Opinions - The Spectrum

OPINION

Jihad long gone

Apr. 11, 2010

President Barack Obama has issued another major shakeup to the United States foreign policy by dropping threatening language. The current administration is removing such terms like "jihad" and "Islamic extremism" from the United States National Security Strategy in an attempt to bring more Muslim countries into the good graces of the United States. Basically, the United States government is no longer looking at Muslim nations solely through a counterterrorism lens. It definitely follows previous decisions by the president to repair America's image within the International community. Developing solid relationships with Islamic states is actually the correct way to combat terrorism, not waging wars in distant lands. The United States hands out roughly $26 billion dollars in foreign aid in 2008, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. About 150 countries receive money from the United States. The five leading countries are Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Kenya. Much of the money goes to programs that are humanitarian in nature. The goal is to promote more goodwill. Many Americans have no clue as to what the National Security Strategy is. It isn't just a simple initiative. The document is the framing the policy of protecting the United States. Many who are against this policy shift equate removing the language with the United States ignoring terrorism. That isn't the case. The policy shift signals to other nations that being allies with the United States has many benefits. After all, the United States does have an economy worth $14 trillion. America can move some serious weight in terms of products. The only true weapon against terrorism is marginalizing the terrorists from safe havens. Many who join radical Islam movements have no education and certainly no opportunity for bettering their lot in life. This policy shift also doesn't mean that the United States won't analyze threats against its interests and neighbors. The goal here is to give Muslim nations an opportunity to be viewed as members of the international community, rather than rogue nations that harbor terrorists. Former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake believed in four processes to foster democracy and peace across the globe. First, strengthen the community of major market democracies. That means developing and nurturing relationships with the United States' major allies such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Second, foster and consolidate new democracies with free market economies. New democracies like India and China are emerging democracies with huge economies. Third, America should counter aggression by supporting the liberalization of states hostile to democracy and free markets. That isn't saying America should make regime changes against Islamic nations that are hostile. Take Iran – President Obama was in support of the Green movement when it protested the most recent elections. Lastly, the United States must pursue a humanitarian agenda not only by providing aid, but also by working to help democracy and free markets take root in the regions with the most humanitarian concern. These tenets are all good ideas. By promoting ideals that make this country the envy of the world, America would be able to marginalize radical movements across the globe. Major wars have largely been averted with our allies who have significant economic ties with the United States. The reason is because it doesn't benefit either side because too much is at stake. The goal of the new directive is to bring more countries into the fold and avoid alienating them.

OPINION

What does my tuition pay for?

By Letter to the editor | Apr. 8, 2010

To the editor,

OPINION

Shock value

By Andrew Wiktor | Apr. 8, 2010

Some things in life come as a complete shock, while others are slightly more foreseeable. I didn't know, for example, that I was going to step in goose doo-doo on the way to campus Tuesday, but I definitely could have predicted that Ricky Martin was gay at least 10 years ago. The last week has been crazy in the sports world. The baseball season kicked off, there were a couple of National Championships played, more football players ran into trouble with the law and Tiger Woods spoke to the media, to name just a few. Amidst all of the mayhem, some events came as a surprise, while others were expected. Let's take a look as some of the big sports stories of the past week and group them as either Utterly Shocking or Completely Predictable. Utterly Shocking

OPINION

Weapons check

Apr. 8, 2010

Last week, President Barack Obama revealed a new plan to gradually disarm nuclear stockpiles for both Russia and the United States. The New Start plan seeks to move the entire world toward being nuclear weapon-free. One of the biggest changes from previous administrations is the United States will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. However, there is a catch. Those countries must fulfill their nonproliferation responsibilities under standing international treaties. That means countries like North Korea and Iran would be on the list of countries that the United States could still use nuclear weapons against. Now many Republicans fear that constantly cutting down the United States nuclear arsenal will leave America less secure. After the proposed treaty comes into effect, though, the United States will still have 700 missiles and bombers that can carry 1,550 warheads. That's enough nuclear weapons to bomb a country back to the Jurassic period. The real benefit of the treaty is that it allows for the Russian and US governments to inform the other of how many warheads it has and where they are stored. To keep all players honest, verification requirements will also be put into place. Mainly, it continues the dialogue on cutting down arsenals. The fact is, neither Russia nor the United States needs such large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. More importantly, reducing stockpiles also reduces costs for the government in keeping such arsenals. Another highly progressive new policy is ceasing to build new warheads to replace older warheads in the arsenal. This new procedure is surrounded by controversy. Many Democrats are opposed to any action by the United States that could be interpreted as enhancing its nuclear power. The rest of the world sees the United States as finally practicing what it preaches, and the treaty makes nations such as Iran and North Korea feel less pressure to develop nuclear arms. This is, without a doubt, a huge plus. Republicans are trying to paint this deal as Obama appeasing rogue nations. The end result is the United States and Russia trying to show nations they can forgo nuclear arms. It is interesting that Republicans are denouncing actions that even Ronald Regan wanted to accomplish. Regan is the model every modern-day Republican's image is crafted around. But if the world were to go without nuclear weapons, another problem is posed. Nuclear weapons keep countries from attacking one another. The threat of a nuclear war prevents conventional wars from creating catastrophic destruction. The United States and Soviet Union never fought a war. And in the almost 70 years since the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, no country has used a nuclear weapon since. No country has used nuclear weapons because of the fear of mutually assured destruction – retaliation that would destroy every living thing on the planet. The case could be made that the most powerful weapon ever developed by man actually ensures peace. The current administration wants to wield this new treaty as a new chip as it argues for tighter penalties on rogue states trying to develop nuclear weapons. It would be unrealistic to ever get rid of nuclear arms. But there's nothing wrong with reducing their number.

OPINION

My way or the highway

By JENNIFER LOMBARDO | Apr. 8, 2010

I hate the phrase "the American way." Over the course of our country's history, it's been used to justify animosity toward just about anything that's different. We had a period of Communist Party witch hunts, for example, just because communism wasn't the American way. Blacklisting ruined lives, and sometimes the people who were hurt weren't even communists. Today, this kind of paranoia and knee-jerk reaction is still going on. Take the recent health care bill. One of the major complaints I hear against it is that it's socialism, which isn't the American way. Our way, apparently, is all for one and none for all. About 6.9 million people in this country are uninsured, according to the journal Health Affairs. Almost every other industrialized country in the world uses government-funded health care and manages to make it work, albeit with a few hitches. No system will ever be perfect. But many people here aren't willing to make the changes necessary to put publicly-funded medicine into practice, simply because that's not the way we've always done it. If the way we've always done it isn't working, then maybe it's time to stop doing it that way. It seems like it's actually the change factor that most people have a problem with. Schools are essentially socialized, but no one complains about that because it's the way we've always done it. For as many people as Obama inspired with his campaign message of change, he probably alienated almost as many who are afraid of change. This only applies to the big things, of course. Another smaller and more ridiculous example of American pride gone wrong is the time some genius decided we should change the name of French fries to freedom fries. Freedom, of course, is the American way, and foreign things are not. Does it really matter what we call them? Are the French going to take them back if we keep their name attached? Did renaming them make our country stronger? Obviously not, and we all know that. Yet it's somehow more patriotic to name them after our country's ideal – an ideal that has led us into several wars, just because we can't stand the thought of another country doing something different. If it's not a democracy, they're not free, right? It's ridiculous to denounce something just because it's different. The only justifiable reason for opposing the health care bill is having a real problem with one of the new policies. Saying that it's bad because it's socialism is absolutely not a valid reason. Americans need to remember that although we're a world power, we're not perfect. We shouldn't call ourselves the greatest country in the world when we're not even willing to help our own uninsured citizens, as so many other countries do. E-mail: jennifer.lombardo@ubspectrum.com

OPINION

Spotless Mind

By Chelsie Hinckley | Apr. 8, 2010

Hands down one of the most interesting movies I have ever seen is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, directed by Michel Gondry. Not only because I love Kate Winslet, but because the plot is so incredibly interesting. To sum it up without giving too much away, the couple (composed of Winslet and Jim Carrey) have a falling out, and both decide – through a series of twists and turns – to have each other erased from their memory permanently. This concept got me thinking: if you could erase a painful memory from your past, would you? I think this question is pondered a lot during hard times and suffering. You always wish you could erase that person who broke your heart, or that memory that hurts too much to remember. But would you actually go through with it? Throughout the movie the characters go on a journey through all of the times they have spent together, good and bad. This journey reveals a lot about human emotion. As human beings, I think we are always searching for a way to end bad times, get ourselves out of heartache, focus only on the things that make us happy and try to shun negativity and the things that make us upset. Hell, people spend millions of dollars on therapy to get over issues in their past as proof of this theory, but what if they could pay to have them completely removed? Do you think they would? For me, I think back to times in my life when I was at my lowest, times I wish I never had to experience again. But in a way, I believe the bad times are what characterize you as a person. The struggle to persevere through the tough parts of life and get through it with your head held high is what makes you a better person. While you may not believe it at the time, it really will pay off in the end. "Without sadness we would no know joy" is a saying my mom used when I was feeling like I just couldn't carry on anymore. I believe in that statement whole-heartedly. Sure, it might be easier to just erase all the lost friendships and the heartache we have felt in life, but would you be willing to trade all the good times too? Better yet, when you make it through the bad times, doesn't it make you appreciate the good times that much more? I know it works that way with me. The characters in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind realize that you never really know what you have, or how important memories are until they are moments from being sucked away. Cherish your memories, good and bad, because they are what make you who you are. While you might wish you could erase someone, or something, from your mind today, it may come back to help you in the future even if for nothing more then making you a stronger person in the long run. E-mail: chelsie.hinckley@ubspectrum.com

OPINION

Free speech not always black and white

By John Hugar | Apr. 6, 2010

As an aspiring journalist, I am very grateful for the rights guaranteed to me by the First Amendment. If I want to write a column criticizing President Simpson, President Obama, or anyone else, I know that I can do so without fear of being arrested. I am proud to live in a country that offers me that right. At the same time, I am glad that there are certain limitations on free speech in this country. For example, if one of my colleagues wanted to write a column claiming that I like to kill and eat puppies, I could sue that person for libel. We are prevented from making unfounded accusations at each other. I am glad this rule is in effect, because without it, anyone could make any crazy claim and we simply can't have that. Unfortunately, issues involving free speech aren't always black and white. There are certain instances where it's a bit more difficult to decide if someone is merely exercising their right to free speech, or if they are crossing the line. When these instances occur, we have to interpret the First Amendment in ways that could have unknown effects on our rights. This is never easy to do. Once such instance came a few weeks ago, when our friends at the Westboro Baptist Church were at it again. If you don't know, they are a church that strongly opposes homosexuality and pickets funerals of U.S. soldiers, claiming that God killed them to punish America for tolerating homosexuals. In other words, they're not the sunniest people around. Naturally, this angers the families of soldiers whose funerals they picket. One angry military father took them to court, claiming they were harassing his family by protesting. The initial court ruling sided with the father, but the higher court overturned it, stating that the First Amendment protected the Church's actions. This is where the issue gets a little bit tricky. Obviously, people should be allowed to be protest. One of the things that make America great is that people can freely state their opinion and that they can rise up and proclaim their dissent with whatever issue they choose. As much as mainstream America might loathe the WBC, and their ultra right-wing views, their claim to protest is just as valid as anyone else's. We can't forget that. That being said, protesting in the middle of someone's funeral is an entirely different issue. Its one thing to gather together to protest something, it's quite another to disrupt a personal affair, and tell the family of a fallen soldier that their loved one is rotting in hell because America isn't willing to exterminate homosexuals. That goes far beyond the right of free speech. That is harassment in the clearest sense, and our courts shouldn't have stood for it. The reason I disagreed with the court's ruling so much here is that they missed what was at stake. It's not the WBC's right to protest that is the problem, it's where they choose to do it. If they were forced to stay a respectable distance from the funeral itself, but still allowed protesting, that would be a happy medium. It would allow the group to keep their free speech, and let the family mourn in peace. It would've been nice if the court had thought this way, but instead they chose to ignore the needs of a grieving family, and allow a violent, hateful group to do whatever they want. It's one thing to not want to infringe on free speech, it's quite another to enable a group of hate-mongering troublemakers. Sadly, our courts chose the latter. For shame. E-mail: jhugar@buffalo.edu

OPINION

Economic trouble-shooting

Apr. 6, 2010

Things are getting better. Slowly but surely, the unemployment rate is heading south. The most recent numbers are held from the previous month. Unemployment is at 9.7 percent. Another encouraging sign is that an additional 200,000 Americans are looking for work. That means that Americans are becoming more encouraged to look for work because companies are starting to rehire workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute. As far as new jobs being created, it was the largest monthly increase in three years, at 162,000 new jobs. Of course, that isn't enough jobs for the unemployed, but it is only the first step. The other important thing to remember is that the unemployment rate is not a crystal clear way to understand what is occurring in the overall economy. For example, the unemployment rate doesn't count discouraged workers, defined as Americans who are not actively seeking work. If many of the unemployed stop looking for work, the rate can be artificially deflated. Likewise, resuming the search can inflate it. According to Christina Romer, chairman of the President's Economic Council, "Over the last three months, we've added more than a million people to the labor force. And that's actually … a great sign. That is a sign that people who may have … dropped out because of the terrible recession have started to have some hope again and are looking for work." So what does this mean for the average American? Patience must be practiced. The fact is, things are getting better, but slowly. Americans must be flexible and adapt to any working environment. This is not the time to be picky or live outside means in the short term. For the long run, emphasis must be put on developing and marketing new innovations rather than manufacturing them. Many politicians and economic experts are worried about the lack of manufacturing done in the United States. However, manufacturing jobs don't exist in America anymore because it is too expensive to make products in this country. Don't fear, though. Try this: imagine the shape for the life of a new product is a U-shaped curve. The first stage is development of new products. The United States holds more patents in new technologies than any other country in the world. In fact, the United States invests more money in new technologies like nano-technology or biotechnologies then any other country combined. The next part of the curve is the bottom, which is the actual manufacturing of these products. It is also the cheapest part of the production process. For example, Apple makes an iPod nano for about $90, but sells that same iPod for $150. The last part of the U-shaped curve is the marketing and sales of the product. Take the example from before: Apple makes roughly $60 of profit from every iPod sold. That is where the money is – in the development and sales of a product, not the actual manufacturing of it. America will only continue to dominate these areas if it continues to come up with innovative ideas. Hence the reason why green technology has been so widely discussed – because it can generate huge revenues. But it isn't just green technology, it's biomedical research and nano-technology that will allow the United States to be an exporter of ideas. Many have argued that Ph.D.s in this country are flowing out of the country. But remember, most of the companies who hold new technology patents are here in the United States. To de-bunk another myth, many experts argue that nations like India turn out more engineers than the United States. According to the numbers, this is true, but what they don't say is that many of India's engineers come from schools that are equivalent to schools like ITT Tech here in America. So in short, America, make smart decisions about money. For America to remain a dominant economic force, it must continue to export ideas in new fields, not try and fix dying industries. The future is too important to screw up.

OPINION

Holy trouble

Apr. 6, 2010

New allegations of sexual misconduct by clergymen have blown up the week before Easter. Two separate scandals – one in Ireland and one in the United States – further taint the Roman Catholic Church's image. In Ireland, it was revealed that Cardinal Sean Brady, head of the Irish Catholic Church, was present at meetings where victims of a pedophilic priest were asked to sign vows of silence over allegations of misconduct. Children signed vows of silence. If that isn't an attempted cover-up, what is? But the fun doesn't stop there. The allegations in the United States are not only shameful, they reach high into the Catholic Church hierarchy. Documents released suggest that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, failed to respond to letters by other members of the clergy about cases of sexual abuse. More specifically, the archbishops were complaining about allegations against Father Lawrence Murphy in 1996. The letters were sent to the Vatican office headed by the current pope. The office sent out no responses. Murphy, who died in 1998, is assumed to have abused about 200 boys at the Saint John's School for the Deaf in Saint Francis, Wis. between 1950 and 1974. The Roman Catholic Church believed that these incidents were isolated in nature. How wrong they were. Isolated incidents happen once in a blue moon, not every other day of the week. The Church knew the numbers and how widespread the problem had become. A report done by the Church in 2004 found that more than 4,000 Catholic priests in the United States had faced sexual abuse charges in the last 50 years. Over 10,000 victims – mainly boys – were involved with such cases. See the problem? Clearly the Catholic Church has been playing the cover-up game for a while, which is undoubtedly a mistake. But the bigger question that needs to be answered is, what was the intent behind these actions? The Church had engaged in the practice of covering up cases of sexual allegations against priests. This decision to proceed with such practices has had extremely harmful effects, like facilitating the spread of sexual misconduct. It has only been a decade since Catholic bishops believed that it was their own duty to protect the church from scandal and, in a terrible judgment call, thought secrecy agreements were in the best interest of the Church. The biggest problem the public has had with all of this mess is the lack of justice for the victims and their families. Father Murphy was never tried for his crimes. Vatican officials have asserted that Murphy was dying and initiating a trial would have meant the main defendant was no longer living. Fine in that particular case, but the Church has usually shielded its priests from criminal trials, instead opting to let the Holy Father determine punishments. It simply isn't enough. The public's trust in one of the most sacred institutions may be unfixable. Years of payoffs to families to keep quiet and relocating alleged pedophiles to other dioceses is inexcusable. It really doesn't matter if the number of abused children is one or one thousand. The crime is reprehensible, and clearly the Church has made poor choices in judgment. But the pope needs to change the way business is conducted on such matters. Allegations of abuse must be turned over to the proper authorities and investigated. The road to salvation for the Catholic Church as a whole is to no longer give payouts to families and have them sign secrecy agreements. No man is above the rule of law, even if he wears a collar.

OPINION

Getting paddled

By STEPHEN MARTH | Apr. 6, 2010

Sometimes, I wonder if the year is really 2010, or if it is actually 1910. Let's play a fun game. Try to guess how many states allow corporal punishment as a form of discipline in schools. One? Two? Try 20. I'm sorry, but that figure boggles my mind. It also boggles the mind of Erica DeRamus. DeRamus, a senior at Oxford High School in Oxford, Ala., picked out the prom dress of her dreams for her senior prom – a seafoam green dress – and headed to the event with excitement building. But the excitement was short-lived after she was kicked out of the prom and, later the following week, was punished for her outfit. Officials said that DeRamus's outfit was too low-cut and too short, which broke the rules of the school's dress code. The dress code stipulates that necklines must be above a student's breastbone and skirt hems cannot be higher than six inches above the knee. While she disagrees that she broke the rules, after seeing images of the dress, I can understand their issues. But I cannot understand their options for punishment. According to WBRC-TV, 18 students that broke the rules were given two options of punishment – a three-day suspension that would affect their chances of getting into college, or a period of paddling. That's right. They beat them with a piece of wood. Surprisingly, DeRamus was the only student to take the three-day suspension, while her other 17 classmates decided to taste some splinters. "I'm a little too old to get paddled … This is high school, we're seniors," DeRamus told WBRC. "If we're going to act up, give us another option besides being paddled, because this isn't the 1940s. We don't take corporal punishment now." And she's right. What gives school officials the power to physically assault children when many parents are told not to? Why should anyone even have that right? We're human. Physical violence and physical punishment don't do a thing except harm people emotionally and mentally, in addition to leaving some ugly welts and marks. According to the American Psychological Association, corporal punishment in any institution where children are cared for or educated should not be allowed for a variety of reasons. The association says that it is violent and unnecessary, may lower self-esteem and instills hostility and rage without reducing the behavior that caused the punishment. Furthermore, corporal punishment is likely to train children to use physical violence. And people wonder why there are those of us who see no problem hurting someone. Those people are probably from Alabama. We've put a man on the moon. We have technology that can replicate the Big Bang. I can speak to someone across the world instantly with the click of the button, but there are school districts in America that see no issue in physically attacking children for minor reasons? Land of the free and home of the beaten. E-mail: stephen.marth@ubspectrum.com

OPINION

I-N-F-I-D-E-L-I-T-Y

By Jessica Digennaro | Apr. 6, 2010

If Gwen Stefani were to comment on the current Hollywood chaos, she would say, "This s*** is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S." Tiger Woods, Jesse James and now Bruce Springsteen have reportedly joined the ranks of the other Tinsel Town tools for cheating on their significant others, according to the New York Post. Like any other respectable human being, my own reaction to the recent headlines has been disgust and then a later state of confusion when photos of the mistresses begin to surface. My heart went out to Sandra Bullock, the actress that I have adored since her Speed days, who, right after her long overdue Oscar moment, was blind-sided with the news of her husband's year-long affair with a tattooed ex-stripper. But once the shock of, "How could her husband cheat on her with THAT?" wore off, I began to realize that Bullock was just another starlet to fall victim to the curse of the leading ladies. Kate Winslet, Halle Berry, Gweneth Paltrow and Julia Roberts are just a few on the list of actresses who won an Academy Award and then suddenly no longer had their man. It's sad that I'm not surprised when the accusations of infidelity come flooding in. Hollywood has long had the reputation of being synonymous with cheating and numb to the concept of divorce. What I find disturbing, however, is what happens to the men after they are exposed as cheating dogs. The term "sex rehab" is starting to creep into the headlines at an alarming rate - and it's creeping me out. Woods and James are names currently in the news for checking themselves into treatment facilities for their reported sex addictions – a trend started by X-Files star David Duchovny last year when he spent two months in rehab for his similar problem. I can't help but wonder, is addiction to intercourse an actual medical condition? Can these stars undergo behavioral counseling, take some sort of anti-Viagra pill and then suddenly not cheat on their wives? I don't think so. In my opinion, the only reason these disgraced men are checking into celebrity clinics is so they can hide from the media and stay out of the limelight until their scandal has passed. It's also their public way of saying sorry to their wives and fans. Well, I'm not buying the apology. Blaming their behavior on their "disease" doesn't sound very sincere to me – a little bit of accountability and personal responsibility can go a long way. What's worse is that after these men leave rehab "cured" of their addiction, they expect their wives to go back to them. And remarkably, some do. Duchovny's wife did - after a brief separation, the couple claims to be going strong. For now. Didn't anyone learn from Halle Barry, who said on the night she made history as the first black actress to win an Academy Award, that she was dying on the inside and her husband's indiscretions were to blame? Her then-hubby, Eric Benét, also tried rehab to kick his so-called sex addiction, but after a year of the couple trying to work things out, Benét reportedly relapsed and their union was over. The funny thing about celebrities is just when you think they have it all, scandals such as these break, and then you realize they're no different from the rest of us. Although I personally can't relate to a cheating situation, plenty of my friends can. Based on their experiences, the old saying is true - "once a cheater, always a cheater." I've cringed and lectured and then gave up as I've watched some of my friends continue to go back to their cheating boyfriends for the sake of "love." And with all the speculation in the media right now of, "Will Sandy give Jesse another chance?" - I can only hope that she makes the right decision and leaves him. Enough is enough. E-mail: jessica.digennaro@ubspectrum.com

OPINION

"""Cult""-ure of hate"

By Steve Neilans | Apr. 6, 2010

Bill O'Reilly has a heart. And there go 95 percent of the people who would have read this column. On March 3, 2006, a young Marine named Matthew Snyder lost his life in a rollover crash in Al Anbar province, Iraq. A funeral was held shortly after in Maryland to let his family and loved ones mourn together in peace. "In peace" never happened. It was at their son and brother's funeral where the infamous Westboro Baptist Church decided to grace the Snyder family. This is the same group that is convinced America is going to hell because of our association with homosexuality and having an African-American president. These are the same people who were in Buffalo after the Continental Airlines Flight 3407 disaster occurred, claiming it as a "miracle from God." Jerry Falwell is rolling over in his grave thinking, "Wow, these people are extreme." As the funeral began for Matthew, the Westboro Baptist cult members strategically positioned themselves in front of the church. Armed with signs and speakerphones, they proceeded to tell the grieving family how their son was destined to spend an eternity in the scorching flames of hell. Albert Snyder, Matthew's father, was staring at a television inside the church witnessing all of this. He managed to make it through the day without pulling out a shotgun and blasting off heads, but the agony was too much for him. He decided that he would get revenge in his own way. So he filed a federal lawsuit. A jury of Snyder's peers awarded him almost $11 million dollars for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The story however, goes downhill from here. The U.S. Court of Appeals decided that the lawsuit went against First Amendment rights, and the ruling was null. Additionally, Albert Snyder needed to foot the $16,500 legal fees bill for the WBC. Albert Snyder would now be forced to fund the WBC so they can protest even more. What a world we live in. Enter Bill O' Reilly. In 2007, O' Reilly was introduced to Albert Snyder. O' Reilly had heard about the story involving the Snyders and the WBC, and Snyder was invited on O' Reilly's show. The story must have had a resonating effect on O' Reilly because this past week he offered to pay the legal bills left behind. Stop and re-read that last sentence. Bill O' Reilly actually did something pretty cool. I remember one of my friends telling me about how she met one of the leaders of the WBC, Shirley Phelps-Roper, when President Obama was being inaugurated. She told me how she was completely shocked by the experience. Phelps unequivocally believed every word of hatred spewing from her mouth. That honestly scares me. When Voltaire said something about defending a person's right to say something until his death, I'm sure he wasn't thinking that something was "God hates fags" or "God loves dead soldiers." Perhaps his tone would have changed upon meeting the Phelps family. The story is far from over for the Snyder family or the WBC. Sometime in October, the Supreme Court will be hearing this case. If there is any inch of karmic decency in the world, hopefully the WBC will be shut down forever. If America really is the leader in fighting terrorism, then it is time to put an end to this kind of verbal terrorism. The WBC is yelling "bomb" in a movie theater, and hiding behind the First Amendment to justify their actions. What Would Jesus Do? Anything the WBC doesn't. E-mail: sneilans@buffalo.edu

OPINION

Let's get controversial

By Stacee Johnston | Apr. 1, 2010

Let's talk politics… or not. Controversial topics are tempting discussion topics, but you need to be hyper-aware when handling touchy material. The easiest way to begin a quarrel is to spill your opinion on the recently passed health care law to someone who shares the opposite stance. There are good points and bad points to this new law – I believe everyone can agree to that – but after this agreement, comes a heavy surplus of devoted opinion that resides around two basic estimations: good or bad. Those for the "good" stand in their corner across from those that believe it to be "bad" – and if your opinions are different, chaos may ensue. Work is a wonderful place to not speak your mind and to not voice controversial opinions – advice that I wish would have been given to me before I decided to discuss the new health care law with my co-worker. Of course, we were on different sides, and the conversation soon became vicious. Words were chosen un-thoughtfully, on both ends, and tempers were flaring while feelings were hurt. Not to mention the fact that we were at work, and were forced to stand next to each other for the following four hours. Along with politics, religion is also a topic that should not be discussed with those who you are not close to. Religion is a very touchy subject that is rooted in deep among its followers. It can be easy to insult important pieces of someone's sensibilities because of a misplaced comment. If you do want to debate on a particular subject with someone, know beforehand if they will be open to the topic you're discussing, or if they'll be offended by it. For instance, the topic of abortion involves opinions that can be emotionally charged. Everyone has an opinion on abortion and no matter how devout in your beliefs, there is someone that zealously believes the exact opposite. Some people may have had abortions, while others may have almost been aborted. Be sympathetic to other's opinions and attempt to understand their point of view. Otherwise, you will just be barking your opinion at someone who in retaliation will be just as stubborn as you – just like I am and have been. The smartest option is to objectively listen to an opposing voice. Listen to the validity of their points and remember them. Arguments are made stronger by addressing potential counterpoints. So discuss health care, religion, abortions, evolution, the right to bear arms, and etc. if you'd like – but know that you might be opening a messy bag that you can't seal back up. E-mail: staceejo@buffalo.edu

OPINION

Lock it up

By Amanda Jonas | Apr. 1, 2010

Remember before Facebook, Twitter, Formspring and blogging, when people had these things made of paper where they wrote about their feelings? And then after they wrote in them, they hid these paper things that they used to call journals or diaries, and then no one else ever had to hear about or see them? Well, I miss those days. I never had a journal per se, although every now and then I would pull out a diary someone had bought me and scribble down something pathetic, emotional or sappy, and then hurriedly put the diary back in its hiding place, relieved that I had gotten whatever it was off my chest. I feel that this was a rather harmless habit, since I was able to express what I was feeling, no matter how trivial or embarrassing, without forcing anyone else to know about it. Gone are those days. Gone are the days where if you were having a bad day, you kept it to yourself or your immediate circle of friends. The new outlet appears to be a sort of cyber therapy – like group therapy, except none of us are actually willing to participate. I don't exactly remember what the first Facebook looked like, since it has undergone more facelifts than Heidi Montag. But I do remember when statuses were all formatted something like: "Amanda Jonas is…" and then you would usually add something trivial like "going for ice cream" or "doing homework." I also remember the days when you wrote on someone's wall to invite him or her to hangout, or wish a happy birthday. That was when Facebook was friendlier, less obnoxious and less of a confessional. I am so sick of people using Facebook as an outlet for every emotion that they have ever felt in their entire lives. Yeah, I am guilty of n "FML" status and maybe I will occasionally post something sentimental. But I am talking about the big time offenders, the people we all know who use Facebook as a means of pouring out their souls to hundreds of people who really don't care. I am friends with this one girl who graduated a year after I did from my high school. Every day, my newsfeed is ravaged by countless statuses about how she has no friends, is always screwed over by boys and how she is never going to meet a boy who truly sees how great she is. I wish I could tell her to take that Leona Lewis "Bleeding Love" crap and stick it where the sun don't shine. My friend and I will sometimes look at her wall-to-walls with various people where she, in a public forum open to all her Facebook friends, complains about every facet of her life in grave detail – names, dates and painful paragraphs. This girl is not alone. I also judge people who throw significant others under the bus with pointed statuses, people who participate in those idiotic surveys like, "Who was the last person you cuddled?" (no one cares), and people who write sappy crap on each other's walls: "My dear sweet noble knight, how I love thee! Sincerely, lowly maiden," (actual wall post that made me want to vomit). If you have a lot of feelings, that's great – just keep them to yourself. Tell your mom or instant message your best friend, because the rest of us, honestly, couldn't care less. Plain and simple. E-mail: asjonas@buffalo.edu

OPINION

No bills for McNabb in Buffalo

By Mathew Parrino | Apr. 1, 2010

It has been a while since something has come up in the world of sports that really made me upset. I guess I have just become accustomed to the modern day athlete and nothing really surprises me anymore. People hold out for more money, go to jail, cheat on their wife and so on and so forth. After a while, you just get used to it and the intense anger you once felt about a certain action becomes less and less present as each new story breaks, year after year, month after month and week after week. With that said, something struck me this morning as I was reading a few articles on the possibility of a trade that would bring Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb to the Buffalo Bills – I have lost all respect for McNabb. According to several sources, McNabb will refuse to sign an extension with the Bills but will be more than happy to sign on the dotted line with the St. Louis Rams. Are you kidding me Donovan? Maybe you haven't noticed, but at no time in your career have you been a Peyton Manning or a Tom Brady. You don't get to dictate where you play. Now I know that McNabb can't overrule a trade, but if he says he won't sign an extension, the Bills are not going to pursue the trade. I don't want to hear the argument that, as a veteran, McNabb should have some control over where he finishes his career either. If you're traded, you go play for whatever team is paying you the ridiculous sum of around $11 million you'll earn next season without comment. First off, you're not worth that amount of money in the first place and for you to assume that you are above being traded at age 33 is comical. All you have to do is close your mouth, play for a year in Buffalo and then decide where to sign because that is your choice. Maybe you'd realize that playing for the most passionate fan base in the NFL, who will treasure you as their guy behind center, would be something you'd want to do to finish your career. You aren't the top 10 quarterback you once were and I don't know who misinformed you, but the Rams are the laughing stock of the league. I can't even fathom the amount of interceptions you will throw in that backfield. You think you never had anyone to throw to in Philadelphia? Wait until you get to St. Louis. The real shame here, and what hit me the hardest, is that I have always been a huge fan of McNabb. Dating back to his days at Syracuse, I watched and followed his career and always hoped he would get a ring. But all that admiration was flushed down the toilet with one action. At this point, I hope the Bills don't make a deal for him because I don't think it's a fluke that he never won a ring. He is a bad character guy and I should have realized that when guys in his own locker room were siding with Terrell Owens back when the two had their falling out. A huge part of this stems from my realization that the Buffalo Bills will never be competitive again. No one wants to come here as a free agent and now players are vetoing trades that would send them here. If we can't get good players, we can't compete- it's as simple as that. So congratulations Donovan, you don't have to come to Buffalo. I hope it was worth a fan and your reputation. E-mail: matthew.parrino@ubspectrum.com

OPINION

Aborting personal ideologies

By Andrew Wiktor | Apr. 1, 2010

Sacha Baron Cohen joked about abortion on "Da Ali G Show" back in 2003. He beat boxed an abortion remix, laughed at a virgin who practiced abstinence, asked a priest if he wore condoms during sex and compared trying out abortion with sampling the flame-broiled Whopper at Burger King. Hilarity aside, abortion is no joking matter. Growing up, we're taught to stick up for what we believe in. At what point, however, should societal norms supersede one's personal ideologies? If you posed that question to Scott Roeder, he would tell you never. On May 31, 2009, Roeder shot and killed physician George Tiller at a church in Wichita, Kan. during a Sunday morning service. Although this is clearly a reprehensible crime, Roeder saw it as a noble act. "The entire motive was the defense of the unborn," Roeder said. Tiller, who was the medical director at the Women's Health Care clinic in Wichita, was no stranger to controversy. He was one of the few physicians in America that performed late-term abortions and was the subject of much scrutiny throughout the years that he was in practice. In fact, in 1993, anti-abortion activist Shelley Shannon shot Tiller five times, resulting in wounds in each arm, in an attempt to take his life. Irony aside – because yes, a pro-life advocate attempting murder is quite backwards – there is a serious issue here: people take their personal beliefs way too far. This isn't the first incident of its kind. Anti-abortion violence against physicians has been fairly common in America ever since the Supreme Court made its Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. During a protest in 1993, Michael Griffin murdered Dr. David Gunn and is currently serving a life sentence in Florida. A year later, Reverend Paul Jennings Hill was put to death after he shot Dr. John Britton and his clinic escort, James Barrett, to death. A little more recently, and a lot closer to home, Dr. Barnett Slepian was killed in his home in Amherst, N.Y. by James Koop in 1998. And the worst part about all of these cases is that none of the murderers felt remorse after their crime. In their eyes, they were doing society a favor. Much of the anti-abortion violence stems from traditional religious views and there are even groups that openly support such vehement acts. Army of God is a Christian American terrorist organization that promotes violence to prevent abortions. They have vandalized, bombed and set fire to hundreds of clinics while trying to get their point across. There is some sort of My-religion-is-the-right-religion hubris that has plagued the human race throughout history. People are raised with specific beliefs, but worst of all, they are also taught to stand up for what is "right." The problem, however, is that sometimes there is no "right." I view religion more as a societal invention to get people to behave a certain way and less as the definitive truth about the world, but there are some extremely pious people whose faith blinds them. Of course I am religiously tolerant and don't blame people for finding sanctity in the Bible, Torah and Qur'an (to name only a few), but strong ideologies – often times religious ones – can be very dangerous. To be honest, I don't see the difference between anti-abortion violence and the atrocities of September 11th, the Mumbai attacks and even the countless cruelties that the Ku Klux Klan has committed. In all of these cases, personal views clouded peoples' ability to act rationally. I'm not implying that we need to be a secular nation, but we do need to think before we act, even when we're positive that we're right. Personal ideologies can be extremely dangerous, especially when they lead to violent actions. Some feel that Roeder's rage was justified because abortion is morally wrong. In fact, while in jail, Roeder received encouraging letters from people across the nation expressing their support for his actions. Pro-life and pro-choice aside, isn't it scary when people can justify murder? A well-known physician was shot in the head during a church service in front of his family because he performed perfectly legal medical procedures. It is definitely important to stand up for your beliefs, but it is more important to choose your battles wisely. Don't let the My-religion-is-the-right-religion hubris get the best of you, because we've seen where that can lead us. E-mail: andrew.wiktor@ubspectrum.com

OPINION

Idioma de intercambio

Apr. 1, 2010

En un movimiento sorprendente martes por la noche, el Presidente Barack Obama ha cambiado el idioma oficial de los Estados Unidos del Ingl

OPINION

Greetings from the world of tomorrow

By JOR-HILL | Apr. 1, 2010

Yes, by combining the simple ingredients of anti-matter, a Prius and a slightly used VHS copy of 3 Ninjas Kick Back, we the people of the future have developed time travel. The people of the United States of Newmerica have sent me back to your time to write this opinion column. I have traveled through many years to give you a warning by offering a glimpse into your future and the things that will come to pass. For some of you, there is good news. What remains of the United States government is no longer a two-party system. Instead, the House and Senate are home to well over a thousand different political parties. It started with the event that caused Glenn Beck to drown in his own tears – the passing of the Health Care Reform Bill of 2010. The bill was far from perfect, but if it did anything right, it was to push forward in the fight to help update a very defunct system. The bill would only serve to drive the parties apart even farther. Soon, the Democrats and the Republicans will find themselves not serving the interests of the people of the United States, but instead, chasing after some sort of abstract idea. Both parties will eventually change their names to Liberal and Conservative, respectively, each trying to mold the country under one view. These acts will drive out many the moderates of both parties. The dispelled moderates will form many different parties, while others will split off from the Liberal and Conservative parties, believing that are not extreme enough. It was during this internal strife within the major parties that a dogmatic libertarian was able to seize the office of the presidency. The nation was stunned. At first it was viewed as the great underdog victory and a return to little federal interference; the country was like Beyond Thunderdome for those years. Many federally funded projects fell through as the government cut off the money flow. Roads, cities, hospitals and public schools all fell apart. The greatest tragedy came when the president repealed many safety laws, stating that is a choice to wear a helmet or seatbelt. Most of the extreme libertarians died in the following months, including the president, whose final words to his wife were, "I don't have to wear that thing. What am I, a hippie?" Two civil wars followed. The first was to fill the power vacuum that existed in the White House and the second was to free ourselves from the bears. We only survived that one after a cunning move involving a fishing line, some honey and a picnic basket. The extremity was so bad in the government that there hasn't been a president in over 20 years. The last one threw up his arms and retired into the wastelands that were once California, which are patrolled by a group of crazed cyborgs, the last act of a certain governor. Extremity existed outside the world of government as well. It got really bad when the apocalypse happened. Yes, the rapture occurred on a tepid Tuesday at 11:42 a.m. Jesus, who turned out to be Chinese, had stumbled onto the set of The Today Show to announce his second coming. Unsurprisingly, Revelations was wrong and there were no Four Horsemen and all that jazz. Instead, the world watched Last Holiday, starring Queen Latifah. Turns out that is His favorite movie. After preaching a message of peace and love, he was promptly booed off stage and called a hippie. God then showed up. In fact, He turned out to look like a giant spaghetti monster. The world learned that God does not hate homosexuals and they've always been allowed to marry. It seems Moses zoned out while God was dictating Leviticus to him and was too embarrassed to ask God to repeat what He said. Both God and Christ have been excommunicated from all churches. Most importantly…do not drink Pepsi 2. It kind of taste like butt. And don't panic: UB 3020 is just around the corner. E-mail: arts@ubspectrum.com

OPINION

The death of discourse

By John Hugar | Apr. 1, 2010

In Monday's issue of The Spectrum, pro-Palestine activist Ilan Pappe was quoted as saying, "I don't think you can support the state of Israel and be a decent person." This came as a shock to me. I always thought being a decent person was based on your character and your actions, but if you take Pappe's word for it, all that counts is whether you agree with him. Of course, divisive quotes like this shouldn't be much of a surprise. I don't know if you've noticed, but the political discourse in this country has been a bit lacking lately. For evidence of this, all you had to do was turn to CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News to watch coverage of the health care debates. The argument was split into two camps: either you supported health care and you were a socialist, or you were against it and you were just another right-wing nut job. That's the state of political discourse in America right now. Either you agree with me and you're righteous, or you are against me and you're evil. There doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground. Granted, this isn't an entirely new development. It's how issues have been divided for decades. Abortion is a fine example of this. If you're pro-choice, you're called a "baby killer," and if you're anti-abortion, you're accused of being sexist and wanting the government to control women's bodies. Neither side of the abortion debate understands the other, nor do they want to. It's more fun to just lob insults at each other. The debate over gay marriage isn't much better. Anyone who opposes it publicly is automatically called a bigot and worse. Just ask Carrie Prejean, who faced vicious attacks from Perez Hilton for stating an opinion the opposite of his own. On the opposite side, the religious right continues to sling arrows at the homosexual community by calling them sinners and sodomites. There's actually a Web site called godhatesfags.com. If that doesn't show how divisive this issue is, I don't know what does. This problem had been stirring for a while in America, but the volcano of divisive politics didn't truly erupt until Obama became president. Of course, it's not his fault. He's tried mightily to create bipartisanship, but to no avail. We're far too aggressive to listen lately. The rise of the Tea Party movement was the first indication that things were getting out of hand. Droves of right-wing protestors appeared, calling the president everything from a communist to Hitler to the anti-Christ – all because he wanted to pass a universal health care bill. This is a little extreme, to say the least. Unfortunately, the liberal response wasn't any better. On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, comedian Janeane Garofalo stated that the Tea Party protesters were there because they hated the idea of a black president. This was a nasty blanket statement, to say the least. In Garofalo's world, Obama is too magical to criticize, so if you don't like him, you probably just hate black people. It's really shameful the way both sides have been attacking each other lately. The days of intelligent political discussion and agreeing to disagree have gone right out the window. But we need not hate each other just because we hold opposing views. As Dave Mason once sang, "There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys. There's only you and me and we just disagree." If America can adopt an attitude like that, there's no telling how much progress we can make. If not, we may be stuck in the political gutter for decades to come. E-mail: jhugar@buffalo.edu

OPINION

Future is depending on UB

By John Martin | Apr. 1, 2010

Over the past few years as a student at the University at Buffalo, I have observed and provided input to the university's leaders while they were forming the foundation of what is known as the UB 2020 plan.