dangerous criminals from the society they have plagued, but this way is a whole lot cheaper as well.
Unless there is a way to make capital punishment cheaper, fairer and a lot more effective, the death penalty should no longer be used. Look at it in terms of simple mathematics.
The cost of housing an average death row inmate: more than $2 million.
The cost of housing the average lifer: less than $700,000.
Unclogging the legal system and preventing unwarranted executions: priceless
(02/02/05 12:00pm)
This just in - an eye for an eye won't only leave us all blind, it will leave us cash-strapped and judicially impotent as well.
Since the reinstatement of the death penalty nearly three decades ago, 948 people have been tried, sentenced and executed, paying the ultimate price for their crimes.
While the removal of these convicted felons from society should no doubt leave the streets safer, we must question whether or not the costs outweigh this potential benefit.
First and foremost, the death penalty is simply not a deterrent. No one commits a crime with the idea that they might actually be caught.
You didn't expect your mother to catch you when you would sneak cookies before dinner; you knew that you'd get swatted if you got caught, but you did it anyway.
Crime is no different.
In fact, the region with the highest murder rate is the South, which also happens to be the region with the highest rate of executions.
If that isn't enough, the Northeast -- the region with the lowest murder rate in the United States - has executed less than one percent of those 948 felons. Aren't deterrents supposed to deter something?
If the death penalty isn't meant as a deterrent as much as it is a punishment, then at the very least, it should be applied with a fair and even hand. This, however, is not the case either - the application of capital punishment is unfair and arbitrary.
A crime that would likely fetch the death penalty in conservative states such as Texas might not in a more liberal state, such as New Jersey.
If this felony was committed in Alaska, North Dakota or in one of 10 other states, the death penalty would not even be brought up at sentencing, as this handful of states has banned executions.
The geographical area where the crime was committed is more important that the crime itself.
The death penalty is biased against certain groups of people as well. Most defendants in capital cases are poor and cannot afford decent counsel.
Certain groups, such as juveniles and the mentally retarded, are apt to submit false confessions under duress.
The punishment is racially biased as well - most death row inmates are minorities and most of the victims in capital punishment cases were white.
Without uniform application across the board, the death penalty is laughable at best and chillingly unfair at worst.
Almost as important in this time of economic worries is the fact that the death penalty does cost substantially more than life imprisonment.
Not only do we, the taxpayers, have to pay for the room and board (not to mention the 24-hour surveillance) of these felons while they live their last days but we also have to pay for their legal fees.
Every inmate on death row is guaranteed one appeal and many make more than one.
A report released by the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury shows that death penalty trials are 48 percent more expensive than trials in which the prosecutor seeks a term of life imprisonment.
A study conducted by Duke University found that the cost per execution in the state of North Carolina was a whopping $2.16 million more than the cost of life imprisonment.
Not to be outdone, Florida spent $3.2 million per execution from 1973 to 1988.
In contrast, the cost of life imprisonment (based on an average term of 40 years and the national average of $16,100 spent per inmate per year as determined by the General Accounting Office) would only run about $644,000.
Not only does life imprisonment remove these dangerous criminals from the society they have plagued, but this way is a whole lot cheaper as well.
Unless there is a way to make capital punishment cheaper, fairer and a lot more effective, the death penalty should no longer be used. Look at it in terms of simple mathematics.
The cost of housing an average death row inmate: more than $2 million.
The cost of housing the average lifer: less than $700,000.
Unclogging the legal system and preventing unwarranted executions: priceless