This long-running debate is even more pertinent to students at our fair university, whose daily travels often take them within a stones’ throw of Riverside. For many U students, the area has long been a source of confusion and target of misguided derision. For those of you just entering the world of higher education here in Minneapolis, I guarantee you it won’t be long before you have to endure a long-winded
description of the many deadly faults of Cedar-Riverside. It will most likely be given by someone who has never spent more than five minutes there. It will most likely grate.

It’s unfortunate that it gets reduced to that, though, because the issue is immensely complex. Cedar-Riverside is an area in flux, an area with real issues relating to its identity and its ability to handle emerging social issues. It’s an area whose faults are often misrepresented by bigots, elitists and the ignorant.

First things first: The Cedar-Riverside neighborhood is triangular-shaped area west of campus with three definitive boundaries: the Mississippi River to the west, Interstate 94 to the south and Interstate 35W to the west. It has long been a cultural center for artists, activists and students and now boasts the city’s largest immigrant population, according the City of Minneapolis’ website.

While the whole “artist/activist haven” torch seems to have been passed to Uptown (at least perceptually) in the past decade or so, that last point has been firmly entrenched in the mainstream perception of the area. Much like dive bars and monster truck arenas, Cedar-Riverside is an area that seems to bring out the worst in people. To wit: I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve heard people dismiss it as the “Somali ghetto” or fearfully avoid grocery stores because they’re staffed by people with dark skin. Much of the derision aimed at the area is not at all based in fact but in racist fantasies. These racist fantasies also infuse any incident with an unnecessary sense of gravitas, turning a mere snatch-and-grab into a denunciation of all Somalis, Muslims, Africans, etc.

I guess you could say that I’m tired of people trashing Cedar-Riverside without actually having lived there or even spent time there. It really is an interesting neighborhood that has its fair share of charms. With unique businesses like Mayday Books and the Hard Times Cafe that double as rallying points and performance spaces like The Cedar Cultural Center and Bedlam Theatre, the area has a lot to offer those curious enough to explore it. It also, as I mentioned earlier, is one of the most diverse areas in the city, which is refreshing after being submerged in thinly-veiled mega malls like our Campus or Hennepin Avenue. Given the gentrified nature of most Midwestern cities, I treasure any place that maintains a unique and diverse character in the face of corporate pressure.

That’s not to say that it’s some sort of ethnic wonderland. Cedar-Riverside is a real area with real problems, but simply ignoring them or glossing over the area as “beyond hope” only makes them worse. There are solutions, but the first step is accepting that most assumptions about the area are just plain wrong. Take, for example, the way that many citizens link the influx of east Africans to rising crime. This
perception currently focuses on rumors of Somali gangs roaming the streets of Cedar-Riverside, however, “most Somalis that we’ve arrested for violent crimes in the neighborhood did not live in [Cedar-Riverside], some did not even live in the city,” Luther Krueger, a crime prevention specialist for the Minneapolis Police Department said. This false perception has been problematic since Cedar-Riverside became a destination for the large influx of East African immigrants to the Twin Cities in the 1990s. The number of “Black or African American residents” increased more than 230 percent from 1990 to 2000 according to 2000 Census data, however the perceived crime associated with the group is largely unfounded.

A May 14th Cedar-Riverside public safety meeting also highlighted other issues facing the area. Gang violence, underage drinking and poor police response to recent murders in the area - including Somali teen Abdullahi Abdi and, more recently, Joseph Sodd III – were among the issues discussed, according to The Bridge. The conclusion reached by the end of the meeting was that more communication, collaboration
and education are needed to solve these problems.

Coincidentally, that’s exactly what the student population needs to do: let go of its misperceptions, do some research and take an interest in helping the community that they live in. Sure, you could argue that it’s not your community, but it’s an area that will always be linked to campus by proximity and shared interest.

When things go bad for Cedar-Riverside, things tend to go bad for campus and Dinkytown. Furthermore, it is no longer acceptable for students to live in the comfortable bubble that is campus and refuse to participate in city life. We are citizens first and students second and, as such, it is imperative that we do our part to make our city a better place. We’re paying hilariously large amounts of tuition money to feel like we’re the best and brightest, so why don’t we act like it? (I’ve already written about students and community action and blah blah blah before, so I’ll move on. Interested parties can check our archives online.)

Honestly, though, the main reason that I find myself frustrated with Cedar-Riverside’s bad reputation is not the racist stuff, (which is still awful, mind you, and will never fail to raise my proverbial hackles) but rather that it is causing people to abandon the area. With educated young folks - much like yourself, dear reader – ignoring the area completely, the people who are most likely to engage in community action and protect the area are leaving the fate of this vibrant community to the corporate interests and dispassionate
city planners.

You see, while the area has avoided rapacious commercial interest better than Dinkytown, (God rest her soul) a completely different kind of business has started to invade the area.

Within the past year, both the University of Minnesota and Augsburg College have both expanded their presence in the area in ways that are nothing short of intrusive. It seems like only yesterday I was awoken by the explosive sounds of industry that signaled the imminent arrival of the new Carlson building, the U’s enormous, phallic addition to an already overbearingly phallic building. It’s fitting, though, because it’s completely fucked the whole neighborhood.

Augsburg has done its fair share of damage with their newly built, all-purpose complex staking out a block or so of Riverside. They still have further plans to expand their recreational facilities and add a new center for Science, Business and Religion. When you add this to a proposed parking ramp behind Grandma’s, an expansion to Fairview’s Children’s Hospital and the new Light Rail Transit station to be placed beneath 19th avenue, you have to wonder where people are supposed to live, work, eat, exist, etc. When I remember how my old house was completely blocked out the shadows from Carlson’s new death star, I shudder to think what these new expansions will do to the area.

These projects may seem innocuous, but they pose a very real threat to the human and business traffic that sustains Cedar-Riverside. As the area is invaded by colleges and corporations, there will be less room for people to live and enjoy this great area. When you combine this with the crime problem, things get a lot more serious. My fear is that new development will decrease interest in the area and dehumanize that already struggling businesses and residents who call Cedar-Riverside home. This, in turn, will decrease public support for crime prevention measures and long-term plans to rejuvenate the area.

I don’t want the mainstream misperception of Cedar-Riverside to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don’t want this area to become a thinly-veiled ghetto sandwiched between colleges and bus stops. Now is the time for students to take an interest in this area and do what we can to save it. It can be anything from going to meetings and writing letters, to simply taking the time to educate your friends on what this neighborhood really stands for. The moral of this story is that it’s up to us to stop this area from being completely erased by ignorance and negligence. If we don’t stop the deluge, Cedar-Riverside will be a hazy memory buried under parking ramps, college insignias, and empty promises, instead of a part of our shared heritage.

Ali Jaafar

The word “publication” has the word “public” embedded in it for a reason: publishing is a statement to the general population about what sorts of issues are important and relevant. It is precisely that concept, relevancy, which has led me take a very strong stand against Mr. Stone’s article. To put it bluntly, I do not believe that publishing an article as self-involved as “Cult of Praise” would benefit the Wake’s readership.

True, it is only natural for people to write about their lives and experiences, but there has to be a point. For example, Deniz Rudin’s article “An Elegy for ‘Art Porn’” started as a funny anecdote but blossomed into an article about guilty pleasures and ironic detachment, issues that resonate with the self-hating hipsters who write/read the Wake.

I was looking for something similar in “Cult of Praise” but found nothing. The point of the article is, “I got suckered into joining a cult.” It contains no real moral or message for the wider, non-cult-joining population. People of Praise may be weird, but they pose no threat to 99.99% of the population. They do not engage in prostitution, the production of meth, illegal gambling rings, slave labor cartels, etc. They don’t even have a funny sign.

Furthermore, joining a religious group is such an incredibly personal thing that one article really won’t dissuade anyone from joining. You either possess the specific combination of belief and naiveté to find the idea appealing or you don’t.

In this light, Mr. Stone’s article reads as the airing of one man’s personal grievances. This is where social responsibility comes into play. In the wake of another recent article on religion (“Religion and the U” by Carl Carpenter) whose false accusations angered many, it would be insensitive and misguided to publish another article that denounces religion without any clear or noble purpose.

This is the difference between a magazine and a personal blog: we are representative of a wide variety of people and opinions and must carefully consider the statements we make. I’m all for publishing controversial articles, but if they lack relevancy and purpose, they can only serve to spread hatred and division rather than peace and knowledge.

Alice Vislova

I believe that Eric Stone’s article, “Cult of Praise,” should be published in an upcoming issue of The Wake.

Stone’s article is a first hand account of his experience with People of Praise: a religious group that operates out of a house on frat row. Stone shamelessly tells his story – from his initial encounter to, well, I don’t want to spoil all the surprises. The important thing is that his story is worth telling.

Firstly, the article is well written. In my opinion, editorial writing, by nature, often lacks color. Stone’s article is full of concrete anecdotes, as opposed to the floating abstractions that often comprise editorial pages (see: this column).

Stone’s article is also interesting because it tells a story you don’t hear everyday, in a heartfelt manner. One of the missions of The Wake is to provide a forum for students to express their ideas. As a magazine by students, for students, we do not have the right to stand in the way of somebody’s story.

In addition to not having the right to stand in the way of stories, I feel that - in a way - we are obligated to publish some of them. The quality of the writing may be a boundary to publication – but a boundary that can be overcome. The opinion held by the writer should never be a boundary.

I had never heard of the People of Praise before reading Stone’s article and I couldn’t believe what I read. I think that people have a right to know about wacky religious cults operating in their neighborhood. I realize that Stone’s article is an opinion piece and therefore may or may not be an accurate description of the People of Praise, but, as usual, I encourage people with dissenting opinions about the subject matter to write an article as well.

We must continue to give voice to those who wish to speak regardless of whether or not we agree with their opinion. We must remember that The Wake would be nothing without people like Stone who take the initiative to tell their stories. Keep the dream alive!

Alex Amend

First off, three cheers for Mr. Stone’s own personal-spiritual liberation, and his effort to put into words the machinations of a local bed-bunking religious co-op otherwise known as People of Praise (POP). His story should be told, if only to avoid shying away from controversy, and for purposes of giving this collective the attention it deserves–which is very little.

I am of the opinion that the actions of such fantastic student groups with utopian and/or religious-derived goals and criticisms are of little consequence within the broader student community. The demonstration last week outside of Coffman was such an instance where a group made explicit their irrelevance by showcasing a unique perversity of historical perspective. That these people offered gleeful smiles from in front of their useless statement only condemned them further in their own ignorance.

A concern must be raised if a group like POP conducted unlawful or abusive behavior within its collective, akin in some shape to the pending case involving a Mormon compound in Texas. However, to assume that POP’s silly practices call for alarm or a singular account of the group by an ex-member facilitated by a college magazine would be granting them too much legitimacy. To my mind, this is simply a collective of unimaginative and harmless human beings in a modern and cultureless college town.

While it is unfortunate, fundamental religious movements are part of our country’s DNA. In short, it’s not such a surprise.

Though Mr. Stone’s account could be considered necessary by those who like to analyze and re-analyze religion’s role on campus, I’m rather unmoved. An interesting read? Slightly. Revelatory insight? I think not. Instead, I believe it is morally imperative that we turn our investigative lens on a rampant and much more horrifying phenomenon around campus: that fucking bean bag game.

Introducing the People of Praise

I never thought I could fall victim to a religious cult on the campus of the University of Minnesota. I like to think of myself as intelligent, knowledgeable and critically minded. These traits echo the values of our campus. Some have called the U of M the dustbowl of empiricism because of its heavy reliance on the scientific method and evidence based practices. So how is it that one can fall into the traps of superstition and dogmatism in such a seemingly enlightened environment? About two years ago, shortly after moving to Minneapolis to attend the U of M, I fell right into a trap.

There are many Christian groups and fellowships on campus. The major ones that we all have heard of include: Campus Crusade for Christ, or CRU for short; Maranatha, with their sign proclaiming “Jesus Christ is Lord of the University of Minnesota” and Mars Hill. But my guess is that very few of you have heard of the People of Praise. Because the group is actively engaged in evangelizing and recruiting members of the U of M community, I think it is important to inform people about the side of the POP that they probably will not share with you upfront. Hindsight is 20/20, and looking back I wish I would have had the resources available to help me make an informed decision concerning the group I was about to commit most of my time and energy to.

The POP is an “ecumenical charismatic Christian community” that was founded in 1971 in South Bend, IN. The formation of the group followed the Catholic Church renewal of the early 60’s known as Vatican II. The POP is ecumenical in the sense that they accept members from all Christian faiths; although over 90% of the current members attend Roman Catholic Church’s. They are charismatic in the sense that they believe in, and employ, such things as speaking in tongues, prophecy and faith healing. The POP has had some trouble with growth – while being in existence for over thirty years they currently only have approximately 2,900 adult members. Some of you may be familiar with Trinity Schools. The POP owns and administers three private Christian High Schools, one of which is located in Eagan, MN. A few years ago, the POP received word from God to set-up shop in Dinkytown and create there own city here.

Life in the People of Praise

I first heard of the POP while working as a parking attendant for the wicked witch of Dinkytown. Anyone who has ever tried to park momentarily in, by or near the parking lot behind the Dinkydome – without paying or having correct change has encountered the explosive rage of this seemingly innocent and lovely old women. I once saw her demand a quarter from some poor student who accidentally made a wrong turn into the parking lot. There are no free u-turns at this lot. It was here I met T.J., who told me about the revolutionary life he was living with Jesus Christ and the POP. He invited me over to one of the POP houses on frat row for a Lord’s Day supper.

I soon found out that the Lord’s Day supper was a weekly dinner gathering of about twenty to fifty POP members and guests that takes place every Saturday night in Dinkytown. The dinner begins with everyone gathering in a circle while the leader prays and passes some bread and juice – representing the body and blood of Christ. After this is finished, the group begins praying. Most pray in plain everyday sensical English, but some pray by making weird noises and strange utterances. For the first time, I heard someone speak in tongues – which are recognized by Pentecostal Christians as a secret prayer language. I remember thinking this was different from the way I learned how to pray and I made a point to talk with T.J. about this experience after dinner. He graciously showed me in the Bible where the apostles spoke in the same tongues the POP members spoke in. If it’s in the Bible, it must be ok, I thought.

That Lord’s Day night I met a young guy named Mike. He was the leader of what the POP calls the campus division. Mike is an intelligent Notre Dame Alumnus in his late 20’s who teaches math and scripture at Trinity High School in Eagan, MN. Mike shook my hand and we shared casual conversation throughout the social gathering that followed the dinner. During this time I inquired to find out as much as I could about the campus division. One member shared with me that sexual temptation was rather easy to deny because no women were allowed on the second and third floors where their study area and sleeping room was located. Yes, that’s right – sleeping room. All sixteen male members of the campus division slept in one room containing six or seven triple bunk beds hand crafted by members of the community. This seemed odd to me at first. A few hours later I noticed the women were all starting to leave. I found out that all the female members lived in a separate house just down the street. Before I left, Mike asked if I would be willing to meet for coffee sometime. I said sure. We agreed to meet the next day and talk more about the POP.

At this time in my spiritual journey I was a young and very naïve Christian – I had just recently undergone a ‘born-again’ experience shortly after moving to Minneapolis. The next day I met Mike at a coffee house in Dinkytown. I ordered my favorite espresso, but Mike curiously sat down without ordering anything. I soon found out that some members of the POP had made a commitment to only spend forty dollars a month on personal expenses, and being that it was towards the end of the month Mike was getting close to his cutoff. I shared with Mike my personal story and how I had just recently moved to Minneapolis to attend the U of M. After exchanging some small talk Mike leaned over to me and stated matter-of-factly, “You are having a conversation with Christ right now.” At first I was taken back. Obviously he couldn’t be implying that he was Christ. That is ridiculous! I didn’t say anything about the comment, I assumed he was referring to the Holy Spirit that dwells within each Christian and figured he was referring to the Spirit within himself. Upon reflection, I wonder if Mike really does believe he is Christ. Is it possible that the second coming of Christ has taken human form and is hanging out at the U?

Over the next couple weeks Mike and I met up for coffee and spent time walking around campus talking about life and all the wonder it contains. I was really curious about the POP and the more I talked to Mike the more interested I became. One time, when Mike and I met up, I remarked to him that he probably has an agenda with me. Mike replied that he just wanted friendship, just friendship. He told me that the POP was all about living out the call in chapter two of the Book of Acts, which proclaims that the early Christians lived in common – sharing everything and owning nothing for themselves. Further, he spoke about revolution, city building and prophecy. He said that a few years ago the POP received a prophecy from God that they were to build 200 cities and recruit 200,000 members within 40 years. I told him that this seemed outrageous and he replied adamantly that they would succeed. He went on to tell me they had begun their city building work and that the U of M is one of the sights that God recently sent them to. Here, they will build a city of one people, united under Christ. Mike spoke passionately, eloquently and fervently about the revolution that God had called the members of the POP to undergo. At the time, this all seemed really exciting to me. I was looking to be part of something greater than myself and to do something radical and charitable with my life. It seemed the POP offered me just this opportunity to make a difference and fulfill my calling.

For whatever reason, maybe it was my intrinsic zeal for leading a Christian life or my curiosity about living on frat row, I joined the POP, went ‘underway’ and moved into the old Zeta Psi fraternity house with my fellow revolutionaries in Christ. The POP is what is called a covenant community, in which members make a decision, similar to a wedding vow, to remain with the community forever. When members first join they undergo a five to seven year period called ‘underway’, in which the young member prays and attempts to discern their path in life. At the end of this period, members make a commitment, either to join the community permanently – in what is called ‘making the covenant’ or leave. Once this covenant is made within the POP, one cannot decide to leave on their own – they ultimately have to be released by the community leaders.

Some of you reading this, who may have been familiar to campus in 2006, might recall the old Zeta Psi fraternity house located at the East end of frat row. There were no fraternity brothers in the house at this time, the Zeta Psi boys had been kicked out long ago for partying too hard and attempting to burn the house down – which they almost succeeded at. During the fall and spring semesters of 2006 the POP moved in and placed two big off-green signs in front of the house, proclaiming: “The World’s a Mess, Join the Solution. A People, A Place, A Revolution”. Meet the campus division of the POP. It was in this house that I lived and prayed, worshiped and sang as an ‘underway’ member of the POP.

After some time in the POP I started to realize that the revolution of Jesus Christ that was prophesied by the group was actually a revolution of oppression and control. The POP is comprised almost entirely of white upper-middle class Americans. Of the hundreds of members I met during my time with the POP, I met only one that was black. I later found out that he was merely a guest at one of the community meetings and not affiliated with the POP. Furthermore, no active homosexuals are allowed, and if they ‘come out’ they are encouraged to undergo conversion therapy or are forced to leave. Thankfully conversion therapy is currently outlawed by the American Psychological Association, although this doesn’t keep faith-based programs from practicing this therapy. Women are restricted from carrying any leadership position. The decision to elect community leaders is not based on qualifications or prior experience; when the decision concerns women, it is based entirely on gender and you’re out of luck if God happened to create you with an extra X chromosome.

Once I joined the POP everything started to change. Before moving in to the house I was given a sheet of paper that listed eight or nine commitments I had to make before joining. I have since lost the list and cannot recall all of the commitments I made. I tried to contact some current members, but was denied access to the sheet of paper. The commitments included: give a monthly 10% tithe, attend all community meetings and lectures, refrain from dating for two years, do not engage in gossip, share all money and possessions and maintain a headship relationship. All new members are assigned what is called a ‘head’. A head is a spiritual advisor/life coach who helps guide you in your journey. Members typically meet one-on-one with their head once a week. Members are not allowed to choose their heads; they are assigned by the community leaders. Upon entering the POP, Mike was assigned to be my head. Once I began headship with Mike he loosened his empathetic and caring attitude and started to become more controlling and directive. I remember during one of our headship meetings he told me that I shouldn’t tell him what I was going to do with my life; rather, I should ask for his permission.

Maybe it was the hammer and sickle poster that hung above our chore list or the strong Russian heritage of one of the leaders, but I began to realize I was a part of what some have called Christian communism – a form of Christianity that seeks a possession-less, separatist and selfless form of community and worship. In the POP, personal possessions were owned and shared by everyone and the money that each member makes is placed in a common community fund to help support the group.

After a few weeks in the POP, Mike became more and more interested in my financial situation. During one of our headship meetings Mike told me that the POP deals with money differently than other people normally do. He then asked if he could view my bank account records. I remember sitting down with him and logging in to my online bank account, feeling nervous and unsure – the consequences of a relationship marked by power differential. I didn’t know how to express my concern about him viewing my bank account, this man was my spiritual advisor – my head, and he was also my landlord – giving me a place to live. I was afraid that if I expressed myself all my connections could be lost. I had nowhere else to go; I was new to Minneapolis and in the middle of a semester of college. I remember thinking that if I voiced my opinion he might kick me out and leave me without a place to stay. I was also under a spiritual spell or ‘spiritual covering’ as some critics have called it. I believed the POP represented my connection with the Almighty. What would happen to me if I was kicked out? Would I be damned forever? What if I chose to leave on my own, would they come after me or just ignore me?

After just one semester in the POP it all became too much for me and I fostered the courage to tell Mike how I was feeling. The semester with the POP represents my lowest GPA and productivity while studying at the U of M. My life had become filled with meetings, lectures, dinners and other social gatherings that demanded my time. My schedule was flooded with the POP, I no longer had time for old friends and hobbies and many of my prior relationships and community services suffered due to my involvement in the group. I slowly realized I was no longer me, but merely a by-product of the POP. I approached Mike one day and told him that I no longer felt free. He cringed at hearing this because he had always taught in lectures of the freeing life in Christ that members experience. A freeing life was far from what I experienced in the POP. I was repeatedly controlled and manipulated in the name of Christ.

Mike advised me to pray more and put some more time and effort into my involvement with the community. I had had enough and wanted out. One day, I mustered the nerve to tell Mike that I had decided to leave the POP. He grabbed his Bible and read from the Book of Acts 2:44-47. He then asked me assertively, “Do you want this?” I replied that I did, but not here in the POP. Mike closed his Bible and saying nothing walked away. I was allowed to move into my own room in the house and was told not to attend any of the community functions or dinners. I felt alone, scared, confused and unsure of what to do next. I committed my life and everything I know to this group and now I was banished. What I didn’t realize at this time was that this was the beginning of my true freedom.

How could my loving God lead me astray?

After leaving the POP I found myself in a crisis of Faith. How could my loving God lead me to such a controlling and manipulative group? I came to the conclusion that I needed to study the foundations of Christianity in order to protect myself from being mislead again. At this point, I made a critically important decision in my life and I decided to be open-minded. I committed to reading both sides of the argument – pro-Christian and anti-Christian. Very few Christians agree to do this because it would involve reading the ‘Devil’s’ works. I enrolled in a New Testament course and planned to read twelve books the following summer in an attempt to settle the battle raging within me concerning the claims of Christianity. I’m not sure why I decided on the number twelve, but I committed to reading six books by well known Christian apologists and six books by well known skeptics. I believe this is one of the best methods of settling ones personal views on religious matters, or any other matter – read both sides and make an informed educated decision. Since the summer of 06’, which I like to refer to as my summer of isolation and study, I have read well over twenty books related to Christianity. I would highly recommend that anyone interested in Christianity take world renowned biblical scholar Calvin Roetzel’s course on the New Testament, which is offered here at the U of M. Roetzel offers his students a rare opportunity to study the documents of Christianity free from the evangelical fundamentalism found in many Churchs. In the end, the very thing that led me to Christianity – the search for Truth, ultimately motivated me to leave Christianity and all its cultic sects, dogmas and superstitions.

Since leaving the POP I have banded with other former members from around the country and started an on-line support community called, “The Freedom Forum”. We are available to offer support and guidance for those seeking freedom from religious cults. We currently have over fifty members and are open to anyone who has had negative experiences with religious groups. My personal experience shows that leaving a religious cult can be as difficult and life-altering as breaking the cycle of addiction. Both phenomena contain elements of a battle with the mind.

I would like to thank Christian philosopher, Dr. Adrian Reimers, for his support in helping me leave the group I recognize today as The Cult of Praise. Dr. Reimers and his family were removed from the community, along with many others in the mid 80’s. Reimers was told by the community when he left that his “life would bear no fruit” if he did not submit himself to the POP. Upon leaving he published articles in The Cultic Studies Journal, started a foundation called, “Free Again in Christ” – which helps support individuals leaving covenant communities who have maintained their Faith, and authored an unpublished book that philosophically and theologically dissects the POP’s various ideologies and workings. Dr. Reimers life has since ‘bore much fruit’; he currently teaches philosophy at Notre Dame.

Recently, the POP began a “missionary school” and started training members in various evangelism techniques. On the weekends, members go out in groups of two and hit the streets of Dinkytown and other areas around campus seeking new recruits. The POP currently resides in various homes in the neighborhood of University AVE and 11th ST. If unorthodox Christianity – bound with grandiose claims and prophecies, narrow minded and shallow ideologies and restricted living are your thing, I encourage you to check them out. Maybe stop by for one of their Lord’s Day celebrations that occur every Saturday night in Dinkytown. I’m sure they would be overjoyed to have you in attendance, and submission.

Millions have been killed in the name of specific religious and political dogmas. The Middle East, which represents the foundational geography of the world’s three major monotheistic religions, has been the sight of the bloodiest and most ravage wars in human history. As far as I am aware, no death or killing has ever been caused by anyone’s lack of belief in something. Yet, a recent study conducted at the University of Minnesota found that atheists were the least trusted minority in the US – more so than homosexuals and Hispanics. It is time for a new Enlightenment. One of the biggest dangers facing society today is religious certainty. If there is one message I could send out to the world, it would be this: There is no God, there is no consciousness after death – all we have is each other, our families, our communities and this one life here on Earth. So let’s embrace one another, strive to do the next right thing and endeavor to make the world a better place for those lives that will follow. Can I get a amen from the congregation?

I am not trying to dismiss China’s serious human rights issues. Indeed, China has many problems besides Tibet that it needs to resolve. But China has only recently become a world power. If you looked at the United States in a comparable time, say the 1940’s, we were committing our own human rights abuses; segregation and internment camps to name a few. If we go back further, there’s slavery and the slaughter and oppression of Native Americans, two issue that were never adequately resolved. Even now, we can’t forget about the “War on Terror” that has cost the lives of thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis. So by this standard, shouldn’t the United States be barred from holding the Olympics? Or Germany? Or Russia? Or almost every other country in the world?

And let’s not forget about the athletes that are set to compete in the events. They have been training for a sizeable portion of their lives to be able to compete in such a prestigious event. If an entire country is to boycott the Olympics, they are also boycotting their own athletes, many of whom don’t support China’s actions. They are there only to support the true meaning of the Olympic Games.

The Olympics are about physical competition, plain and simple. True, they can be used by countries to promote a more positive image, but promoting a more positive image is not the same as convincing everyone of a better image. You do not have to be ok with the things that China is doing to be ok with the Olympics. Supporting the Olympics is not the same as supporting China.

But in the big picture, the Olympic Games are a relatively small part of China’s PR campaign, a gargantuan effort that will not be affected by an Olympic boycott. In 2007, China imported $321.5 billion dollars worth of goods to the United States. With the value of the dollar dropping so quickly and the value of the Yuan kept artificially low, China is going to be the only country left with which the United States can afford to trade. This means that the amount of goods China imports to the United States will at least stay the same if not grow. This money from the United States is a big part of what supports China. If people were to boycott Chinese goods (i.e., everything), this could possibly send a message to China. The only problem with that idea is that the United State’s number one import from China is electrical equipment and machinery and since most private citizens don’t normally buy machinery by the ton, it would be nearly impossible to create a mass boycott.

If people want to bring politics into the Olympics, fine, but it cannot be done selectively. We cannot condemn one country while ignoring countless others. If China is going to be condemned for its actions, then the United States, in turn, should be boycotted for its involvement in and provocation of the Iraq war. France should not be allowed to host the Olympics for its treatment of Muslim immigrants.

The best way to get China to turn its record of human rights abuses around: help them, don’t antagonize them. Give them time to get their country of one billion people under control in the wake of massive economic growth. Other international governments need to give them some time but also offer to share some of their past experience. With an economy growing at such a fast rate, it is impossible for a country to be stable in all aspects.

I. INVOCATION

Dearest Senior Class of 2008,

As you are already well aware, May is rapidly approaching and much of the anxiety regarding post-college life that was safely stewing at the recesses of our minds is about to manifest itself, plump and ugly, in our newly re-christened adulthood.

The age we are entering headfirst is certainly an exciting one — despite, or perhaps as a result of, current economic forecasts, a seemingly endless war, and end-of-times weather patterns… But alas! It’s at least the culmination of 16 or so years of education! The prolonged first step in floundering pursuit of answering the question: how are you going to pay the fucking bills when you grow up?

It’s also the time when we join the ranks of the garroted, true-to-form, everyday taxpayer-citizen. That’s right; against the loan payments we lose that precious student status. No more movie theatre or travel discounts! Oh my! We are now one — and near the bottom - with the system! We are also tempted to say it’s the end of binge drinking, precarious sexual relations and the occasional incapacitating episodes of self-doubt, confusion and frustration. But we should know better than that.

This particular time means a lot of different things to college seniors, the most obvious of which are a diploma and a job hunt. Beyond that, however, it means being hit with a plethora of costs and expenses that are no longer kept at bay by student status. Yes, once graduation hits, the vultures come swooping down to collect their student loan payments, graduation fees, etc. Among the fattest and most vicious of these scavengers are the affiliates of an insidious industry that strikes unsuspecting graduates immediately after graduation: medical insurance companies. Graduating means we will no longer be covered by policies provided by either our parent’s employers or by the University. Presumably with a gleeful efficacy, these entities will terminate our coverage the instant a diploma lands in our hands.

Nationally, we have been hearing for some time about our generation employed in the tedious health care reform tug-of-war between Sens. Clinton and Obama. Sen. Clinton often inanely posits we simply pay no heed to human fragility or mortality and need to be mandated, and thus learned in this regard. In contrast, Sen. Obama argues that if health insurance were made more affordable, we reckless and death-defying youth will invariably fall in line. Intriguing as it is, even subscribers to the latter argument must readily admit there always was, always are and always will be assholes that positively endanger themselves and others while refusing to pay for it.

As a rule, insurance companies such as Blue Cross Blue Shield and Health Partners will extend coverage of a family health care plan to dependents until they reach the age of nineteen, or twenty-five if they are in school. This means that graduation ostensibly makes students ineligible for coverage under their parents’ plans and robs them of their health insurance.

Now, congratulations to those students who are in line to be debt free after college or begin a job with health benefits, for you have been spared a royal pain in the ass. As for the loan-paying, unemployed majority: pay attention, else risk an aneurism when the cold hard truth behind the stupidity of American health care insurance catches you unprepared.

II. SO, HOW DOES THIS WORK?

A health care plan breaks down to this; a deductible, a premium, an out-of-pocket maximum and coverage maximums. The deductible is the amount that the holder of the policy is expected to pay before the plan actually begins to cover their expenses. The premium is the fee paid to the insurance company for the coverage; it usually is paid in monthly installments. The out-of-pocket maximum is the maximum amount that the holder will have to pay per year. Coverage maximums are the percentages of costs and dollar amounts that the plan will pay for. Most insurance plans also include copayments, which are fees paid up front by the holder for certain services, such as urgent care.

What this basically means is you pay a certain amount per month to the insurance company, in addition to smaller amounts and a larger amount when necessary, and in return they will pay your medical bills so long as they cost over a certain amount and under another. Summed up in a sentence the whole idea sounds a little suspicious. And this is assuming that you are in relatively good health with no pre-existing chronic illnesses.

And, really, pray that you don’t have any maladies, chronic or otherwise, because insurance companies like to use a process called underwriting. Underwriting is used to screen applicants and weed out potentially costly clients based on previous medical history. They deny coverage altogether to most and apply special costs to others. Simply being a smoker is enough to raise a monthly premium. This process, coupled with endless loopholes in policies and fine print have created enough insurance company “victims” for Michael Moore to make a movie about it. To wit: it’s a pretty long movie.

These are merely unscrupulous business tactics, however; the real obstacle for graduates is the outrageous cost of the service. Deductibles offered for an annual plan for a single individual by Blue Cross Blue Shield, a major insurance company, range from $300 to $10,000. This is the amount that must be exceeded before the company will pay the expense; the lower it is, the sooner the company will begin coverage. It makes sense, then, that a lower deductible would entail a higher monthly premium. The $10,000 deductible costs around $70 a month while the $300 deductible costs around $322 a month. The $300 deductible, in addition to being low, also covers smaller services such as medication with copayments and has a lower out-of-pocket maximum, while the $10,000 deductible is the out-of-pocket maximum and covers nothing until it has been reached.

Cutting to the heart of the bullshit, what this all means is that you can pick a plan where you pay a lot for a ton of coverage that you won’t use unless you are consistently hospitalized, pay a small amount and may as well not have health insurance at all, or pay an amount in between and get half-assed coverage that still costs you a lot in extra fees.

Of course, graduation means that many seniors will find their financial situation much tighter than a decent health insurance plan requires. Simply put, our generation is going deeper and deeper in debt in order to attend college. A recent study by the National Center for Education Statistics reports that the average student loan debt is $10,000, with the average cost of college increasing at twice the rate of inflation. On top of that, debt levels for graduating seniors with student loans more than doubled in the last decade from $9,250 to $19,200 – an increase of 108% which is 58% after inflation. When you consider that 60% of students took out loans in 2004, you can see the wide-ranging effects of such increases.

Private loans raise even more questions about students’ financial situations. The College Board reports that lenders provided about $14 billion in private loans during the 04-05 academic year, a 734% increase from a decade earlier and a 30% increase from the previous year. Private loans typically carry higher interest rates and less flexible payment options than federal loans. That might have had more impact had I put it six paragraphs back, when you didn’t think banks and universities were trying to rape you in the metaphorical back alley of your over-priced education.

Statistical evidence also calls into question our ability to pay these ever-increasing loans. According to USA Today, late payments on loans by twenty-somethings are at a proportion of 1.6 to the general population’s 1.0. When those loans actually get paid, though, things don’t get much better: 49% of our peers are charging their loans to credit cards, a practice that only increases one type of debt in order decrease another. When the highest growing of group of students in debt are those with $20,000 or more, you can see how these practices only reinforce a system that is using our limited financial capacities to tie us up in an ever-downward spiral of debt. As a generation that watched the baby boomers do the same thing at middle age, (via cars, houses, boats, suburban migration, poor financial decisions, etc.) how are we supposed to feel about being put in that situation when we are in our twenties, before we can actually make any significant financial decisions? When you start at the bottom, where do you go?

III. THE PENDULUM

While the blow to your pocket book is sobering enough, the moral and legal implications of such a system are also astounding.

One issue that is seemingly never discussed is the constitutionality of a rapacious, privatized health care system. What the government is essentially forcing us to do by not having a nationalized health care option is either give all of our money to a private corporation or just go without health care – a practice that could literally kill you. Is it really constitutional to force citizens to choose between supporting an exploitative third-party and going without health care? Is it respectful of our freedoms to basically force us to support groups that drive our peers into debt and prevent many of our fellow citizens from receiving any sort of health care? The modern American health care system has become ground zero for our lack of choice and control over our own lives. When we don’t even have the right to receive medical attention, what do we have?

Of course, that gets at a question that is larger than this already very large article: do we have a right to health care? It’s definitely up to personal interpretation, but it is important that we discuss whether or not the government has the responsibility to ensure medical coverage for its citizens. It’s even more imperative now that our generation is facing the looming prospect of life without health care and without choice. In a world where we have to choose between our health and our finances, it is imperative that we ask if that’s a choice that we should have to make.

In our eyes, the evidence speaks for itself. Medical insurance companies have used government inattention to set up a system that is impossible and exploitative. They have cornered the American people and forced them to weigh their livelihood (and, in turn, their ability to support their lifestyles and/or families) against their health and basic ability to, well, stay alive. It’s a ridiculous notion that we should die because we can’t pay for life.

And, yeah, that’s a moral issue. I mean, how do you feel about vast swaths of our country’s population, possibly including you, dear reader, not being able to receive health care? Anyone who has visited a hospital recently can attest to the ridiculous costs of supplies and overnight stays, the overcrowding, the poor infrastructure, haphazard management and on and on. Bear in mind that these wonderful services are qualities of the same care that is denied to those who can’t pay the ridiculous premiums and service costs of comprehensive health care plans. Isn’t it important that citizens, regardless of market and societal forces that keep them in whatever dire straits they find themselves in, are able to receive medical treatment? If we’re willing to spend billions to kill our so-called enemies, why can’t we be bothered to spend the same to keep our fellow Americans alive?

IV. NOW WHAT?

There really is no way to win, nor any way around playing the game. What are we supposed to do, not have health insurance? It sounds like a good idea for about ten seconds until the thought of a horrible car accident or god forbid, cancer, comes to mind. The price is right, but the risk is high. What makes the situation so tragic is that it is incredibly dangerous to be without insurance. It is less costly to be sure, but the X factor is always looming over your shoulder, threatening you with a freak accident. It certainly isn’t in the best interest of anyone to be without health insurance, but with such high prices options seem to be limited.

So what is a college graduate to do? Get a job! That’s the easy and supposedly natural answer. Certainly, many of us will land jobs that offer plans sufficient to cover our youthful ailments. Unfortunately, health care coverage is quickly becoming a commodity even for the gainfully employed.

When the Minneapolis Public Schools’ teachers re-negotiated their contract earlier this year, for example, their coverage was significantly decreased. As part of negotiations, the teachers agreed to a tiered health care system. The tiers refer to how much people pay for co-pays. For example, at a tier one clinic, the co-pay is $30, while at a tier two clinic it is $55 and $80 at a tier three. “This is essentially to push down costs and encourage people to go to certain clinics,” says Robert Panning-Miller, President of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Local 59.

This is not to say that this is encouraging cheaper care, but to try and help people get the best quality care for the fees that they are paying. “The out of pocket expenses went up, but we were able to keep the overall costs, the premiums, for every individual in the district, from increasing by more than 5.4 percent,” Panning-Miller said. “That’s where the negotiations came in.”

For single coverage the district pays all of the costs. For families, the district pays the amount equal to what they pay for single coverage, plus a negotiated additional amount. The district wanted to cap how much they paid for single coverage, but negotiations resulted in full payment. That also helped family coverage because the district has to pay someone with a family plan at least as much as they pay someone with single coverage.

“Health care is one of those things where what you want to do is minimize the pain —there’s always going to be some,” Panning-Miller said.

“When we sent out requests for proposals, three companies replied saying that if we wanted to keep the same coverage, premiums would be 25-35% more,” Panning-Miller said. It became a question of how many benefits teachers were willing to give up in order to bring premium costs down. “To only increase 5.4% in relation to the patterns is really good. But the reality is that we gave up a lot.”

In reality, these policies end up hurting the people who need it most. If you don’t get sick, you don’t pay co-pays, creating an incentive for avoiding medical treatment and utilization of these much-coveted health care plans. “That is the big philosophical question in health care: how much of the burden should be shared?” Panning-Miller said. “Our costs are higher than most. Some people opt out of the district coverage because they can get cheaper coverage elsewhere.”

Unfortunately, when people go elsewhere for coverage, it makes the pool smaller. If fewer people buy in, individual costs increase and become far less predictable. “People opting out is going to be a problem year to year, though maybe not immediately,” Panning-Miller said.

Compared to other school districts or other businesses, “Our benefits are horrible,” Panning-Miller said. “And the argument is that teachers use health care a lot.”

“The system as it is now is unsustainable,” Panning-Miller said.

In the long-term, change is needed. Oftentimes, issues like health insurance and debt are mentally outsourced by our generation as problems for old people; issues that plague those entering mid-life. Obviously, this is not true. For many of us, it’s only a matter of years, months or even weeks until, like it or not, this problem becomes ours. It’s up to us, then, to encourage debate and force the question when it comes to health care. It’s our duty to force our elected officials and peers alike to present us with a solution to this problem or at least a pronouncement. As it is, we’re getting screwed and no-one is willing to confirm or deny that. So really, honestly think about what you’re going to do about this problem, either personally or politically, because if those hit hardest by this inequity are silent, who will speak for us?

Most of the facts in this article are true.

As you’re all aware, Beijing is hosting the 2008 Summer Olympics. They’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this thing, they’ve built some cool buildings, and they’re trying to generally spruce up the city in anticipation of the international spotlight that they’ll receive. They’ve been working diligently on this thing for years, putting far more into it than the Greeks did when they half-assed it back in 2004. They know that this is their big moment to shine, to show China to the world as a modern, forward-looking country — the new superpower to reckon with — a respectable force in world economic and political affairs. In a way, this whole thing is a massive propaganda stunt.

But wait, wait, hold the phone! Aren’t Mia Farrow and Steven Spielberg pissed off about something?

Right, the genocide! You see, China’s government has very close business and diplomatic ties to the Sudanese government, which butchered people in southern Sudan and is now butchering people in Darfur. Apparently, according to Ivory Tower Hollywood liberals like Farrow and Spielberg, genocide is “bad.”

And whatever happened to those Tibetans? Didn’t there used to be a Tibet? Oh right, my mistake, Tibet is actually an integral part of the Chinese Motherland, while the Dalai Lama is actually a capitalist roader splittist. Something like 500,000 Tibetans have died as a result of the Chinese occupation, which has crushed dissent and persists in trying to destroy Tibet’s culture. In 1995-ish, they kidnapped the six-year-old Panchen Lama, who has not been seen since. That’s an important thing to remember. The Chinese government kidnapped a six-year-old boy and has been holding him as a political prisoner. So in a way, dealing with China’s government is like dealing with any misty-eyed, mustachioed child molester.

China also has Uighers that it likes to oppress. What’s a Uighur? A Uighur is anybody belonging to a Muslim ethnic group in what is now northwestern China. A lot of them would also like their independence and don’t like being colonized by Han Chinese. Sometimes Uighur separatists bomb stuff, so China cracks down and presents itself as an ally in the “War on Terror.”

Oh, and remember the Tiananmen Square Massacre? Yeah, you know you do.

Now, there’s the unfortunate argument out there, made by Bush and others (like the Chinese government, for example), that the Olympics shouldn’t be politicized. Tough shit, they always have been. In 1936, you had the notorious “Nazi Olympics,” which were a large-scale Hitler propaganda stunt. In 1968, right around the time it was hosting the Olympics, the Mexican government massacred several hundred leftist student protestors. In 1980, the U.S. boycotted the Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in ’82, the Soviet Union counter-boycotted the Los Angeles Olympics (take that!). So there, all sorts of political Olympiads.

To be fair, all Olympic games are propaganda stunts of a sort, but they’re usually for innocuous tourism. I’m not familiar with too many human rights abuses in Nagano or Lillehammer. The Beijing Olympics, however, are propaganda for a regime that has no respect for human rights—not those of their own people, not those of the Tibetans or the Uighurs and not those of the people of Darfur. But here this same regime finds itself with a golden opportunity to spread a glowing image of itself as modern and respectable to millions upon millions of people around the world. God, I could vomit all over my laptop!

So, I’m not sure exactly what the solution is for this issue, but I’m sure you’ll figure something out. If good campus liberals can bring to bear upon this cause even a fraction of the work they’ve done for Obama, I’m sure their work will succeed.

“Hello. My name is Abby. I’m twenty-two years old. I live in St. Paul. I’m working toward a degree in English. I’m a Gemini. I enjoy writing, dancing and riding my bike. My favorite books include Lolita and White Noise. I’m an infamous regular at my local coffee shop. I’m into video editing. I smoke like a chimney. I hate cooking. I like puns. I love my family.”

Check it out. This little bio is made up of tidbits gleaned from my now defunct Facebook profile. Two years ago, this was part of a rather desperate attempt to urge my classmates and friends to take note of me. “Now see here,” it said. “I’m interesting and quirky. I have personality. You’ll like me.”

Two years later, I can honestly say that none of this drivel ever directly contributed to the formation of a real friendship. Frankly, I’m not surprised. Count how many times the pronoun “I” appears. It’s overwhelmingly self-involved, completely predictable, and because it exists outside of an interesting, dynamic conversation, doesn’t really accomplish anything. Alas, for all of its original good intentions, Facebook just made me the host of a great big flop of a party: I spent hours dressing up for it, but no one actually came.

Facebook wants us to understand it as a springboard into our communities, a way to quickly and conveniently pair up with like-minded people that we’ll soon be meeting for coffee and friendship. It purports to be the means to this end, but have the site’s hyper-personal format and sassy applications gotten us so obsessed with our own idiosyncrasies that we’ve stopped short of real interpersonal interaction? Are we spending too much time hung up on our online selves to be of any good to anyone else? What’s the purpose of all of this?

The purpose of Facebook is, to me, vague. What began as a small, intercampus network serving the Ivy League has, in just a few short years, skyrocketed to become a network of 64 million users worldwide . eight out of ten college students in the U.S. use the service on a daily basis and now the network has expanded to include anyone with a valid e-mail address. Everyone uses it and hell, why wouldn’t we? Facebook is just one big, sweaty, amorphous network of friendship, community, and camaraderie, aesthetically pleasing, accessible whenever and comprehensive enough to appease our short attention spans.

I think it’s important to remember something; we all want to make friends. “Well, no shit Abby.” But really, there’s nothing more exciting than meeting a new person with whom you feel a real connection. Now, if you feel that firebombing random people with the banal details of your winsome personality is the best way to find this friendship, then more power to you. However, it is of some interest to note that your personal information is finding its way to places and institutions you might not expect. Each drop-down info box, party picture and pay-pal – purchased imaginary gift is just another piece in the marketing jigsaw puzzle that Facebook’s corporate sponsors are putting together every day in order to figure you out. The company decided to step up their marketing efforts in November 2007 with the launch of a nifty little “service” called Beacon. You might recall this much-hated “social advertising” tool; it mined users’ profiles, pictures and online-purchasing information and – at no cost to Facebook, Beacon, or any of a dozen involved companies – transformed them into lucrative advertising news feeds. (For example, “At 9:15 PM, Abby bought The Very Best of Prince from amazon.com” would appear as “news” on my profile) Over a period of time, Facebook users began to report seeing their pictures used in advertisements on sites other than Facebook! People were outraged because they thought their personal rights were being violated. The company’s hired gun apologized for this unfortunate misunderstanding; Facebook does, in fact, own the rights to everything ever put on the network and may do as it pleases in order to turn a profit. Basically, users were smugly advised to get familiar with the fine print; “just so you know, we can – and will – fuck you.” Thanks for the heads up. While you’re at it, go ahead and wiretap my phone. There’s enough surveillance in our environment already; I’m not signing up for more.

If all of this terrifies you, (as it does me) then it might be time to re-ask that question, “What is the purpose of all of this?” It appears that Facebook is getting the lion’s share after all and all we’re getting is exploited in exchange for a cheap thrill.

Now even if you aren’t bristling at the idea of personalized spam and Orwellian marketing strategies, you may still want to reconsider what you write in those little boxes. I’d go as far as to suggest leaving them blank. “But then, what’s the point of Facebook?” you might ask. “I just want to meet new people and keep tabs on the ones I know. How am I supposed to navigate this vapid quagmire of personality without a roadmap?”

That’s all valid, but it brings me to my final question; by asking us to define our personalities, is Facebook subtly encouraging social conformity? When the service was offered to my small college campus in late 2004, it was like a feeding frenzy. After a few short months, a lot of people (myself included) thought Facebook indispensable; it was the only way to find out about student-run performances and activities, not to mention parties. Many groups I was affiliated with began using Facebook as their primary mode of communication. Theoretically, as Facebook becomes more of an integral part of our daily interactions and activities, it follows that our “friend networks” will grow by leaps and bounds. I’d argue that this phenomenon breeds a “herd mentality.” As our interests, affiliations and opinions become more public, we’ll inevitably feel an unhealthy amount of pressure to present ourselves in certain ways. I mean, haven’t you noticed how similar so many profiles are? After a while, it’s impossible not to become suspicious; fess up, I can tell you copied and pasted your iTunes library list. And did you get through even half of Atlas Shrugged? These are sub-par examples, but you understand what I mean. Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the freedom to trick people into thinking you’re someone you’re not. Now, am I insinuating that we’re intentionally and deviously manipulating one another? Absolutely not! It’s just very important to understand what forces are at work here. As I said, we all want friends, and we all have certain criteria in mind when we are looking for them. As Facebook profiles become more and more homogeneous, users will have to work harder and harder to stand out, but at what cost? Exaggerating and hiding parts of our personalities on Facebook just to look ‘cool’ to other people is not the foundation of a healthy relationship because, in the end, no one will get what they want.

It’s time to back away from the Facebook. Every minute you spend sitting alone, drinking the Kool-aid, editing a market-tested list of favorite hobbies and movies is another minute spent not actually doing any of those things. By investing so much time managing our virtual lives, we’re missing meaningful opportunities to engage with our physical communities. I challenge you to cut out the middle man; deactivate your Facebook profile – if only for a week – and spend that time somewhere new, doing something that you never thought you had time for. We’re all so much more interesting in real life; don’t just be another anonymous drop in the photo-bucket.

Now I’m as much of a technophile as the next geek. I’ve built computers and bought my fair share of surround systems, HDTVs and the latest, greatest videogame consoles. Most of them have been great, but something has plagued me over the last year and I don’t think I’m alone. It seems that with every technological stride we take, a hundred new problems come to fruition. As we add more and more gadgets to our lives, we need to ask something: Is it going to work in a year?

This past July, Microsoft proved my point when they were forced to extend their warranties and reimburse many early adopters of the Xbox 360. The $400 console suffered through a plague of the Red Ring of Death. In polling done by DailyTech.com, nearly one third of respondents witnessed the flashing red lights that signaled the consoles untimely end.

In the aftermath of this fiasco Microsoft was forced to initially extend warranties from a measly 90 days to a year, eventually settling for three. In addition, the software behemoth was forced to reimburse customers who paid for their dead console out of warranty. This cost the company between $1.05 and $1.15 billion.

Microsoft is now also facing a class-action lawsuit involving their other 800-pound gorilla, Windows Vista. Throughout 2006, the company stamped “Windows Vista Capable” on millions of computers, including the one that is being typed on at this very moment. That statement turned out to be true in this case, but not for a large core of computers sold during that holiday season. Nearly all of these computers couldn’t run the highly touted Aero user interface, though this was taken out of the class-action case.

Here it is straight from the Associated Press:

“U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman certified the class action suit but whittled down its scope to focus primarily on whether Microsoft’s “Vista Capable” labels created artificial demand for computers during the 2006 holiday shopping season, and inflated prices for computers that couldn’t be upgraded to the full-featured version of Vista, which was released at the end of January 2007.”

Now let’s not make Microsoft the whipping boy. Incompatibility and untimely death isn’t solely their territory. The Japanese government recently stated that recent Apple iPod Nanos sold in that country sparked while charging. The spark is linked to the lithium-ion battery used inside that model. Lithium-ion batteries are commonly used in cell phones, portable music players and laptops. The technology has forced major recalls from manufacturers like Dell, Apple and Sony.

Now I haven’t personally dealt with any of these of problems, but I have had my fair share of technological end games. When I bought a Sony digital camera for a trip to London, I didn’t think much about the possibility of it failing. Within two weeks the camera was dead. I was forced to call Sony’s warranty center in America. They claimed that I would have to send it back to the States. After making a few more calls, I was able to send the camera to the UK repair center, for no cost. Three months later the shutter button fell off the camera. Luckily I still had that warranty.

This was the first case in a long line of technology fucking me over. Next thing I knew my HP laptop didn’t hold a charge for more than 45 minutes. Then it decided that it didn’t like being charged at all, so I have to the move the power cord every which way in order to get the power flowing. That’s convenient.

Samsung decided that my brand new phone didn’t need a dedicated headphone jack, instead forcing me to plug an adapter into the power port to listen to music. Not only can you not charge the phone while listening to music, but the constant wear of the power port caused it to break. When I sent it out for a repair, they sent it back, claiming that the internal port was an external part and not under warranty. I had to hand out another $40 to get it replaced and now I pay $7 a month so I don’t have to deal with this problem again.

Even more recently I bought a Seagate external hard drive. I thought it was a good deal until the USB port decided to no longer work. When I received a free replacement a few weeks later I realized that it wasn’t my negligence, but the fact that the USB port was missing the female connectors; any bad move and I’ll have to call in for another one, waiting on the phone for 30 minutes with a less-than-interested customer service rep in India who calls himself Bob when he’s on the job. Oh, and they’re only open until 7 p.m., if you’re wondering. So when exactly am I supposed to call?

The technologies that we use everyday have become ticking time bombs. I’m waiting with bated breath for the next mishap. When did reputable companies like Sony become so money-hungry that they can’t engineer a camera that doesn’t break every five months? We shouldn’t be forced into extended warranties because the powers that be are money hungry. Just give me a product that works, you know, like you used to. My grandpa has had the same TV since I was born. That’s at least 22 years. Maybe you should follow that example and make products that last in order to keep us coming back rather than biting the hand the feeds you. Oh, wait, that TV can’t be used next year.

Thanks, guys.

Do you know what Pascal’s Wager is? It states that we should believe in God on the chance, however slim, that He exists and He’ll be irritated if we don’t believe in Him. So I will refrain from addressing the issue of religion here, but bear in mind that Pascal’s Wager scares the shit out of me.

The Nature of Reality

I hate it when I’m trying to convince people that the entire world is just an illusion inside my head. They always insist that that can’t be true because they know that they exist. I then try to explain that of course they say that, my brain made them say that in order to sustain the illusion that they were real. Bastards won’t listen to reason.

J. D. Salinger Always Italicizes Shit

That’s a bit of a hyperbole, I suppose, but when I read his Nine Stories it seemed like every other word was in fucking italics. It was really annoying. This doesn’t have anything to do with philosophizing, but it occurred to me when I did the italics in the preceding section and I’ve been looking for an opportunity to comment on it.

There’s Nothing Selfish about Suicide

It pisses me off immensely when I hear some smug, self-satisfied asshole bash suicides or attempted suicides because it’s “selfish” or because “they’re just trying to get attention.” No, when people are just trying to get attention, they dress provocatively or name drop—sort of like Paul Auster in his novels—but they don’t try to kill themselves. With this argument, you’re saying, “Oh my God, they’re so selfish because, while they’ve been plunged into a river of self-destructive horror and pain, they didn’t stop to think about how it would affect me.” Dick. You’re a dick.

Friend Me

Ok, here’s the score. Facebook is a marvelous invention. If Facebook was a woman or if it was a man and I was gay, I would marry it. The most important thing to remember about Facebook is that the Wall, the Gifts (fuck them), and all the other applications are just trivial bullshit. The goal, the “primary directive,” is to attain as many friends as possible. Facebook is a competition. If you have more friends than the other people on your friends list, you’re winning. If not, your friends are mocking you. In fact, by seeking to have a massive friends list, you’ve turned the list into a phallic symbol. Congrats.

Ok, there we go, there’s some philosophizing.

In anticipation of the 2008 election, many serious yet oft-ignored issues have reemerged and exposed themselves to the voting public. There are the perpetually unresolved cases of abortion, religion, states’ rights, education… frankly, the list could go on indefinitely. However, one seemingly played-out but absolutely crucial issue that I think many people are still far too divided over is that of global warming and, by extension, environmental preservation. Unfortunately, people tend to avert their eyes when the “e” word comes up and act as if it’s something that will just disappear. Even worse, they will settle into the irresponsible frame of mind that these catastrophic effects will not take place during their own lifetime, so why worry?

All in all, I am utterly fed up with the way much of the population has chosen to turn a blind eye to the world they inhabit. Anyone who has seen ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ watched ‘Planet Earth,’ or Discovery Channel at any point in the last few years will know that this thing called “global warming” is real and it’s happening at an unprecedented rate. For reference, Minnesota’s climate will become equivalent to that of Kansas over the next 50 years- if not sooner. Basically, what I’m wondering is why it seems as though the only people taking political action to reverse this impending disaster are the Democrats and for what reasons.

People who say that political action won’t do anything are sorely wrong. Through scientific research in Antarctica we know that when the U.S. passed the Clean Air Act in 1990, the beneficial effects were visible through the ice’s chemical composition. Fortunately, the vote was passed with an 88% majority in favor of the act, but two-thirds of those who voted against the act were Republicans. Statistics like this made me curious as to why so many Republicans put the environment on the back burner when it comes time to vote. I don’t think it’s because they believe that global warming isn’t a reality. However, there are those in Washington with strong religious beliefs against evolution, and therefore any evidence having to do with science whatsoever. In order to “clear the air” (no pun intended) about why many Republicans feel this way, I decided to ask around and try to understand their rationale.

What comes up continually in posing this question is that it all comes down to priorities. When discussing this with a friend, he reinforced this idea by telling me that Republicans are more concerned with the economy than they are with the environment. They will continually base other issues on the issue they value most, meaning that the future of the environment in the eyes of many Republicans is dependent on how it can be utilized to best support our economic and corporate endeavors. Personally, I had no problem understanding this justification, especially as the U.S. dollar continues to plummet and our national debt accumulates rapidly. However, I think that along with this argument comes a serious case of tunnel vision.

If one stops and ponders the economic implications of the wilting environment for even a minute, it becomes apparent that there is more than one solution to the loss of a major economic powerhouse, like the oil industry. Yes, initially the loss of a major industry will take a large toll on a nation and its citizens, but sometimes people need to just rid themselves of the constant need for instant gratification and think about the long term and even short term effects that could derive from new energy efficient industries.

Everyone has heard of the positive effects of hybrid cars, ethanol fuel, solar, wind, and biomass energy. I sometimes think that people do not actually think about how many jobs these resources would create; it could eventually be more than that of the oil industry. However, another friend pointed to the fact that “Republicans are focused on protecting large business corporations in support of capitalism.” Business dealings definitely focus on the future, but seem to use more of their energy to build success immediately. This is why liberals have such a hard time convincing them that the “eventual prosperity” of new money, jobs and businesses will be worth short-term economic downturn. People like comfort and familiarity, but change is necessary for progression.

To Democrats and Republicans alike: there will be obstacles that you may not want to overcome on the highway to change. But if you give delayed gratification a chance and put the environment high on your list of priorities, you will thank yourself later and so will generations to come. Ignore the political party you belong to when addressing the environment, because our planet isn’t partisan. After all, Earth does not endorse a political candidate.

I had a classmate many years ago. We would talk politics on occasion. It rarely worked out.

See, every single time that I tried to raise an objection to or voice an opinion about something, she would yell “think of the children!” It didn’t matter if it was AIDS, war, health care, welfare, etc. It didn’t matter if I wanted to stop war because it killed children or create universal health care so we could care for children, I was always wrong because I wasn’t “think[ing] of the children.”

We have a word for that kind of rhetoric. The word is “histrionics,” which Merriam-Webster’s defines as “a deliberate display of emotion for effect.” Another word we could use is “bathos,” or false emotion.

Any conversationalists in the crowd know that these two well-worn rhetorical strategies can instantly end any debate. The minute someone starts yelling about children, bigots, Jesus, heaven, hell, reason, Darwin, Hitler, etc., the conversation is over. So, you may wonder, what happens when that is the starting point of a conversation?

As you may know, a series of articles by our own Carl Carpenter on Christian groups at the U has been the cause of great controversy. Since the publication of said articles, the Wake’s online comments section has been ablaze with accusations of irresponsible reporting, bigotry, hatred, and many other varieties of nastiness. Both sides of the debate have decided that the other is responsible for the shitty state of our country. Both sides have condemned the other as intellectual criminals. Both sides have decided to hide behind digital sandbags and call out the other for… well, whatever’s bothering them, really. Hilariously, all participants in this little three-ring circus of semantics have also found time to encourage us to step back and examine the situation holistically. Okay, let’s.

Religion is a touchy subject because criticizing a religion entails criticizing a view of the world that many people believe in with great conviction. Say that God does or doesn’t exist and you’ve upended the universe for a great number of people. Thus, it requires great care and forethought to cogently discuss religion.

Unfortunately, people LOVE shooting off at the mouth about this particular subject. Religion is a topic that invites bathos and histrionics like no other and, really, it’s not hard to understand why. Your religion is your life. Your beliefs dictate, at least in part, how you live the one life you’re given. Start deconstructing that and someone’s gonna get angry.

It doesn’t have to be this way, though. I believe that the reason we as young Americans cannot discuss religion without resorting to insults and grandstanding is that we have forgotten that religion is essentially a personal philosophy. Forget the missionaries, forget Richard Dawkins, forget the huge banners and parades and political candidates. The reason that both religion and non-religion exist is to give people guidance and allow them to live healthy, fulfilling lives. It is not to start wars or kill non-believers or implant chips in your brain or recruit us all into cults, white-robed and smiling, ready to shuffle off of this mortal coil into the great spaceship of the afterlife. If someone wants to use it for that purpose, that’s their problem.

Of course, it’s impossible to remember that when religion is always discussed in terms of “debate.” Really, you can’t have a religious “debate.” The only way that it is possible to discuss the topic is to conceive of different religions as philosophical paradigms that are sometimes opposing and sometime intersecting. If you try and argue that one religious view is right and one wrong, you end up with a huge mess. To wit: our comments section.

It’s that adversarial tone that leads us to make ridiculous claims about this or that religious group ruining the country or turning the political process into a joke. Can we honestly buy that? Isn’t it a little reductive to blame the failure of our political system to remain uninfluenced by religion on two campus groups and one (admittedly garish) banner? Yeah, it is. It’s also deliciously ironic that those same detractors of religion who love to make parallels between religion and authoritarianism can be as single-minded and exclusionary as their perceived opponents. What happened to “treat other as you wish to be treated?” Wasn’t that in a book somewhere? Oh yeah…

Thing is, no one likes to be called stupid or told that their personal beliefs are wrong. If we want to have a conversation about something as intimate as religion, we have to be considerate and reasonable in the language we use. Making allegations and resorting to histrionics will only lead to a deeply divided student population. Furthermore, I’m pretty sure everyone stops listening when you start rattling off conspiracy theories and Bible verses alike.

Think of this exchange not as a debate but as a discussion and our views not as laws but as philosophies. People on both “sides” of the issue (if said sides even exist) need to drop the over-dramatic name-calling and be reasonable. It doesn’t make you a stronger person if you try to strong-arm your opponents into feeling stupid; conversely, staying calm is not a sign of weakness. If there is one glaring flaw in our political process in the year 2008, it’s not the separation of religion and politics but the lack of level-headed discussion.

I’m really getting sick of writing these “don’t be an asshole” editorials, but it’s only out of necessity. We here at The Wake are trying to create a forum for intelligent discussion but there’s always someone to ruin the party. So to all the internet trolls waiting in the wings to complain about and insult the religious beliefs of campus journalists and religious groups alike: think before you open your mouth.

Or, better yet, just don’t say anything at all.

There are myriad reasons why, but I’ll focus on one: It is terminally good. I chose that word with care; Brawl is a terminal game. It will end careers, marriages, friendships, and college educations. In fact, fuck it, I’m expanding my suggestion.

Don’t buy Brawl if you want to:

• have friends who don’t play Brawl
• pass any classes this semester
• have sex at any point in the near future
• keep up a basic level of hygiene
• eat enough to be healthy
• keep muscles other than your thumbs from atrophying
• read a book
• earn the money to pay your rent
• preserve your dignity
• sleep enough to preserve your sanity
• communicate in something other than grunts

The new shipment of games comes with a warning label to the effect of the list above.
Seriously. Consider what you want from your life before you make a purchase.
Learn from my mistakes.

So what is the true function of the press? Some argue the concept that political and social discourse can be encouraged through the simple presentation of unbiased facts. Others believe that objectivity is a farce, and the only true way to have a democratic press is through open forum debate, with the press as a facilitator.

In America, the notion of objectivity in the press is relatively recent. For the first two centuries of our nation’s history, newspapers, journals and magazines were typically tools used to advance an editor or publisher’s agenda. This biased use of the media is seen as dangerous in the context of our current “truth”-obsessed society, but these publications sparked dialogue and encouraged democracy in a way that’s nonexistent in the contemporary press.

In reading journalism historian David Paul Nord’s treatment of the facts versus forum function of the press debate, (from his book Communities of Journalism) it’s relatively easy to recognize his implicit contempt for objectivity through fact-reporting. And, without a doubt, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t agree with him.

The first newspaper in America, Publick Occurrences, (1690) was initially intended to do nothing more than “get the facts right;” a noble quest that’s been taken on by nearly every publication since. One would think that a newspaper intending to present only facts would be the first example of an unbiased objective treatment of current events and in some ways it was. But, the inclusion of a blank fourth page at the end of the newspaper opened it up to public forum. I wish I could say that vestiges of that fourth page exist today in print, but I don’t believe that they do.

Delos Wilcox, a progressive-era municipal reformer, spoke of the “authority of facts” as a vehicle to unite the implicit connectivity of urban communities; the notion being that if citizens are informed the stage would be set for public discourse over pertinent issues. This discourse would then build the community through civil dialogue. In the context of the birth of newspaper publication this theory is both noble and idealistic. But over the course of nearly two centuries of publication, it’s clear that the authority of facts has failed and that this failure is rooted in the genesis of the penny press.

Prior to the penny press, the stakes were relatively low when it came to newspaper publishing. Much like starting a Web site in our day-in-age, anyone with some initial investment capital (enough to buy a press, paper and ink) could found a low-circulation publication that could actually carry some weight within a community. With this easy entry cost came newspapers bankrolled by political parties, organizations or impassioned citizens who wanted to further their causes. Out of this model came papers like the Gazette of the United States and the National Gazette. Both of these papers spoke for the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties, respectively. What’s more, they were published in America’s capitol city (Philadelphia) within blocks of one another. Having papers that are blatantly biased towards their own ideology is the opposite of the authority of facts. Some might say that these papers represented the authority of opinion. And this opinion fostered not just community-building dialogue, but nation-building dialogue. Out of the pages of these papers came the debates that led to the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.

In 1833 when Benjamin Day founded The New York Sun the landscape of the press reached a watershed moment. No longer were papers sold on a predominantly subscription-based scale. Instead, they were sold on the streets for $.01. This shift caused papers to make their content salacious and more appealing to the man on the street. Also, with this shift to the penny press, the stakes became higher for printers. The press became an industry, and each player in this industry was striving to get the highest readership possible. No longer could single issues be supported or parties endorsed. That would have meant that an entire section of the reading audience would be alienated from the paper. Writers were smart not to ruffle too many feathers or go against prevailing ideals for fear that their competitors would get higher sales or more advertisers. Major players emerged out of this competition in the media, and as barriers for entry grew, the marketplace of ideas shrank. That’s not to say that forum papers were flushed out of the market, but to say that they still had the same sway that they did just 50, or even 25 years earlier would be untrue.

In looking at The New York Herald (a penny paper) in comparison with William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator (an abolitionist paper) it’s easy to tell the intended function of each. The Herald presents journalistic fact much like a newspaper would today. It features stories about murders, local (New York City) events like operas and horse races, human interest pieces, etc. But, there really is no explicit agenda the paper is trying to convey. Most of the stories are fact-based, and don’t particularly incite any kind of dialogue or elicit emotion.

The Liberator, on the other hand, is entirely devoted to the promotion of the emancipation of slaves. Nearly every article calls upon the reader to take a side and take action over the divisive issue. The newspaper calls upon readers to contribute their ideas and letters in order to foster the debate. It’s hard to imagine that a penny paper could invoke the kind of emotion necessary to foster a public discourse surrounding its content.

Over time, this fetishizing of facts became an obsession in the media. The search for the absolute truth became an industry standard. Personally, I equate this fact-fixation with the increasing political apathy in the United States. As the news articles and reports became more and more mundane, we as a public became more lulled into a state of contentment with this style of reporting, to the point where we see editorials and commentators as caricatures and irrelevant mouthpieces for party lines. This is the reason why no Democrat takes Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity seriously and why no Republican takes someone like Bill Maher or Keith Olberman seriously. If journalists are passionless about the issues they’re covering, the reader will be equally passionless in reading about them. For example, in our current election cycle, the debates are so mundane and repetitive that reporters no longer feel strongly towards any of the candidates. Thus, readers are fed a constant stream of talking points and sound bytes followed by irrelevant discussion of a candidate’s wardrobe or hairstyle.

The only opportunity for forum in print today comes in one form: letters to the editor. The letters are equally useless in fostering debate, however, because the publications decide which letters are published.

The only true forum for journalistic democracy today is on the Internet. People are given the freedom to anonymously express their opinions. In reading a political blog, the user comments are often more interesting than the stories themselves. The only problem is, the Web is so vast that it’s hard for people of conflicting ideologies to find each other.

As time progresses and technology pushes forward, it’s impossible to say what will happen to democratic discourse. All I know is that the authority of facts became bastardized when the facts became monopolized and peddled on the streets for $.01. As the fourth page fades further and further into obscurity, the state of political apathy and mass ignorance will inevitably rise.

Strangely enough, that last question is a difficult one for a lot of students. While college is often viewed as this big, communal vision quest through the forest of knowledge, (or something like that) it has, ironically, caused our generation to become more isolated from the communities in which they live. As we become increasingly obsessed with “social networking,” we are becoming more withdrawn and separated from our neighbors and friends.

So what the hell am I talking about? Think about it this way: Minneapolis, like every other city, is separated into a series of neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are very interesting places filled with strange, idiosyncratic sights and unique organizations. Each one has a different character, different issues, different people, businesses, venues, etc. All of this diversity usually inspires people to get involved with more enthusiasm than you’d usually see if, say, you lived in a suburb whose main attraction is a Cub Foods with an attached Jamba Juice and whose idea of political action is voting down another alms-seeking referendum from the local school district.

Basically, the communities of Minneapolis invite people to get involved politically, artistically and economically. Sounds good, right?

So why is it that so many students at our University can’t even be bothered to leave campus? How many students don’t even know the name of their neighborhood, not mention its history and concerns? Have we been sucked into a sort of “ivory tower” vortex of isolation and elitism? I believe the answer to be a resounding “yes.”

One trip to Coffman is all it takes to figure out why. This university has done it damnedest to create a completely antiseptic, pre-packaged, hyper-convenient, corporate atmosphere. We’re living a one-stop life where everything can be obtained without working, moving, thinking, etc. Everything comes from some huge distributor with a “golden ticket” contract and costs a dollar more than in the rest of the world. If you’re a passionate vegetarian or just someone who thinks that the Coca Cola Company is evil, good luck finding nourishment
on campus.

It may seem irrelevant, but the way that you spend your money is absolutely crucial to community development. For example, buying from independent businesses is a surefire way to ensure their continued existence; wearing a little sticker with their name on it but never shopping there is, to put it mildly, ineffective. In a capitalistic society, money talks. If we’re unwilling to either spend money or raise money for the organizations that we believe in, whether it’s an independent bookstore or a political action group, then our “support” is hypocritical.

It’s something that we just don’t think about all that often. Due in large part to our environment, we are encouraged to make our financial decisions without thinking about ethics or implications. We’re not asked to think critically about exactly how far our dollars go or how well that jives with our own political and moral beliefs. That brand of ignorance may work for a while, but the time has come for it to stop. If we don’t start accounting for our spending habits and supporting local business, then it is going to disappear. In case you’re still wondering exactly what we would lose, the answer is really long. Here it is, truncated: access to unique perspectives, new ideas, local culture, individuality, opportunity, the ability to participate, friends and colleagues, cool and inviting places to hang out, diversity, new experiences, etc. Independent businesses allow us the opportunity to be a part of various creative and economic decisions without having to go though a huge corporate office. To use a music metaphor: if every venue in town was a franchised version of First Ave., there would be a lot of great bands who would never be able to get shows. Furthermore, local businesses are much more transparent and also more likely to support local causes. These are establishments and organizations that care about the community because they are an indelible part of it. Mega-corporation Inc. is going to have a much harder time seeing our communities outside of the shit-colored lens of opportunity-cost.

Of course, it still always comes back to community involvement. I can preach the benefits of local business all I want, but it’s all hot air if you never actually venture out and experience it. Gaining that experience is one area where our education seems to be inhibiting us. Far too often, kids get completely lost in the maze of academia. They spend all their time being immersed in useless rhetorical exchanges and forget that there is an actual, physical world out there.

Here’s where I step out from behind the curtain and show my true colors: I think academia is complete bullshit. It’s an excuse for “intellectuals” to write about their fetishes in incomprehensible language and submit it to their peers so they can… write an impassioned response in incomprehensible language. The general public never enters into the equation, even when academics are discussing that very group. This paradigm only fosters pretension, elitism and willful ignorance of the practical application of knowledge. It’s simply amazing to me that you can be a race theorist and still be too scared of black people to go to certain parts of town. It’s that sort of thinking that causes us to stay sequestered in classrooms and ignore the effects that our actions have on the world. Regardless of how far up your own ass you crawl, you can’t escape reality.

Advances in mass media have only fostered this withdrawal from reality. With our near-biological attachment to the internet reaching giddy new heights, it can often seem like everything is national or worldwide. Things lose a sense of time and place; events that happen down the street become blog posts first and foremost. Events happen not in actual places but, rather, on the boundless ether of the internet. It’s no wonder that we forget about our communities when we’re primarily citizens of the internet.

And, sure, that sort of utopian electronic globalization is kind of cool, but not when it makes us forget about the very real issues that face our towns, neighborhoods and homes. The internet can foster this strange sort of apathy born from the illusion that in order to change anything, we have to change the whole damned world.
Really, you don’t. If we just start to think about how we spend our money and attend those community meetings that you’re always getting fliers for, we can start to become citizens first and students second. If you simply make an effort to get out and experience the cities rather than rotting away on campus, things could be different. It may seem like you would have to topple a bunch of multinational corporations to solve the problem, but you really don’t. Regardless of which slave-driving enterprise has unceremoniously tattooed their emblem across your chest, it’s still your life.

I’ll put it simply: I’m thinking of a number between one and ten and we can’t all be thinking “eight.”

“No black man will ever be president.”

This phrase has been uttered countless times by blacks, but with Senator Barack Obama on the cusp of the Democratic presidential nomination, one would think that such rhetoric would dissipate. Unfortunately, though, it has only increased.

Why are we so set on the notion that a black man will never call 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home? Was Tupac Shakur right in the song where he professed it to be a white-man’s world? Or was he right when in that very same song he stated that rather than them knocking us off, it was us knocking us off?

I have struggled with these questions for sometime now, wi