In memory of those who fell at the hands of the enemies of freedom—men and women who brought light in the darkest hour; heroes who died that others might live; and patriots who bade one last farewell to their cherished ones before meeting their Maker. May you never be forgotten; and may you rest in eternal peace, knowing that you left the world a better place.

 It is a most difficult task not to be Periclean, not to be Lincolnian, when recalling that fateful day whose cursed countenance has for a decade gone unseen—appearing only in the dreams of those despondent souls strangled by the oppressive clasp of grief, assuaged only by the intuition, the inexplicably innate knowledge, that those closest to them met their ends with the fortitude expected of all Americans, regardless of race, color, or creed.

In the darkest hour, at the acme of despair, we were once again enlightened, uplifted by a noble truth: the American ideals for which so many have sacrificed yet again rang true, pulsating from the hearts, emanating from the deeds, of men and women who, facing death, envisaged only their families and their larger family, their nation, and the preservation thereof.

‘Tis a most indelicate misfortune that such selflessness must be accented through tragedy, but all the more revealing: the American spirit meets and surpasses the trials placed upon it; and if it means the end, so be it—death comes to us all, but the sacrifices borne by so many ensured it would harvest not a single life sooner than necessary.

What can be said that has yet to be uttered? What new accolades can we bestow upon the fallen that will forever prove inadequate, that will never match that which they have bequeathed to us?

It is the heroics, the uncommon valor of common citizens, which must never escape our memories. The shroud of darkness permeating the New York skyline; the ghastly waves of dust blanketing the ground below; the agonizing cries of terror and anguish and the chorus of lamentations that followed—they resonate only in memories that, for some, remain inseparable from reality.

But the time for mourning is long past; the time for remembrance we must never permit to elapse. For that day taught us more than a lifetime ever could. And yet, how forgetful we are; how oblivious we sometimes seem. Yet should the clamoring of evil ever wake us from our slumber, how swiftly the collage of destruction and despair, of heroism and triumph, would throb in our minds, flashing before us with a transparent clarity ushered only by the aura of death.

And so, as we reflect on what was, we must perceive in it what is, and what will be. How shall we carry on with our lives? What will our legacy be? For the faces of the past await. They judge us not—that task is left to a Higher Power—but ask that we judge ourselves, that we make the most of a life all too evanescent for our liking. As we mark this ten-year anniversary, let us at least honor their memory, for we owe them far more. cineri gloria sera est.

Nearly 16 years after its release, The Lion King continues to entertain generations of youth. Conventional wisdom has long held that the evil Scar, jealous of his new nephew Simba, usurped the monarchy and established a tyrannical rule based on authoritarian tendencies. But just how accurate is this interpretation of the film.

The character of Scar is far more complex than what we see in the traditional interpretation of The Lion King, and after taking a step back and getting the full picture of the conditions that exist in the Pride Lands it becomes readily apparent that Scar is not the villain Disney makes him out to be. Rather, Scar’s actions are in fact just when portrayed in a certain light.

When watching The Lion King it is easy to white wash over the rule of Mufasa, adopting the position that he is a wise and legitimate King. While it is understandable why this view of Mufasa is accepted, it seems that all the creatures of the Pride Lands respect him given the pomp and circumstance surrounding Simba’s birth, ultimately this interpretation of Mufasa is misguided.

Let’s not forget that Mufasa’s rule was built upon, among other things, what is in effect racism in the animal kingdom. He banished the hyenas to an elephant graveyard, and for what? Because they are different, they are unrefined or improper according to the lion’s standards. And for that the entire species is doomed to starve, forbidden from entering the Pride Lands.

Under Scar all of that would change, finally the hyenas would be accepted in the animal kingdom, rather than being banished as second class citizens. Scar’s rallying cry to the hyenas was simple, “stick with me and you’ll never go hungry again,” now that doesn’t sound like the heartless villain he is made out to be. No, in fact it could be argued that he had the best of intentions in assuming power, to rid the Pride Lands of hunger and introduce a new society based on equality.

Those opposed to Scar often times point to the condition of the Pride Land as proof of his despotic rule. But what was it that plagued the Pride Land? A drought. That’s right, Scar’s critics are quick to blame him for a naturally occurring weather event. It seems unreasonable to blame Scar for something beyond his control, he simply can’t make it rain any more or less than anyone else can.

To make matters worse, the lionesses punk out and refuse to hunt. Their visceral reaction to the new social order Scar hopes to create, one based on equality, where no animal is allowed to go hungry, further illustrates how blaming Scar for the problems at Pride Rock is short sighted. If the lionesses had been willing to share in the new social order then perhaps they could of constructively moved forward as a new society. We’ll never know, of course, because the lionesses decided it would be better to jeopardize the future of the entire community for the sake of an unelected monarch.

Of course Scar is not completely blameless, he did resort to questionable methods when murdering Mufasa and running Simba off the land, but his intentions were undoubtedly noble. Before Scar the Pride Lands were ruled by a despotic monarch who lacked horizontal legitimacy by denying whole groups of animals the basic rights given to all other animals. He tried to change that the only way he could, through a radical transformation of the social order. It might of worked too, if only the lionesses weren’t so tied to their traditions of social stratification and oppression.

Senate’s 16-15 vote on Monday approving the removal of Easter recess made one thing clear: the Student Senate failed to uphold the interests of the Gettysburg College student body.  Instead of voting on behalf of the constituents who elected them, the Senate fell prey to a dizzying and convoluted explanation involving schedules and semester start dates, hardly problems worthy of student concern.  In similar discussions surrounding the break period last year, a poll of 50 students by The Gettysburgian overwhelmingly opposed the removal of the break period.  Despite this evidence and the vocal concerns of 15 senators at Monday’s meeting, the Senate rushed through a vote without consulting the student body that they were elected to represent.

As a senator who has proudly served the Class of 2013, I am deeply concerned by the careless vote of 16 of my colleagues, two of which are on the Executive Board.  This issue at stake here is not the recess; the issue is the hasty judgment of the Senate.  While we routinely disagree on issues affecting our campus, we must not forget the purpose of our office, to serve the students of Gettysburg College and, according to the Senate Constitution, “to act as a forum of public opinion.”  Monday night that promise was broken and it is my sincerest desire that Senate will learn from this mishap and ensure in the future that each motion made, each opinion expressed, and each vote cast are clear reflections of the wants of the student body.

This session of Student Senate has been the most active body in recent years, yet when faced with an issue of great significance to the student body Senate backed down, allowing the faculty to decide which recesses are appropriate to observe.  If the elected senators, and these 16 students in particular, are to serve as active leaders, how then can they consciously serve as a rubber stamp to the objectives of the administration or faculty?  We have seen the effects of Senate upholding the views of administrators before when it was swindled into allocating $200 of the student activities fee toward the new athletic center.  The student body, like in the recess debate, was not consulted and Senate was won over by smooth talking administrators.  The time for Senate to flex its muscle and show a backbone is long overdue.  I call on my colleagues to uphold the oath they all recited when sworn in and vigilantly defend the values of the student body.

Our mission is simple, to protect the interests of the students, not to serve at the beck and call of the administration or faculty.  Students have a voice and we must make sure that we let it ring loud and clear.  I have faith in Senate that even the most intense debates will not stop the institution from functioning as designed and the will of the students will be defended.

After the big bang enlargement of the aughts and the financial crisis many have questioned what the future of the European Union is. Have the new dynamics of the 1980′s and 1990′s given way to a new round of Eurosclerosis, brought on by enlargement fatigue and the boneheaded fiscal policies of the PIIGS? It appears so. How, then, is the European Union to recapture its mojo and continue the drive towards European Integration?

One of the declared principles of the Treaty of Rome is the creation of an ever closer union of European states. Today, over 50 years removed from the signing of that document, tremendous work remains in the creation of an ever closer European Union and European public. As we turn over into a new decade it becomes increasingly clear how the European Union can foster a closer, more unified continent and more integrated border regions between countries; with an emphasis on improving transportation infrastructure across the continent and investing in the next generation of transportation technology.

The European Union should push forward with vigorous support for projects such as the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link, which would link the Danish island of Zealand to Northern Germany, significantly cutting down the time it takes to travel between Scandinavia and the industrial centers of Europe. Such a link would help promote the free movement of people and goods, cutting down the time and cost necessary to travel between Scandinavia and Continental Europe. Not only would this promote an ever closer union by encouraging greater travel between Northern and Central Europe, and thus greater cross-cultural exchange and access, but would also provide a boon to the European economy by helping cut down shipping costs between the regions, lowering transit prices and promoting the free exchange of goods and labor.

This project highlights the potential returns that investing in a 21^st century transportation network could have on European society, but many other steps can and should be taken to improve movement throughout the continent. The move towards a unified air control system, where the European Union manages all air traffic over the continent rather than each state managing their own airspace, similarly deserves vigorous support. With thousands of flights everyday, the possibility of congested airways causing costly delays is very real. The implementation of a unified air control system would alleviate this problem by allowing for better management and coordination of the skies over Europe, as no longer will 27 different national air agencies have to try to negotiate and coordinate European airspace, it will all be handled by one, singular agency. Such a step would help prevent congested air traffic, insuring that European skies will be able to handle increased use, and promoting movement around the continent.

The potential benefits that a modern transportation network would provide Europe are simply too great to ignore. For instance, sustained investment into improving and expanding European rail capacities would reduce shipping costs around the continent, promoting economic growth and a more integrated European economy. Meanwhile, continued support for high speed rail projects, and other infrastructure improvements which would allow for a greater number of people to travel throughout the continent, encouraging the development of a European identity by promoting access to the various societies of the continent, creating more of a melting pot of cultures in Europe. The borders between countries would continue to melt away as movement between them continues to ease.

If the European Union remains committed to creating a more integrated Europe, then it must demonstrate sustained support for transportation projects which will help integrate the European economy, promote the movement of people throughout the continent, develop cross-border regions around the continent. Through additional support for these projects the goal of an ever closer union can be better achieved in the 21^st century, and the European project will receive a much needed shot in the arm.

It would be difficult not to accept that the world is falling apart, and that is precisely why that conclusion cannot be drawn lightly. Each generation is inclined to believe its own problems are, historically, the worst. This is no mystery. Adversity is relative, and its extent can only be properly judged in comparison with something else—even the absence of adversity. Because generations have not endured other eras’ predicaments and ordeals, they can only judge adversity in terms of what they have experienced or witnessed in their own time. The ancient historian Polybius, in fact, warned of nonchalance on the part of youths in a free society, who had never experienced oppression and exigent adversity.

Without doubt, there are significant, looming challenges in the modern world, some of which are more ominous than ever before. It remains important, however, to keep things in perspective. Were we alive at the time of the Black Death, for instance, we would’ve been immersed in a frenzy of apocalypse, hysteria, famine, war, and demonic possession—and understandably so. In his classic treatise, On War, Carl von Clausewitz asserts that history has been marred and shaped by wars that satisfy political, cataclysmic, or eschatological ends—in short, chaos is anything but new.

Conflict in the Middle East has brewed for longer than we can realistically fathom. Economies have been driven into such volatility as to leave citizens beyond destitution and, in the case of the Weimar Republic, for example, postured toward retribution, delivered at the behest of a malevolent dictator. Quests for power and corruption have been perpetual forces, as well. Machiavelli alone does justice to the presence of these constant drives that have propelled countless ambitious souls throughout history. These are challenging times, indeed; but the idea that the world has not witnessed far worse seems to have been promoted by a generation that is increasingly unaware of historical precedence, attuned instead to irrational concerns as a form of escapism. Escapism from what, though?

There is (seemingly) overwhelming pressure today, of course. (When hasn’t there been?)  It appears, however, that most of today’s pressure—aside from economic, though the relationship between economics, technology, and society is paramount—arises from modern life’s complexity. And therein lies the irony. Advances in technology, designed to simplify tasks, have opened up a world of excessive distractions, multitasking, and things that should (logically) be of negligible concern—a Pandora’s Box of minutiae.

On the other hand, technology has also added complexities of the utmost importance. Financial transactions, potential identity theft, and jobs requiring greater education and technological savvy are just some of the new challenges through which modern citizens must wade. And so, it appears that in this multifaceted, intricate environment we have sought escapism from pressures that are either comparatively insignificant, or essential, to modern life. In the process, we have lost the essence of life through the very tools meant to enhance it. This isn’t to say technology is abominable, as remarkable advances continue to awe. Rather, it means technology is what we make of it, for better or for worse.

“This could only happen to me”; “Of all the days, this had to happen today.”; “Why me?”—declarations all too familiar to us. How often do we hear these from others, even from ourselves? If you find yourself saying these a bit too often, stop and think for a second. Do you think you are the only one who has problems? Do you think you have anything remotely close to the worst of problems? Do you even think that you are the only one, out of everyone in the world, having a particular problem at a particular time? Probably not. Why get so rattled, then?

This is where relative adversity comes in. We live in the present. When we have a problem, most of us don’t say, “Wow! This is my only flat tire in the last 700 days! I’m pretty lucky!” The reason such problems frustrate us so much is that they’re uncommon—that they are diversions from our otherwise “peachy” lives. All it takes, though, is many different problems occurring at the same time, and before you know it, we’re ready to throw in the towel. We rationalize it, of course, deluding ourselves into thinking that our problems outweigh those of our predecessors. No wonder we subtly embrace defeatism, the road most traveled by. Here’s an idea. Get over it. Take it like a man, not a Teletubby.

Don’t get me wrong. There are dire circumstances ahead. Youths will be burdened with greater socioeconomic, political, and (potentially) military burdens than have been present at least since the Great Depression/World War II era. Yet they are, for the most part, clueless as to the difficulties awaiting them given recent trends, particularly the seemingly incessant growth of an overzealous, overarching, interventionist network of inefficient bureaucracies captained by individuals with the ambition and means to advance their own power at the expense of our standard of living. The “American Dream” will evolve to acclimate to our own evolving times, and I believe its promise will be realistically diminished for quite some time—a reason not to cower, but to meet challenges.

It appears the preceding generation is applying pressure on youths to meet criteria that just cannot be met by everyone. Yet, why would they do this? Assuming they wish for their children to lead equal or better lives than their own, perhaps they feel that what was formerly the status quo was sufficient to ensure a happy life. Given the troubled and overcomplicated lives youths now lead, I can’t help but wonder if parents have something there. Until we witness the majority of youths leading happier lives—not drunken euphoria, which reveals quite the opposite—we could take a lesson from those with life experience, those who proved they could navigate troubled waters and come out with some measure of success and contentment. Some may feel parental pressure and resent it. At the same time, the fact that people resent this advice in early life could very well be the impetus to heed it for their own future benefit.

Thus, there is a fundamental question to settle: Should parents’ criticisms be heeded if the world inherited by their children is radically different from the one in which they grew up, or is this difference rooted in children’s hesitation to heed their parents’ counsel in the first place? Unfortunately, the answer isn’t so simple and thus, must be saved for another day. In the meantime, get over it.

This year, as part of Allies Week, comedian Heather Gold came to Gettysburg College and performed for a group of students who didn’t seem to know quite what to expect from the self-proclaimed “love child of Sarah Silverman and Rachel Maddow.” Equal parts raunchy, serious, awkward, and inspirational, her routine opened doors for the LGBTQQ community here on campus and opened the eyes of everyone less aware. It was more than just cracking jokes, mocking politicians, and making fun of people in the audience—although there was plenty of that too—it was an introduction to the life of Heather Gold, an extraordinary person.

She started by telling us about herself: what it was like growing up a Jew in Niagara Falls (which was a town built for a weekend’s stay, not nineteen years of life), going to Yale (which only had, like, one gay bar and it was scary) and then law school (she only went so she wouldn’t get kicked out of the country); her first kiss with a boy and her first kiss with a girl; her struggle to get pregnant and her recent divorce; her totally embarrassing crush on Sarah Palin. I could go on—she talked for three hours, although only a few (myself included) stayed the whole time.

Heather Gold saw the problem with Gettysburg College students after only a few slightly uncomfortable chuckles at some of her funniest, most queer material—we’re all, apparently, repressed, and need to get laid as soon as possible. She had gotten a chance to meet some of the members of Allies before the show, and they must have told her how difficult it was to be openly gay/bisexual on this campus (although it is surely true in many other places as well), particularly when it comes to meeting people, because by the end of the night (after nearly two hours of comedy, stories, and general chitchat) she was openly advocating for everyone to explore their queer side. She went around and asked everyone if they had ever been attracted to a member of the opposite sex, and, if so, would they consider a more serious relationship.

Only she asked it in a much more blunt and to-the-point sort of way. Which may sound terrifying to some, but I found it incredibly liberating. So many people tiptoe around the issue of sexuality—it’s refreshing to meet someone who is willing to step right up to the plate and be direct about it. And she listened to everyone’s answers, and she accepted all of them, and she understood—not without a fair amount of innuendo and jocularity, which lightened what could have been a very tense atmosphere otherwise.

I think, for at least those fifteen or so people who stayed three hours to talk to Heather Gold—not even listen to or laugh at, but engage in authentic conversation with—her direct approach, her humor, and her interest in every individual was a welcome reprieve from an otherwise generally repressive atmosphere. The Safe Zones for the LGBTQQ community around campus are wonderful, there’s no denying that—but the fact that they have to exist at all is unfortunately not complimentary towards the attitude of the average Gettysburg College student. Heather Gold is someone who deserves the chance to speak to more than just an audience of people seeking acceptance: she needs to speak to those who deny it, because if anyone can raise awareness and support for the  LGBTQQ (which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning, in case you didn’t know) among us, she can. Her confidence in her sexuality and her own willingness to confront sexuality in others spread a little to everyone who saw her speak last Thursday: now it’s our job to pass it on a little further.

For more information about Heather Gold and the work she does advocating LGBTQQ rights, along with other fun stuff visit her website, http://heathergold.com, or look her up on Facebook.

It seems like the world is becoming more and more apathetic.

What I mean is this: it just seems like people have stopped caring about the world around them. The startling obliviousness to what is happening in the world is shockingly vast. How do we expect to be the leaders of the future if we don’t really care how we got to be where we are?

Let me just say, that there are strong-willed, independent people who are taking charge and making a difference as we speak, but how much do even those people really care? Do we perform acts of charity because we believe it is our duty to help those less fortunate, or are we doing it as a means of self advancement, because it sure looks good on a résumé?

I’m not trying to indict the general populous for being blissfully ignorant of the “big picture”. In fact, I would include myself in the grand masses of people who are naïve because of a general distaste for taking the efforts to maintain a current awareness of the world. Sure, I am trying to take steps to change that; I recently subscribed to TIME Magazine in hopes that I would become a more well-informed citizen. However, I would be lying if I said I didn’t flip past the articles that disinterested me without a second thought.

Is that the issue though? Is it just that we are disinterested in certain things, which leads to a general apathy to them? If that is the case, why should we feel guilty for not caring? In an age where information is widely accessible and often in the form of 140 characters or less, it takes less effort than ever to keep up with the most basic of world events, but we still have an utter dearth of information stored in our endless capacities.

Our attention span has degraded to the point where anything longer than a 30 second commercial fails to capture our interests. Information must be spoon-fed to us, in small amounts, often veiled behind humor. The rise in popularity of political satire from the likes of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert quite nicely coincides with the public’s reliance on these types of sources for information on political happenings.

But is that the issue? Is it that the proverbial “Information Age” has given us an alternative, which has led us to finding other more appealing ways of spending our time or gathering information? Or has the information we seek simply transformed?

Why is it that when most students of nearly any age get on the computer, they are almost always eventually destined for Facebook, regardless of how determined they are to churn out a paper in record speed? Perhaps the innate nature of human socialization satiates our curiosity for information more suitably than reading the newspaper (even though you can find those on the internet nowadays too).

This facet of human nature is more primitive, I believe, than that of the desire for information which may seem irrelevant in daily life. Relevancy of information plays a major role in what we seek to obtain. Both types of information seeking are tied closely our  innate curiosity, but I think that this new age of accessibility has reverted us somewhat to a more primitive, though paradoxically more technologically advanced, era in human nature.

Perhaps, in my naiveté, I am simply romanticizing times I was never able to experience. Maybe my thoughts of the “olden days” being filled with people who had no internet and so read the paper to pass the time is just a mirage I am creating in my mind to explain my disillusionment. Perhaps this thoughts arose because we are college students, and our lives are all about instant gratification and living one day at a time. Maybe this informational pandemic is really just a sad generalization that isn’t really a widespread issue, but a simple problem I have been fabricating to explain some deeper issue within myself.

Regardless, I have posed many questions in this article. They are not meant to incite a newfound excitement for reading the news, nor are they meant to invoke guilt. They are simply meant to make people think about why we are where we are. I know, this is way more than 140 characters, but I’d love to have some answers.

And you know, I’m sure there is some research out there that I could use to solve all of these questions pretty easily, but I guess I  really don’t care.

Last week, the City University of New York (CUNY), one of the largest public university systems in the country, voted on a total campus-wide ban on cigarette smoking.   This ban will make all outdoor areas smoke-free, even open playing fields and greens.  According to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, CUNY is not alone, as over 400 colleges have considered similar bans.

Some may find it impossible to imagine now, but in our parents’ and grandparents’ days, smoking was an almost ubiquitous habit.  My dad has told me stories of how his junior-high mixers were routinely interrupted by smoke breaks, when kids as young as twelve would go outside and light up.  We have seen films or real footage of people smoking in places like grocery stores, office buildings, and even the NASA mission control room.  These days, outdoor areas are really the only place left where smoking is allowed.

The knowledge that smoking is harmful to one’s health is almost universally accepted now, and I understand why many would be concerned about second-hand smoking.  But my purpose is not to debate the negative effects of smoking.  This concerns the right of a person to engage in a legal habit.

Here at Gettysburg, we have “Smoker’s Corner” boxes outside of the dorms and some of the academic buildings.  As a non-smoker myself, I can’t comment on how convenient these areas are.   But it would be ridiculous to deprive smokers of their last safe-zone.  In outdoor areas, the smoke readily dissipates, and people worried about smelling it can just walk away.

No one should be embarrassed by having a friend, relative or acquaintance who smokes.  The decision to take up smoking is an individual’s choice. If you are concerned about the health of someone you care about, discuss it with them with a rational and open mind.  I refuse to subscribe to the perception that someone is inherently a better person just because they don’t smoke cigarettes.  A campus-wide smoking ban on this campus, like the one at CUNY, would be unnecessary, unfair, and wrong.

My apologies for the delay in publishing this article. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse decided to hurl every disease known to man at me in the past month. Nevertheless, here it is.

Tissues, humble pie and strait-jackets were the order of the night at Democratic headquarters across the country on Election Day, as Republicans dominated in House, Senate, and gubernatorial elections. What went wrong? How about, what went right? For America, everything.

As I indulged in a delicious foot-long hero sandwich and some purifying, overpriced bottled water that Republicans for some strange reason had not been able to poison with Arsenic, I watched with absolute delight as the map of America was enveloped in a sea of red—America was bleeding freedom. Even more gratifying was channel-surfing between cable news networks (CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc.), gazing at the constipated faces peppering the television screen.

I was most impressed with CNN. They had not one, but two, tables of panelists who could not figure out what was going on. I sympathized with Bill Bennett, who was flanked by James Carville and Paul Begala, whose foreheads collectively took up half the TV screen; their brains didn’t fare so well. Soledad O’Brien looked like she was trying to solve the Riddle of the Sphinx, while Candy Crowley simply looked like the Sphinx itself. And was it just me, or did someone forget to recharge Wolf Blitzer’s batteries? The most animated thing on CNN was their interactive election board, and even that failed to cooperate…repeatedly.

MSNBC was entertaining, as always. For a network that spends half its time mocking Fox News, MSNBC was about as fair and balanced as a Socialist Party convention on crack. Chris Matthews became so deranged that he started interrupting himself. I can’t be certain, but the thrill up his leg seemed to turn into an inflammatory case of hemorrhoids—not that there’s another kind. (If it’s any consolation, though, Chris Matthews’ constipated countenance gave me thrills up both my legs.) He, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann (whose recently disclosed Democratic campaign contributions, against network policy, might qualify him for his own Worst Person in the World) spent the night agreeing with one another like three guys in a rowboat with their backs to a sixty-foot tsunami, telling each other it’s a nice day.

Fox News’ coverage, needless to say—which is why I’m going to say it—was the converse of every aforementioned network’s; it was nowhere near as amusing to watch.

[Honorable mention: The most entertaining part of the night was Carl Paladino’s “concession speech,” in which he said to Andrew Cuomo—with baseball bat in hand—that his bat was a metaphor for the people of New York: Cuomo could either bring it with him or risk it being wielded against him. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaCEi52zs1I)]

As these Einsteins pondered the election results all night long only to come to the astounding conclusion that Americans were ticked with Democrats screwing the country for the past two years, I thought about lessons everyone could take from the midterm elections.

1)      Hero sandwiches—stuffed with delicious cold cuts, for all you vegans out there—are delicious.

2)      Chris Matthews has unipolar disorder.

3)       Nancy Pelosi is E.T. with hair. (If only she would phone home.)

4)      Harry Reid is a mouse with glasses, living off your cheese.

5)      Keith Olbermann is his own Worst Person in the World.

Then I thought about serious lessons.

1) Race doesn’t matter. Success and failure do. Intellectually honest people would want a great President who happens to be of a specific race, not someone perceived as a great President because he is of a specific race. Policies are what matter. Put in a candidate with rainbow skin who can secure prosperity and preserve the nation and its laws and intellectually honest individuals will raise no objections. In 2008, people voted for teleprompters, “Yes We Can,” “Hope,” “Change,” and the title of First Black President. As a result, the nation has fallen off a cliff. The same people who preach—under the guise of “tolerance” and “openness”—not judging others by the colors of their skin are the first to put racial labels on people; they’re hypocrites and should not be feared, but defeated in elections…which has happened. How many people get jobs just by showing up to a job interview and deifying themselves, without submitting a résuméé—without being judged based upon past records? Why, then, has the election to the highest office in the land come to that?

2) The general public is fickle. They change sides when they are affected and lack the prescience to consistently portend their own demise or diminishment. They settle for what sounds good to them at the moment, moves their hearts, and often, dulls their brains. People like President Obama, who can take seven sides of an issue in the same speech (Remember his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004?), thus appeal to them, for there is always something with which they can agree. Panem et circenses (“bread and circuses”) was the calling card of Roman politicians: keep the people fed and entertained and they will support you. Today, it’s sophistry and theatrics; and Obama, a former community organizer, knows exactly how to utilize both in his pathetic, but effective, pandering to the masses.  Lesson to be learned: sometimes Cicero is just a used-car salesman…or a community organizer.

3) Republicans, don’t squander this opportunity. After dismal showings in the last two major elections, Republicans have momentum and a second chance at political life. The last time you had any congressional majority whatsoever, you caved to Democrats (who acted like the majority party) and went along for the “bipartisan” ride and the country suffered, is suffering, and will suffer in the years to come because of it. Don’t be intimidated by an empty suit—even if he is from Chicago.

4) Obama is scared, but determined. Watching his post-election press conference, one could tell the President had his fill of humble pie. By no means will he willingly concede anything, however; on the contrary, his arrogance will make him less compromising and more assertive. This is the challenge that faces Republicans. May they not succumb.

5) 100% of statistics are false.

A quick rundown of where we are. (Please refrain from jumping out a window.)

-National Debt: $13.7 trillion

-National Debt % of GDP: about 94%

-Individual share of the National Debt: greater than $44,000

-Federal Budget Deficit of this year alone after 10 months: nearing $1.6 trillion

-Unemployment Rate: 9.6% in October (it has exceeded 10% in prior months), after the President repeatedly claimed it wouldn’t exceed 8% (You mean a politician lied?)

Mr. President, you’ve made us hope for change more than ever.

Alcohol is consumed by teenagers everywhere, despite the restriction on consuming it until the age of 21. For that reason, measures are often taken to attempt to hide activities or parties that involve drinking. In these unrestrained and hidden parties, teenagers are free to drink as much and as often as they please, and they do so far earlier and to a much greater extent than the law would permit. They play drinking games which can lead to dangerous levels of consumption and make decisions that may not be safe because of the influence of alcohol.

This is not to say that every person who drinks is a raging alcoholic with a serious binge drinking problem. In fact, most people are social drinkers who consume no more alcohol than they can handle and do not drink simply to get drunk. This piece, then, is not aimed at them, but rather those who have developed unsafe tendencies because of the influences they had on them since they began drinking.

It is my belief that the drinking age restriction (the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984) should be repealed. What I have said previously about drinking doesn’t quite lend itself to such an opinion, but I would disagree with that assertion. It is my opinion that, if teenagers don’t have to hide their consumption, it is more likely that there will be guidance present to remain a positive influence on the activities taking place. What I mean is, if teenagers don’t need to hide that they are drinking, it may be more likely that there will be a parent or guardian around who will help monitor the consumption and ensure safety. Not only that, but there will no longer be threats of parties getting busted because of underage consumption. As long as you behave well otherwise, there is no reason to fear retribution for your actions.

Here at Gettysburg, even, fraternities often host parties where alcohol is served to minors, and the fear of getting busted for it is immense because of the penalties imposed. We can’t ignore that this happens, and it will continue to happen, so why not change the law to be more congruent with society? DPS and other officials will become a regulatory force rather than an enforcement agency, and fraternities will no longer need to be concerned about getting caught but rather keeping people safe.

Nowadays, someone passing out or making destructive decisions while consuming too much alcohol would be hidden because of the fear of punishment. Eliminate that fear, and proper medical help can be given and no one will have to worry about getting points or having a disciplinary record. Law breeds contempt, and the drinking age simply causes people to hide alcohol consumption because of the fears, which means that the law actually makes drinking more unsafe, rather than rectifying the issue.

Some may argue that people will still have hidden basement parties, and that people don’t really want to party with a parent or guardian around, which I fully understand. However, there is a counter to that as well. If the drinking age is eliminated, kids will be brought up in an environment where drinking and alcohol is accepted, not taboo, and they will be taught safe practices and appropriate levels of consumption. Simply being educated on something at an early age will help establish the foundations for a safe future.

Though, as I said before, most people are safe about their drinking habits, so this is aimed at removing the punishments for inevitable underage consumption. Fear of the law alone will not deter teenagers, as we can easily see, so why not legalize it and allow those who need help to get it (without getting in trouble)? And for those who are responsible, why not allow them to continue to enjoy alcohol if they are smart about their limits? Personally, I do not drink alcohol at all, but I feel like the law should not prevent others of any age from doing so. For the reasons outlined above, we need to repeal this useless law and allow the freedoms and knowledge of alcohol consumption be our regulators, rather than the police force, who have much more important things to deal with than busting a bunch of teenagers.

In the end, the law is simply counter-intuitive to its original purposes. Teenagers will continue to drink and always have, so let’s begin a new era of responsible consumption without the fear of punishment, especially when someone may need serious medical help.

Cheers to that.