Since those immature years are now behind me, and I am now employed at Brower Commons, I have truly come to enjoy this underappreciated Dining Hall, and I hope for all of the Rutgers population to feel the same way.  The truth is, our Salad Bar and Cereal Bar are far superior to those of any other dining hall.  Additionally, we have vastly more Ice Creams and toppings than any other dining hall.  The one thing that we were lacking in comparison to the others was the availability of pizza everyday–a problem which has by now been remedied.  With this addition, I feel that we have now surpassed the likes of the Busch and Neilson Dining Halls (Tillet never even had a chance).  There are, however, some things about Brower that I feel are misunderstood, causing our patrons unnecessary daily frustration.

First I would like to offer a simple yet useful rule of thumb to keep in mind: Lunch is Left.  That’s right, if you’re looking for hot food, during Breakfast and Dinner take the right ramp, and during Lunch take the left ramp.  This is true on any weekday.  Weekends, of course, it’s Brunch until 3:30 on the right followed by Dinner, also on the right.  Omelets are served on the left until 3:30.

There is one time during each weekday where no food is served on the hot line.  This “Lost Time” between 3:30 and 4:00 is lamented by many, but the options provided during this time have increased greatly over the years.  You have available to you soups, the deli line (featuring the new Turbo Toaster), the top of the line salad bar, and the new pizza bar.  There is also the vast cereal selection and the waffle makers if you’re into breakfast for lunch.

Students are often upset by the realization that something they desire is not apparently available, for example, empty soups, waffle batter or Hot Sauce.  At times like these, weaker willed students give up and complain about how Brower sucks.  Students who choose to take their lives into their own hands will ask a student worker, manager or chef about the availability of what it is they are craving.  As employees of Rutgers University Dining Services, it is our duty, and our pleasure, to serve you.  As the popular saying goes, “You can’t always get what you want, but at Brower you usually can” (Confucius, circa 500 B.C.E.).

Having given you some useful information that I hope will make your Brower experience easier and more enjoyable, I now turn to some things that you can avoid to make the experience more enjoyable for those like myself, whose job it is to ensure that things run smoothly at Brower and that the dining hall meets our standards of cleanliness and comfort.

My first request is that you please do not leave anything on the tables.  I cannot tell you how many times daily we find glasses, plates and entire trays filled with food left behind by students who simply do not feel the need to clean up after themselves.  Yes, it is our job to keep Brower clean.  But just because you know a janitor will clean the bathroom does not mean you should urinate on the floor.

There are some other things that students do, the consequences of which I’m sure they are simply not aware of.  One very common thing is the stuffing of napkins, food, and other garbage into the glasses.  While at first this might seem like a way to minimize mess, this actually makes things much more difficult for the workers in the dish room.  Dirty trays are fed on a conveyor belt.  In this assembly-line-like process, glasses are “caught” and put into a rack which will later be fed through a large dishwasher.  Since a glass filled with napkins, or cupcakes, will not be cleaned effectively by such a process, the line must be stopped while a worker furiously fishes out the debris.  This can cause much stress due to the short tempers and volatile atmosphere present in the dish room.

When placing your tray into the large silver bus trucks, please push your tray all the way towards the back, allowing other students to place their trays with ease.  Also, when given the choice to place your tray in two different trucks, always choose the truck that is more full (Please avoid putting your tray on the very bottom rack, as this often causes trays to fall out during transit).  This will be greatly appreciated by the student workers who you see consolidating two half full trucks before moving one of them.

My final request is that you PLEASE do not break the salt and pepper shakers.  This pointless destruction occurs far too often, creating an unnecessary mess.  It is not that much fun to leave a pile of salt on your table.  Please think about the people, like me, who work at Brower and have to clean up after you.

In Thursday’s Targum, Ysabel Gonzalez wrote an opinions article entitled Cracks in Another Red Tape System (found here). In this article Ms. Gonzalez points out the lack of personal attention given to students here at Rutgers, as well as in institutions for higher education in general. She claims that professors and the University at large are not interested in individual students and their needs, but rather in the statistics which represent them. She believes that professors need to take more of an initiative to connect with students on a personal level, proposing the addition of multiple Teachers’ Assistants in classes to make sure each student understands the material. She uses her own experience of dropping out for a few years and having it go unnoticed as an example of the lack of personal attention given to students.

While almost everyone here at Rutgers is going to have difficulty denying the fact that in many respects we are just another number, I have to say that Ms. Gonzalez is hoping for a little too much. This is college. For many of us, it’s the last step before “the real world.” It is basically the school’s intention, if not explicitly its job, to provide us with the skills we will need to succeed in that world. One of those skills is the ability to take initiative. No one is going to be looking to coddle you through your daily life (and if they are, you’re probably going to have to pay them for it). Just as resources are available in the real world if you seek them out, there are plenty of assets available here at Rutgers. You cannot simply expect them to find you. The responsibility is on you, the student, to reach out to your professors. In my experience, the majority of them are happy to chat about subjects above and beyond the class material; but you cannot expect them to seek you out amongst a class of twenty or fifty, let alone hundreds of other students, each with as much of a sense of entitlement as you have. In that respect, you are just another number. But get used to it—once you shake free of your RUID, you’ll find that you are left in an even larger pool of those in the social security system. Try to escape that number.

In her article, Gonzalez says, “Students want to be here and want to learn! Like you [professors], we have a thirst to acquire expertise.” If you have ever been to a class here at Rutgers, particularly a large lecture where a student can easily slip under the radar, you will notice that not everyone has the zeal for learning which Gonzalez describes. There is a staggering amount of students who spend their class time doing anything but paying attention. Between sleeping, completing other assignments, texting, Facebook, and all the other distractions with which we provide ourselves as technology advances, not a very large percentage of students devote their full attention to the class at hand. I ask you Ms. Gonzalez, should professors really spend their time trying to connect with students who just aren’t interested? One should not expect to get anything more out of schooling than the effort one puts into it.

With the growing number of students, and shrinking amount of funding, providing an individualized education to each student becomes increasingly difficult. It would be a logistical impossibility to ensure that each student is keeping up with the material. Rutgers is faced with the task of providing an education to a large number of students. Unfortunately, they cannot sacrifice the learning of the group to check with the individuals who are struggling. The reality is that there are some people who aren’t cut out for college. Dropouts inevitably occur. A degree is supposed to be a distinction, acknowledging a student’s completion of a difficult program. If everyone had a degree it would be meaningless. So if the road to earning one is a little changeling you may have to accept your responsibility and put some effort into it. Don’t blame your failures or shortcomings on the educational system.

]]> http://johnsonvillepress.com/a-response-to-ysabel-gonzalez-anthony-xerri/feed/ 0 http://johnsonvillepress.com/more-consequences-of-a-digital-revolution-anthony-xerri/ http://johnsonvillepress.com/more-consequences-of-a-digital-revolution-anthony-xerri/#comments Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:59:39 +0000 Alex G http://johnsonvillepress.com/?p=445

In My Image

Last week Robert Tarantino wrote an article about the widespread conversion to digital music and the resultant poor sound quality. Reading his article, I was inspired to address some of the more cultural (and less technical) consequences of this popular technology. While I cannot deny the convenience of having every song you could ever want to listen to in the palm of your hand, I do feel that the current trend in music distribution takes away from the integrity of the medium, thereby encouraging the decreases in music quality that we have been experiencing over the last few decades.

First of all, as we try to make audio smaller and smaller so we can carry an entire library in our pockets, we lose the physical aspect of music. In addition to the potential disappearance of actual recorded music, a bleak future suggested by Tarantino, we are eroding the artist’s ability to express himself. Albums used to consist of more than just music. Bands would work to convey their concept via album jackets, cover art and inserts. The large packaging allowed for additional goodies and novelties. For example, Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon came with stickers and posters including pictures of the band. The cover of the Rolling Stones’ album Sticky Fingers consisted of a picture of a tight pair of blue jeans, complete with a working zipper to reveal a man wearing tighty- whities. The Velvet Underground and Nico had a banana on the cover which could actually be peeled to reveal a pink skinned banana underneath. The Beatles’ Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band came with a page of cutouts including badges, a picture of the band, and a moustache. Led Zeppelin III had a wheel beneath the cover that could be rotated to show different pictures through holes on the front—a different cover every time. Their untitled fourth album contained the now famed picture of “The Hermit” on the inside of the Gatefold jacket, and the lyrics to “Stairway to Heaven” were printed on the inner sleeve of the album itself. These are just a few examples of the work that would go into the production of an album and the art that was intended to be taken in conjunction with the music it contained. Although some of these works were able to translate in limited form to Compact Disc booklets, they are completely lost when you download a song or album from iTunes. If you want the album cover you have to settle for a small thumbnail sized picture in the corner of your screen.

The new technology has furthered a detrimental phenomenon that is sweeping both current and older generations alike; I call it “Musical ADD”. With vast amounts of music available at your fingertips, it seems people are losing the ability to sit through a song (let alone an entire album) without hitting the [NEXT] button. People seem to forget that (with the exception of singles) songs are released as part of an album, and in many cases are intended to be listened to in that way. To paraphrase Robert Plant, an album is the true representation of a group’s work. A song is different out of the context of the collection for which it is created. Listening to a track from The Who’s album Tommy without hearing the rest of the album would leave you wondering what the hell they were talking about. The same is true for The Who Sell Out, an album meant to simulate a radio broadcast. Listening to one track is the equivalent to watching one scene from a movie; you could get a general idea for whether the scene is well done, and for some of the emotion it portrays, but you would have no clue as to where this emotion is coming from, or how it relates to the rest of the movie, making your judgment of it rather parochial and ignorant.

It’s true that not all releases are concept albums, but even an album that is simply a group of songs that a band recorded during a certain time period works to give you an idea of their sound at the time. This can be juxtaposed to earlier and later albums to help paint a picture of how a band’s ideas, views and sounds change over the course of their career. As a fan of bands like Yes, The Beatles, and Pink Floyd, I fear that the concept album is becoming a thing of the past. When, regardless of their release, individual songs can be purchased on iTunes, there is no incentive for a group to create anything more than catchy singles; one good song is all that is needed on an album. And for those who choose to maintain artistic integrity and create themed albums, their work will go unappreciated and uncompensated as e-consumers pick it apart like vultures.

The release of a new album used to be an event worth waiting for. You would call up your friend and say “I just got the new so-and-so album. You wanna come over and listen to it?” It seems that music is fading into the background. Instead of being something you sit down for, our music is forced to be just another small component of the milieu that surrounds us as we run our daily rat race. Although, much of today’s music lacks intricacies (as alluded to in the comment section of Tarantino’s article) and can serve as a backdrop to whatever tasks with which we choose to complicate our lives, I maintain that any music worth listening to is worth sitting down with and really listening to. Although I am not enough of an elitist to say that there is one right way to enjoy music, I do believe that the highest level of appreciation can be gained by devoting all of your attention to it and allowing it to pervade your consciousness. This is not something I would like to do with a song like “Crank That (Soulja Boy),” but try it with the Yes albums Fragile or Close to the Edge. Music like this can transport you to another world, rather than just give you some clever words that rhyme with “Ho.”

“Let the music be your master. Will you heed the master’s call?”

-Led Zeppelin

West Virginia University 12/2/06: Mostly sober, red shirts discretely hidden under our hoodies, I felt this was the perfect disguise in the frigid night air; still we found ourselves surrounded by chants of “Fuck New Jersey!” Moments later, as we don our noble garbs in the befitting manner, these chants and profane remarks condemning the state of my birth and residency were aimed directly at us. What do these gas-pumping hicks know anyway? Tough loss that night, but if Townsend didn’t drop that pass in the Fourth, we may not have escaped Morgantown with our lives.

University of Connecticut 11/3/07: Red shirts worn proudly, in a certain altered state that makes being on the receiving end of yelling and insults even less enjoyable, yet still they fly: “Jersey Sucks!”

“Well,” I thought to myself, “I guess I don’t really have a frame of reference, but it seems alright to me.” Not in the mood to fight back, my companion and I find our way to our seats in the Rutgers section, which would soon be infiltrated by some Connecticut fans with acid tongues. Don’t remember much about the game besides the colors, but judging from the energy emitted by the differently intoxicated members of my party it didn’t look good for old Rutgers.

With the exception of Syracuse, (whose fans were very polite and friendly) anytime I’ve ventured to a Rutgers football game in an enemy stadium, I’ve found myself subject to verbal berating not only for the school I came to support, but for the state in which I lived. In fact, it seems that whenever I meet someone from out of state they have a less than favorable attitude towards New Jersey. I was at first puzzled by this widespread hatred. After all, I’ve lived in New Jersey my entire life and have never had a problem with it; in fact, like everything else I was born into (religion, gender, nationality) I had some innate sense of pride about it. However, I’ve been able to find a few key reasons (based mostly on the jokes and insults I’ve heard) for why the Jersey reputation follows me wherever I go.

The Smell: To paraphrase the comedy team Otto and George, when you fart in Jersey you roll the windows up. This reputation of ours has earned us many unfavorable nicknames, including the Armpit of America. Those of us who live in the more rural areas may find this accusation unfounded. But we must realize that we do not put our best foot forward. Just about anyone from out of state who drives through Jersey will wind up on the New Jersey Turnpike. This isn’t exactly a red carpet of a road. As you get a little north of Johnsonville, even Jersey natives must acknowledge the odor that is one of the many gifts of industrialization. Although this is not representative of the entire state (unless I’ve just grown accustomed to it) it is not hard to understand how we have earned such a reputation.

The Corruption: Although numerous states throughout the country have been riddled with political scandals, New Jersey has long been near the top of the list. I was actually a little surprised that a 2008 New York Times article placed us as low as number 8 in terms of convicted public officials between 1998 and 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/weekinreview/14marsh.html). Others would probably be equally as surprised to hear this statistic. According to a poll by twiigs.com, an online polling site, New Jersey was rated the third most corrupt state behind Illinois and Louisiana. We have definitely had our share of public scandals, particularly ones that would cause us to take some ridicule from other states. Who could forget the public “coming out” of Governor McGreevy? I’m not sure we’ll ever live that one down.

Our Monopoly on a Certain Demographic: Everyone thinks that if you’re from New Jersey you’re a fist-pumpin’, Jager-lovin’ Guido. It’s not hard to see where this one comes from. If you’re from out of state and you try to hit the popular bars, you will probably find at least one place where every guy is wearing a polo shirt and a blowout hairdo. It took a while for it to dawn on me that this wasn’t a phenomena shared by every state in the Union. I guess being so close to New York makes us a breeding ground for the Brooklyn-Italian wannabees. But not everyone from Jersey fits into this category.

The Cost: This is one that doesn’t get talked about by people outside of Jersey, but I threw it in anyway because it bothers me. The cost of living in New Jersey is very high. According to a 2005 report from the National Low Income Housing Commission (NLIHC), New Jersey is the fourth most expensive state for renters. Of course these statistics are from before the housing crisis, but I doubt that Jersey prices would have changed dramatically relative to other states. Friends of mine from out of state still report much lower renting prices than I have paid in New Jersey. I realize that college towns are not really an accurate sample, but you get the idea. But to be fair, these prices aren’t just arbitrarily decided. There is obviously a high demand to live in New Jersey, which would indicate that the pros outweigh the cons. We have some fine school systems, full service gas stations, and right turns on red unless otherwise posted.

Whether deserved or not, these are what I can see to be some of the main reasons that New Jersey is the brunt of so many jokes. A lot of this, as seems to be indicated, is based on stereotypes made by those who haven’t gotten the full Jersey experience. Not all of Jersey smells, and not everyone’s a Guido. Alright, I’m going to go bench-press before my boys come over for JAGAH-BOMBS!

Everyone has a different definition of love. Some people say it means “to like a lot”. Some say you are in love when you would do anything for a person, even die for them. I’ve even heard that love is “the soul’s recognition of its counterpart in another” (I think that’s from Wedding Crashers or something). Whatever your accepted definition of romantic love, it seems to be an emotion that drives people to do all sorts of things—things that someone not under its influence would call “crazy and irrational”, even while those defending it say “it was all worth it for love”. My question is, is it really? Is love all it’s cracked up to be?

As we attempt to meet new people—and date them—we come across several different categorizations. Of course, there are the people who just aren’t worth talking to. Then there are those with whom you get along and could really grow to like. Finally, there are the people you meet and to who you are instantly attracted, who for some unexplained reason stand out above all the others. This is often called “love”. But how can we fall in love with someone we hardly know? And why is it that we could want to pursue someone like this even though we have met several other eligible bachelors or bachelorettes with whom we may even have more in common, and with whom we have had nothing but good times?

Certain people ignite in us a feeling so strong and distinct that it can cause us to be unaltered in our paths towards them. This emotion comes from deep in our subconscious, appealing to thoughts and desires that we may not be aware of. These thoughts and desires have been shaped by our childhood, our upbringing, and many other events in our lives. The result is that love can be as groundless as any other emotion we experience. It is no different than overreacting to a pet peeve or having a deep-seeded phobia, two things that most of us would say we wish we could eliminate from our character. Love is merely the other side of the coin: instead of disliking or fearing something for some subconscious reason, we are strongly attracted to something for perhaps the same reason. But if love is born out of the same muck, why is it so much more highly regarded?

Most people would argue that love is a positive thing. It can make you feel good, and make you more likely to do good. I cannot disagree with this. However there are downsides that people often leave out when they tell their fairytale stories. The first is the most obvious one, unrequited love. That sucks. The fact that you can love someone who does not love you back serves to discount the definition given earlier about the soul’s recognition of its counterpart; unless one of your souls is wrong, this definition can’t be right.

Another negative is that people often fall for the “wrong guy/girl.” This strong subconscious attraction which we call love (this is a pretty good definition, by the way) can cause people to stay in relationships that are unhealthy, to be devoted to people who repeatedly treat them like shit, or to settle for someone who is really not all that special. People in love are often convinced that their partner is the only one for them. If you think about this rationally (something that love often prohibits us from doing), you’ll see that it is an absurd idea. With the number of people in this world and the amount of variance in personality traits, belief systems, and hygienic standards, the possibility of you being with the person with whom you are most compatible and will make you the most happy is virtually non-existent. The truth is that there is almost always going to be someone out there who is a better fit for you, who will annoy you less, and who will clean up after themselves a little better. Love has a funny way of blinding us to these negative traits until twenty years down the road when the magic of a young romance is gone. It’s hard to think that far ahead.

The reasons that will lead you to fall in love with a person are mostly out of your control. Until you can wade through the psychological bullshit you carry with you every day you are likely to continue to fall for the same type of person. For some people it’s blondes, for some it’s the dangerous type, for some it’s the one who plays hard to get, and for others its girls that remind them of their mothers. If you notice a trend in the type of person you find yourself inexplicably drawn to, I would challenge you to say that there is not some subconscious desire in you which they fulfill.

And so now, at the age of 21, I must admit that I am losing faith in monogamous relationships. This is not to say that I am opposed to the idea of spending the rest of my life with the same person, or even scared by the prospect of only having sex with one woman. But at this point in my life, it seems at least that rushing into a monogamous relationship is a waste of time. Even if your goal is to find a future spouse, immersing yourself in the world of one person is not a good strategy. Suppose that you date a woman (monogamously) for a year or two, during which time you are not trying to meet other people. Then, for whatever reason, the relationship ends. Now you find that you are alone, do not know any single women, and are no longer in college, and thus will have to actively try to meet people. From my perspective, it seems much more sound to meet as many people as possible, keeping close to those who you enjoy and could imagine a future with. If after dating for a while there is someone you’ve gotten to know that you want to have an exclusive relationship then go for it. Having gotten acquainted to this person while still being exposed to the rest of the dating pool, you are able to get a sense of the qualities he or she possesses and compare them to others who may have qualities that are more or less favorable. This is a much more efficient selection process than trying to force a relationship with the first person who’s willing to have sex with you.

I realize that my tone may come off as being rather pessimistic. I guess this whole commentary was spurred by my sister having dated her first boyfriend for way to long. But it is also born of my own experiences, as any attempt at psychological theorization inevitably will be. I urge everyone to think about the reasons they find themselves drawn to their romantic interests, past or present. If nothing else, it can help you avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. Also, you should think about the reason you are in or are seeking a relationship. Is it because you assume, as I once did, that a wife and children are simply inevitable parts of life? Is it because you are afraid of being alone, something Shikha Dutta cites in All the Single Ladies, All the Single Ladies, as something not to be confused with love? I agree that these are not good reasons to pursue a relationship. But I will point out to Shikha that, in my opinion, fear of being alone is a component that often leads to the subconscious attraction I have described, that we so warmly called love. I’m not one to say what is right or wrong, but I don’t think anyone wants to be tricked into thinking that they’ve found their soul mate, or that they will never love anybody the way they loved their ex… If you can get past the feelings (strong as they may be) of love at first sight, you may just find someone with whom you would enjoy spending the rest of your life. Happy Hunting.

Eating disorders are rarely a topic of discussion other than as the punch line to a joke or a criticism.  They are often thought of as exclusive to skinny, spoiled rich girls with no real problems to worry about.  The truth is that eating disorders such as Bulimia and Anorexia affect people of all ages, body types and genders and are very serious problems.

So serious, in fact, that they can often lead to death.  I would bet that most who joke about such disorders have not had anyone close to them struggle with one.  To those who have not, I would like you to think about the effect that frequent and prolonged vomiting could have on the body.  In addition to corrosion of the teeth and esophagus, which could lead to a deadly tear, hair loss, osteoporosis and organ failure are just some of the many devastating consequences of purging regularly.  As there are more than I am prepared to list, I strongly encourage you to look them up if you are curious (a simple Google search will suffice).  In any case, if continued untreated, this lifestyle can lead to death.
For many, this type of problem is very hard to understand.  It seems like the solution is to simply stop the unhealthy practices of purging and/or starvation.  While I am no psychiatrist, I will attempt to put this behavior into perspective by sharing what (I believe) I have come to understand of it.
As far as I can tell, an eating problem focused on purging is very similar to a gambling problem or a drug or alcohol dependency.  I would venture to guess that a large portion of my readership has been through periods (some longer than others) during which their indulgence in one or more of the aforementioned vices has been at a higher level than desired or intended, perhaps leading to some serious negative consequences.  For those of us in college, the prevalence of substances can cause intoxication to become a habit and eventually a compulsion.  I’m sure that many of you can recall a time on your way home from class when your intentions were to study or review, only to find yourself on the couch cracking a beer without even thinking about it.  For those of you who find this to be an all too familiar situation, it should not be difficult for you to identify with someone who engages in a different kind of self destructive behavior.
Everyone has their reasons for indulging in such exploits.  For some, the familiarity, the control, and the endorphin kick associated with purging can be the quickest way to quell a bout of sudden depression.  Add some insecurities and a distorted body image to the mix and you’ve got what seems like a cure-all.  The only problem is that the long term effects can be deadly.

One of the biggest problems with eating disorders is that their practice is often very private and secretive, allowing the behavior to get out of control and go on untreated.  If you have an eating problem, or simply a concern there are many psychiatrists and institutions who want to help, provided you are a willing participant.  Counseling services (CAPS) are even offered here at Rutgers. They may not be the best, but they’re free and they are here for you.  If nothing else, it’s a start.  One important thing to keep in mind is that it is NEVER too late.  No matter what damage your body has already sustained, no matter how caught up in the cycle you are, it is not too late.  All you have to do is want to get better.  The human body is an amazingly resilient machine, and can recover from even the most intense harm.
For those of you who have a healthy relationship with food, be aware of the warning signs.  If a friend of yours is uncomfortable eating in public, has a distorted body image, or frequently binges or purges, there is nothing wrong with voicing concern.  If you know anyone who has an eating disorder, you should encourage them to get help immediately.  However, do not forget that you are a friend.  You are there to help, not to reprimand, berate, or belittle.  Be supportive.  There are many online resources available to you, including support groups for those with eating issues, as well as for friends and family.  One of the most popular ones is www.something-fishy.org.
Do not hesitate to get help for yourself or someone you care about.  The longer you wait the more damage you are doing.  Don’t forget that no matter how helpless you may feel, you have the power to change your life.  There is always hope.

In My Image

In the journey to adulthood, one of the major challenges facing us is the search for a mate. This job description takes on a multitude of characteristics depending on who defines it. Some of us guys are searching for the woman who will one day bear our children, others for someone with whom we can pass the time until we graduate and go our separate ways, and still others simply want a girl with whom we can share a night. If you’re like me, your goals might vacillate between the afore-mentioned options and many others on a weekly basis.

Regardless of what you are looking for, your search can lead you to meet all sorts of women who fill all types of roles. Today’s focus is on one such type that I’m sure many of you have encountered. You may have found yourself in the familiar position of talking to a girl you were interested in. On this particular night she seemed to be sending you all the right signals. So you find a chance to be alone with her and as your suspicions prove to be correct, things start heating up. One thing leads to another, and in the heat of the moment, as you try to take things to the next level, your trip around the base paths is halted by the “I’m not that kind of girl” routine. For many, these words represent nights filled with temptation, frustration, and masturbation.

But just what “kind of girl” is it that these young women want to prove that they are not, and why? The first thing that comes to mind is that a girl doesn’t want to be labeled a ‘slut’. She doesn’t want her girlfriends to talk about her behind her back (as they’ll probably do anyway) and she doesn’t want other guys coming to her and expecting sex. That seems reasonable—but here’s what I don’t understand. In the course of a “hookup” as kids these days are calling it, why is sex such an impenetrable line? Why does sex make you a slut while all other acts of passion are acceptable? A hookup is going to culminate (if you take my meaning) one way or another, so why shouldn’t it be in a way that both parties will enjoy? I’m sure I’m not the only one who has been puzzled by a girl who says “no sex, but everything else is okay.” Is this merely an attempt to preserve her image, so she can tell her friends in the morning “Of course we didn’t have sex, I’m not that kind of girl.” You can get just as freaky without having sex.

Another reason a girl might withhold sex is that she doesn’t want to give her virginity to just anybody. That is certainly her prerogative, and before I go any further I want to be clear that I’m not trying to say that all girls should put out or anything like that. The choice is up to you. However, I do think that women place an unnecessary importance on virginity. By abstaining from sex you are depriving yourself of one of the greatest and most natural pleasures granted to mankind. If at any point in time two people want to have sex with each other and have not made a commitment to monogamy with someone else, they should do it (pun intended).

I don’t think that the fact that you’ve never had sex before is a reason not to have sex now. In fact, waiting to give it away to a special person can set you up for some serious disappointment and emotional turmoil when you come to realize that “he was just an asshole like everyone else”. Yes, sex can be an amazing experience when shared with someone you really love, but it’s pretty damn enjoyable no matter who your partner is. Gaining a little experience before you meet “The One” isn’t the worst thing in the world.

Up until this point I have aimed my rant specifically at women. Although it is my experience that most men do not place the same significance on virginity, (growing up I couldn’t wait to lose mine!) there are still those who choose to abstain. Many such people will cite religious reasons for remaining virgins until marriage. I know a fair amount of Catholic students here at Rutgers (at least three) who believe that premarital sex goes against God’s will. I’m not going to touch on the subject of God’s existence—at least not today. But I will point out that I have not been able to find a passage in the Bible that specifically forbids premarital sex. There are a few that come very close, (although not in the four gospels) so I will grant that they can be legitimately interpreted as such. However, I’m pretty sure that acts other than simple sexual intercourse would be prohibited by such passages forbidding “fornication” and “sexual relations” outside of marriage. So for those who follow the Bible and draw the line at intercourse, you might want to think about adjusting that line.

Sex is a great thing. It is perhaps the greatest natural pleasure in which man can partake. Do not deprive yourself because of what your friends will think, or because of what you’ve been told the Bible says—just use protection. If religion is your reason for abstaining, do some research on your own. Your findings might surprise you. In my opinion, if God does exist, sex is one of his gifts. It would be cruel of him to give us such means for pleasure and then forbid us for enjoying them. I will leave you now with some words of advice from the late great George Harrison: “Make love all day long. Make love singing songs.”

On March 8, Why Are They More Important? appeared in the opinions section of the Daily Targum’s website as part of Anna Norcia’s column, Just the Facts. The piece discussed the recent charges of domestic abuse against Chris Brown, but was more concerned with the public’s response.  In her article, the writer asks why the public is more concerned with the altercation between pop stars Chris Brown and Rihanna than with the wrongdoings of other celebrities.

She goes on to name stars like Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, and Ray Lewis, asking why she had not heard of anyone proposing boycotts on their products, as is being done with Chris Brown’s.  It is her contention that because Rihanna is famous, people care more about her than the “no name victims” of various other crimes.

The first thing I would like to say is that the writer needs to work the word “allegedly” into her article.  In the eyes of our country’s all-knowing legal system, you are innocent until proven guilty.  Charges against Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, and Ray Lewis were all dropped.  For all intents and purposes they are innocent.  It would be a crime to allow ourselves to be influenced by the arbitrary accusations of attention-seeking, money-grubbing liars.  In my opinion, Michael Jackson is a great man trying to give kids the childhood he never had; my kids would be allowed to sleep with him any night of the week.  This Chris Brown story seems to be a little more open and shut, as he has publicly apologized and is supposedly seeking help.  However, the couple seems to have patched things up.

If you have read my previous articles, you may know that I am not of the opinion that a man necessarily deserves punishment after committing a given act.   If Brown is truly sorry and is seeking counseling, and even the alleged victim has forgiven him, is it necessary for the consumer to boycott his music?  Ms. Norcia seems to think that if you disapprove of the actions of an artist, you should “take the initiative to not support [them].” If that’s what you want to do, it’s fine with me, but if you genuinely like the music that this person creates, why should you deprive yourself of the pleasure you get from listening to it?  After all, the act of purchasing a person’s CD shouldn’t have to signify your approval of every decision they’ve ever made.  All it means is that you enjoy their music and want to listen to it.

I do think that Ms. Norcia hit the nail on the head with her explanation of why Rihanna has gained so much support.  The fact that she is famous has a lot to do with it.  But it is not simply because of the fact that she is famous that the public cares more.  It is that over the course of her career, fans have developed a pseudo-relationship with Rihanna.  They feel they know her.  Wanting to support her is as natural as caring more about a family member who has been wronged than about a faceless stranger against whom the same injustice has been committed.  It is this human tendency that is targeted by commercials that ask for donations while introducing you to a starving child in Ethiopia; you are more likely to help a child if you’ve seen him than if someone tells you that there are starving children in Ethiopia.  While these “no name victims” are just as deserving of help and support, they are often overlooked.  Unless people subscribe to some form of utilitarianism, it is unlikely that very many will go out of their way to help those that they do not feel some connection to.  This may not be just, but it should come as no surprise to the writer.

If you want to, feel free to boycott a celebrity to show disapproval for his behavior or to support a victim he has wronged.  But keep in mind that we owe it to superstars to not be swayed by the groundless accusations of all the greedy wolf-criers that attempt to profit from their wealth

For the last 8 years, our nation has suffered at the hands of an enemy within our own ranks. I’m talking of course about the show where America votes, American Idol. Now in the midst of its eighth season, American Idol continues to hypnotize millions of viewers nationwide, eating away at the integrity of our country. American Idol epitomizes much of what is wrong with our society. The top rated show is an almost horrifying example of sharp declines in the quality of the media as well as in the standards of ideals and ethics of the masses.

American Idol is another large slide down the slippery slope that is reality television. This trend was kicked off by shows like Survivor and The Real World. Their success highlighted a market that had yet to be tapped, and opened the flood gates to a tremendous influx of programming fundamentally different (sort of) from the conventional sitcoms and situational comedies. These shows offered the public something different from the scripted drama that we had become so accustomed to. Reality TV boasts airing “real” people in “real” situations—in other words, “real” drama. In actuality, the people chosen are still screened by network executives who know what types of characters they want for their show. These characters are then thrust into contrived and over-hyped scenarios with the knowledge that they will be on air for countless viewers to see and that there is some kind of financial reward waiting for them. The result is real people acting in real scripted situations, but this is close enough for the audience.

As if the performances put on by attention seeking reality TV stars isn’t enough, some of the scenarios concocted by the creators of such shows are extremely outlandish and in many cases border on disgusting. It is hard to believe that the American Public would be so attracted to the idea of a midget (or little person, for fear of being politically incorrect) trying to choose a bride from a sample of both little and normally sized women. Why do we get such a kick out of watching four real-life couples struggle with temptations created with the intention of drawing them astray for all to see. The list goes on and on, with more and more outrageous scenarios.

There have been times when I’ve seen promos for upcoming series and thought that the commercial was a joke, only to be shocked that the punchline never came. Can you imagine the meetings where they come up with this stuff?  I’m convinced that these executives just pick up homeless people off the street, buy them breakfast and let them rant and rave for an hour.  Somehow the still-drunken ramblings are turned into a hit television series.  I think that paints an accurate picture of the respect that these network executives have for their target audiences.  “Let’s put some nonsense on TV and convince the American people that they want to watch it.”

It’s hard to believe that during the creative process, whatever it actually may be, no one says, “Man that’s just ridiculous.”  A more common utterance is probably, “Man we are really running out of ideas.”  At least these writers can take comfort in knowing that as long as there are B-list celebrities looking for another fifteen minutes of fame, they will never run out of television series.

I am not the only one who has noticed the continuing absurdity of reality television.  Dave Chappelle, on an episode of his sketch comedy hit, Chappelle’s Show, created Trading Spouses. Meant to satire some of the shows on TV at the time, Trading Spouses involved two families trading husbands for a month.  Someone at FOX must have seen that episode of Chappelle’s Show, and obviously missed the satire, because Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy! aired the next year on their network.  This show just sounds like a cruel joke played on the children of these families.  As if one of these nightmarish shows wasn’t enough, ABC aired Wife Swap less than a year later.

This decline in quality is not isolated to Reality Television.  Even traditional scripted programs seem to be getting more terrible.  Most of the comedies aren’t that funny, and most of the dramas are too dramatic.  Even critically acclaimed shows like Twenty-Four lack substance and amount to nothing more than one plot-twist after another.  It’s as if Drama is a drug for which Americans have built up too high a tolerance.

Of late, American Idol has also been kicking up it’s drama levels.  In the early seasons, the performance shows were one hour long.  The ‘results’ shows would air the following night and last a half hour.  Now the performance shows are two hours long and the results shows are one hour.  Why does it take an entire hour to announce who moves on? Obviously it’s because you can sell more advertising in an hour than in a half hour. I understand that television is an industry and that the idea is to make money.  But the manner in which it is done is so poor and disrespectful to the audience and contestants alike. In this stage of the season there are two or three contestants from each group of twelve or so that advance to the next round.  Ryan Seacrest, the perky host of the show will have six of the contestants stand up at once and say, “Only one of you will advance to the next round.  Find out who after this.”  Is that really the best they can do? As it is the show is laced with product placement. They’ve got a lot of “friends” at Coca-Cola and Ford.

Another epidemic showcased by American Idol Is the deterioration of music quality. The majority of popular artists these days are pretty bad. Everybody has different tastes in music, but the lack of talent in the industry today goes beyond the realm of subjectivity. I happened to see Kanye West perform on Saturday Night Live recently. I will admit that he is a decent song writer, but vocally, the performance was painful. The parts where he didn’t use pitch correction (which are few and far between in his songs) were unbearable. Again, this is not simply a case of me not liking his voice but rather of him not hitting the right notes. At least he had the balls to sing it himself rather than take the Ashlee Simpson route. For those of you who don’t remember the fiasco that ensued when she appeared on SNL a few years ago, she came on stage planning to lip synch but was betrayed when a song other than the one she was expecting began to play. She then started jumping around and dancing. I know that when I go to see an artist I’m not paying to watch them dance around to an album that I could listen to at home. Most pop artists these days don’t even write their own music. If you’re not going to write it and you’re not going to sing it, what are you there for? Don’t get me wrong, some of the greatest musicians of all time didn’t write their own music. Joe Cocker was almost exclusively a performer and Elton John had a lyricist. One of my favorite albums, Meatloaf’s Bat Out of Hell, was written entirely by Jim Steinman. But these performers had genuine talent and musical knowledge. They were not just images constructed for marketing purposes. Pop music has always been about image, but it seems that today the next pop sensation is often selected regardless of musical ability. Producers simply want someone pretty that young girls can idolize, or a pair of brothers that they will all want to marry.

American Idol is guilty of continuing this trend. Contestants on the show are judged primarily on their voice, but are often told that they need to change their hairstyle, clothing or some other aspect of their image. In a recent episode, the contestants were actually being told who they were, and these eager youngsters are ready and willing to mold themselves into a more saleable product for the shows record label, 19 Entertainment. The show is really a brilliant work of marketing. Simon Fuller, the show’s creator has the American people telling him who’s music they will be more willing to buy. Millions of Americans tune in and vote thinking that they are simply rooting for their favorite singer, when in fact they are participating in a series of market research trials.

As critical as I am of the show, I really respect that they give these unknowns a chance to be in the spotlight and win record deals. Even though the contract that the finalists are forced to sign is extremely restrictive (portions I’ve seen on-line involve 19 Entertainment owning all music, name and likeness rights forever, in addition to Fuller receiving half of any money that anyone signed brings in) they are still offering an amazing opportunity that I can really appreciate as a musician myself. Perhaps the real problem lies with the public. In any business there are always people looking to make as much money as they possibly can. It is the responsibility of the consumer to set standards for what they consider acceptable, and to not put up with anything that does not meet those standards.

When asked about the relative crime problem in different countries, the average American might be surprised to learn that the United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, with approximately 2.3 million criminals locked up. For every 100,000 citizens, 751 are in jail or prison; 1 in 100 American adults is incarcerated.

A jail sentence is used to punish an individual who commits an act that is against the laws of the society in which he lives. The guiding principle of any such system is that a man who does something wrong deserves to be punished. From where does this idea come? Surely there is no property intrinsic to certain acts that makes them punishable.

The act of killing, for example, is something most people would agree is wrong. Yet the killing of animals and insects occurs every day, without the human masses even blinking an eye. Humans have been killing for food since the dawn of humanity. So it seems that when perpetrated against another man, killing becomes a punishable offense. This, however, is not the case either. Many men have been put to death at the hands of another in the name of the law. These executioners on the other end of the injection or electric chair receive no punishment for the killings that they themselves commit. In these cases, killing is promoted by the legal system.

Although it is clear that no act is intrinsically punishable, there are certain acts that prevent a society from running smoothly. It is for this reason that acts such as murder and stealing are forbidden. But if the goal is a society that runs smoothly, our legal system is taking the wrong approach. Jail time may be effective for scaring young shoplifters and other such offenders into living the straight life, but for many criminals this is not the case. According to the Department of Corrections, 55% of convicts in New Jersey return to jail after being released. Such a high rate of repeat offenders points to the failure of our penal system in discouraging crime, which should be the main objective.

The problem with our jails and prisons is that there is no attempt at rehabilitation. Criminals in jail are confined, supervised, and stripped of virtually all freedoms. While this is a serious punishment and prevents inmates from being a danger to society while they are inside, it does not change who they are. In fact, the hostile environment inside a jail can, and often does, further exacerbate sociopathic tendencies.

Our jails should be modeled after institutions for the mentally ill, staffed with positive and friendly workers rather than grumpy, aggressive officers on power trips. In order to ensure that convicts will not return to their old habits, counseling (psychological or otherwise) should be provided to inmates. Help them to see the error of their ways in the context of how it affects the victims rather than for fear of the possible consequences to themselves. This is the only way to get to the root of the problem and change the thinking of those who have committed crimes.

As a society, we must pave the way for convicts to live their lives in harmony with the laws and the rest of the population. We are currently far off from this ideal. A conviction and jail sentence can make it extremely difficult for a person to change his behavior, and the entire process is quite costly to the taxpayer.

Imagine that you have been arrested and charged with a felony, perhaps even one that you didn’t commit. Upon your admittance to a facility like our own Middlesex County Jail, you are immediately charged a processing fee of 50 dollars—that’s right—they charge you money to hold you against your will. Don’t have the cash on hand? No problem; for your convenience (or perhaps theirs) you have the right to use the jail’s on-premise ATM machine. At this point you generally have the option to bail yourself out. If you have enough money to pay the court directly, you will be reimbursed (minus a small fee, of course) upon your appearance on your scheduled court date. If you cannot afford to pay your entire bail, a bondsman will cover it for you for a fee that will not be refunded. Your next course of action is to find a lawyer. Unfortunately, if you want a lawyer with any clout you must be prepared to pay handsomely. Keep in mind that up until this point you could still be innocent and have already been inconvenienced to the tune of thousands of dollars.

If you are convicted, you will be returned to jail (tack on another 50 dollar processing fee) and probably slapped with court fees and castigatory fines, which could easily be another few thousand dollars. Considering the amount of crimes committed out of need for money by those who feel that illegal activity is their only option, the expense of the process is likely to be a heavy load. I need hardly mention that many criminals are unemployed and, upon release, tagged as convicted felons, making the search for employment exponentially more difficult. With the odds stacked in this way, it is not hard to see why someone might try to pick up some fast cash by selling drugs, robbing a local convenience store, or engaging in some other illegal activity that they are familiar with.

Certain aspects of the legal system make it seem as if the goal is to keep people locked up, rather than to help those the system is supposed to protect. Consider a man who misses a child support payment. A warrant for his arrest could be issued and he would be incarcerated. Upon his release he will have two weeks to make a payment or he will be once again thrown in jail (don’t forget about those processing fees). Even if he could find a job in two weeks, he would most likely not secure a paycheck in time to pay his child support. If he is arrested again, he will most likely lose his new job and find himself back at the beginning of the cycle. This is certainly of no help to the single mother who is waiting for her child support.

As a society, we need to think about what our goals are. If we are trying to get as much of the population as possible behind bars, we are well on our way. But if we want to get to the root of the problem and make people no longer want to commit crimes rather than blindly punish those who break the law, we are going to need serious reform.