Presidential legacies are often tied to the famous legislation passed by the commander-in-chief. Lyndon Baines Johnson is inextricably tied to the Civil Rights Act, FDR to the New Deal package of federal stimulus, and Barack Obama tied his legacy early on to the Affordable Care Act. A president’s legacy, however, lives on not only in the halls of Congress but in courtrooms across America. Through judicial appointments to federal courts across the land, a president can influence law for decades to come. With one term gone, Obama’s judicial legacy is unfinished. Without a firmly declared judicial philosophy, the President has eschewed riskier tactics in favor of conventional ones that have tied up judicial appointments in bureaucracy and an oppositional Congress—continuing the trend of Democratic apathy towards judicial appointments as Republicans have made them a noted priority. To better understand Barack Obama’s court-related actions, however, let’s first take a more concrete look at former presidents’ judicial footprints.

Take Richard Nixon for example. Although he infamously left Washington with his reputation in tatters, his influence was seen on the Supreme Court for the next thirty years. Nixon’s four appointees—Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, William Rehnquist, and Lewis Powell—included two consecutive chief justices (Burger and Rehnquist) and included the famous ruling in Roe v. Wade (where both Burger and Blackmun were in the assenting majority that women had a right to an abortion). Rehnquist’s longevity on the court arguably paved the way for the appointment of John Roberts – Rehnquist served through eight years of the Clinton administration and through George W. Bush’s first term before passing away, enabling a Republican president to nominate his successor.

In replacing Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor with Samuel Alito and John Roberts, George W. Bush cemented his own judicial legacy by moving the Court farther to the right. He replaced a moderate who sided with liberals on key cases like Casey and Grutter with Alito, whose votes have been solidly in line with originalist thinkers Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. The younger Bush famously uttered that he expected judges to “strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench” and established a clear judicial theory for his administration. In addition to Alito and Roberts,  Bush appointed 62 judges to United States Circuit Courts of Appeals and 261 judges to United States district courts over the course of his presidency.

The Obama Administration’s position on the issue has been a stark departure from his predecessor. Historically, Republicans have been more active in appointing judges to the courts than Democrats, prioritizing it as a means of advancing their policy agenda. Through his first term, Obama had appointed two members to the Supreme Court (Sonia Sotamayor and Elena Kagan) but only 30 to circuit courts and 141 to district courts. By this time in their presidencies, Bush and Clinton had appointed 169 and 167 judges to circuit courts, respectively. Obama has pursued the common practice of allowing senators in states with vacant openings to nominate individuals before reviewing or nominating his own, something that Bush disregarded while in office. Also unlike Bush, Obama has waited for the American Bar Association to vet each nominee in advance of nomination to the Senate. Bush, who preferred to have his nominees approved by the independent Federalist Society—whose criteria were more aligned with Bush’s own legal philosophies—could often push nominees through the appointment process quicker and was very successful during his presidency in this regard.

As he heads into his second term in office, one of the more puzzling parts of Obama’s presidency has been his position on legal issues. Despite being a constitutional heavyweight in many regards—the President was the editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review in law school before going on to teach at the University of Chicago Law School—Obama has yet to issue a definitive judicial philosophy. Perhaps the most notable of his achievements is the diversity of his nominations. He is the first to nominate an openly gay black man (William Thomas) and nearly half of his nominees have been women, with 19 percent being African-American (versus 23 and seven percent, respectively, for Bush). He talks about ‘judicial empathy’ and the need for judges of all walks of life to be in the courthouse in order to consider the effect of their rulings on everyday citizens, yet the meaning of ‘judicial empathy’ is ill-defined and unclear. Senator Orrin Hatch derogatorily referred to Obama’s philosophies as a “code” for liberal activism.

As Jeffrey Toobin notes in The New Yorker, there are currently 74 open spots on the district and circuit courts and the Obama Administration has only submitted names for 32 of those. While there has been increased resistance to the nomination process, and according to the Federal Judicial Center, Obama’s confirmation percentage of 80% is lower than either of the previous two Presidents, it is also true that Obama’s unusual means of nomination has scuttled many a nominee. Obama was reluctant to nominate during the initial stages of his Presidency—during which he held majorities in both houses of Congress—because he wanted to keep the legislative focus on his crown jewel, the Affordable Care Act. Greg Craig, Obama’s legal counsel during that time, said, “We were looking for mainstream, noncontroversial candidates to nominate.” Obama’s nominations have similarly been on average four years older than Bush’s, limiting their influence on American legislation in positions where they hold lifetime terms. The American Bar Association has torpedoed the candidacy of 14 different candidates, further slowing the process.

Obama enters his second term without the security blanket in Congress with which he entered his first and any nominee to the Senate will be a source of contention. The polarization of the appointment process—especially to the Supreme Court—has led to constant filibusters over nominees and divisions on the Senate floor along party lines. ‘Borking’ a candidate – the name given to the process of dismissing a candidate because of extremist political or legal views – has become more and more common and even Harriet Miers, a Bush candidate for the vacancy later filled with the Alito, was dismissed by Republican leadership for not being firmly conservative enough.

The past two appointments to the Supreme Court faced a new source of opposition—the NRA. In ‘scoring’ the nomination, the organization made it extremely clear to senators that they would receive low marks on the NRA’s personal scoring sheet by voting for either Kagan or Sotamayor. This, despite Kagan never having voiced any opposition to gun control in her career as a litigator and as dean of Harvard Law School. After hunting for the first time with Antonin Scalia, Kagan commented that she found it “kind of fun.”

Kagan’s case is a good illustration of the faults inherent in the current nomination process and the polarization of what should be the appointment of independent legislative minds to the nation’s highest court. With Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 79) likely to retire this term, and Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia into their late 70s (both are 76), Obama may have the opportunity to make two or three nominees to the Supreme Court before this term is up. Names like Diane Wood, who was considered twice for the earlier appointments but both times dismissed from consideration, will return to the national spotlight. It is important that in the years to come that Obama clearly articulate his legal philosophy; it is key for the Democratic Party that he put a greater emphasis on the appointment of judicial nominees in his second term. With the eight years of Clinton and now a second term for Obama, Democrats can make it 16 of 24 years of presidential appointments to the legal system. With the current composition of the federal courts (before Clinton, 12 of the previous 16 years saw a Republican in the Oval Office), Obama’s selection of nominees will be key in shaping legislative policy for years to come. The current division of the Supreme Court—two four-justice liberal and conservative coalitions with Anthony Kennedy leaning to the right in the middle—could be changed drastically with the appointment of two or three young liberal justices, who would join the 52-year old Kagan and 58-year old Sotamayor for the next two or three decades. If the Affordable Care Act decision this summer reminded America of the power of the American judicial system, perhaps the beginning of the new term will cement a Democratic commitment to it.

Sports journalist Rob Parker, a former Detroit News and Detroit Free Press columnist, is no stranger to controversy, so when ESPN suspended him after comments he had made regarding Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III, it was not all that surprising.

However, for ESPN calling the opinions Parker shared as “inappropriate,” the network also did not shy away from practically looping the “First Take” snip-it in which Parker made the disparaging remarks. ESPN later said it took “appropriate disciplinary measures” with “personnel responsible” for airing and re-airing the comments.

Although just 18 days into what was initially said to be a 30-day suspension, news broke Jan. 8 that ESPN would not be renewing Parker’s contract. A spokesperson from ESPN issued the following statement.

“Rob Parker’s contract expired at year’s end. Evaluating our needs and his work, including his recent RG III comments, we decided not to renew his deal.”

It all started at a Redskins press conference back in December where Griffin stated that he wanted to be known for his talents, not because he was a black quarterback. His comment was in response to a reporter’s question of why he wasn’t allowing himself to be defined as an African American quarterback.

“For me, it was just… you don’t want to be defined by the color of your skin,” Griffin said. “You want to be defined by your work ethic, the person that you are, your character, your personality. That’s what I strive to go out and do. I’m an African American in America. That’ll never change. But I don’t have to be defined by that.

“I understand that they’re (the fans) excited that their quarterback is an African American. I appreciate them for being fans, and not just fans because I’m African American.

“They’re (fans and media) going to try to compare… you know, we always try to find similarities in life; no matter what it is. So they’re always going to try to put you in a box with other African American quarterbacks—Vick, Newton, Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon. Warren Moon and Doug Williams really didn’t run that much.

“I think that’s the negative stereotype when it comes to African American quarterbacks that most of us just run. Those guys threw it around. I like to think I can throw it around a little bit. That’s the goal. Just to go out… not try to prove anybody wrong, but just let your talents speak for themselves.”

Parker’s role is of analyst on “First Take” and he was asked to respond to Griffin’s statements that he would rather be defined by his work ethic than by his skin color. Parker insinuated that the remark would have many black people questioning the quarterback’s “blackness.”

“My question, which is just a straight honest question, is he a brother or is he a cornball brother?”

When asked to elaborate by the program’s host, Parker said, “He’s black, he kind of does his thing, but he’s not really down with the cause – he’s not one of us. He’s kind of black, but he’s not really like the kind of guy you’d want to hang out with.

“I want to find (out) about him. I don’t know because I keep hearing these things. We all know he has a white fiancée. Then there was all this talk about he’s a Republican, which there’s no information at all. I’m just trying to dig deeper into why he has an issue. Because we did find out with Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods was like, ‘I’ve got black skin, but don’t call me black.’ So people wondered about Tiger Woods.”

Parker admits Griffin’s braids do make him appear urban. “Wearing braids, is… you’re a brother. You’re a brother if you got braids on.”

He was suspended the next day by ESPN.

Parker has long been a contributor to WDIV-TV’s Local 4 and has also written for its companion website ClickonDetroit.com. It appears Parker will remain in his occasional role as sports commentator, although there’s a possibility that can change.

Local 4 news anchor Devin Scillian invited Parker to be a guest on his Sunday morning news program, “Flashpoint.” It was Parker’s first one-on-one interview since his controversial remarks were made. The South End had the opportunity to get Scillian’s thoughts on this whole controversy.

“’Flashpoint” has, over the years, continued with a running conversation about race,” Scillian said in an online interview with The South End. “My friendship with Rob along with his occasional freelance work for WDIV made him a natural (guest) I thought.

“I’ve known Rob for a long time and he has always enjoyed saying the controversial thing. But that one left me a little dumbfounded, not only because it was a really damaging thing to say from a career standpoint but also because it felt like a kind of truth serum – that it was showing me a part of Rob I didn’t know existed.

“At first, I thought it was the only thing ESPN could do (regarding Parker’s suspension). But after hearing that the producers apparently knew what he was going to say I felt that was just ESPN covering their fannies. Seems ESPN bore some responsibility, too.”

When asked if his opinion of Parker’s comments changed after his “Flashpoint” interview, Scillian said.

“Well, Rob didn’t exactly run away from his comments. He did try to put them in a different context (that they were the feelings of others ‘in the barbershop’ and not necessarily his own views) but I was a little surprised that Rob didn’t just say, ‘Well, that was a stupid thing for me to say.’ From a strict PR standpoint, fessing up and apologizing seems to be the fastest way to get something to die off.”

Parker said in his “Flashpoint” interview, “The one thing I’m proud about being on that show, ‘First Take’, for the last six years, is that we are willing to tackle a lot of stuff that most shows won’t even touch or even discuss. I think it’s important. I think we’ve done it in a really good way. This is the first time, really, we were in hot water after dealing with such an issue.”

Though Parker’s apology for his comments appeared on Twitter, as of Jan. 9, he had posted no comments on his profile regarding his contract not being renewed (likely because his handle is @RobParkerESPN).

Les Miserables is a faithful adaptation of both Victor Hugo’s novel and Claude-Michel Schonberg’s musical, but also a film of missed opportunities. The story concerns the plight of the convict-turned-Christian Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) who is hunted by the persistent Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe). The story progresses through seventeen years, climaxing with the 1832 June Rebellion in Paris.

Director Tom Hooper’s adaptation of Les Miserables is certain to appease the legions of musical theater fans who will be happy to see veteran Broadway heartthrobs Aaron Tveit and Samantha Barks. Hooper’s adaptation will also satisfy movie-goers who crave sentimentality—after all, it is impossible to leave the theater without teary eyes and a few sniffles. However, Hooper’s film will not leave a lasting impression in the film community.

It attempts to reconcile three different mediums of telling the same story: novel, musical theater and now film. However, it caters too heavily to its roots and fails to successfully create its own space on screen. Hooper misses an opportunity to provide spectacular and cohesive visuals. In addition, the actors tip-toe along the fourth wall, sometimes acting within the world of Les Miserables and other times orienting themselves around the camera to give piercing looks into the audience. Hooper’s film was simply an adaptation of the stage musical and manifested no new meaning or craft from the familiar story.

Just because Les Miserables is not the best film, though, does not mean it is a bad film adaptation. Hooper is wise to use the makeup department to his advantage, creating a highly dramatic, yet genuine, metamorphosis of Jean Valjean over the seventeen years shown in the film. In addition, while the setting as a whole is underwhelming, certain scenes shine with an epic glory that only film can hold, especially the initial images depicting a crew of prisoners hauling in a ship. These moments of grandeur are fleeting, but clearly the work of a seasoned director.

In the fashion of many audiences before me, it is impossible to go without applauding Anne Hathaway’s performance as Fantine. Hathaway emerges as a contemporary Audrey Hepburn, simultaneously embodying both beauty and power in the framework of a fragile character. Crowe provides a wholly-convincing performance of Javert’s steadfastness to the law amidst inner turmoil, even if his singing isn’t up to par. However, he lacks chemistry with Jackman, whose performance is deserving of, at best, an “A” for effort. The Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter) bring humorous interludes to the sob-fest, but the humor is owed more to the lyrics rather than their acting. The best character of all is the ensemble, which, if it were utilized better, could have provided much-needed breaks between a seemingly unending string of deaths.

Hooper’s Les Miserables is worth seeing for the shining performances and momentary glimpses of filmic potential, but the audience should not expect to glean more meaning or experience than they would from viewing the stage production. However, given that Les Miserables is a fantastic musical in and of itself, the movie is a gem in a season full mostly of 3D re-releases and bad Billy Crystal comedies.

Is our government broken? If the question sounds dramatic, allow me to elucidate.

The most recently adjourned Congressional body, steeped in fringe politics and partisan interests, could barely perform its most fundamental civic duty of voting on and passing laws. It was the most inefficient and unproductive Congress ever, compromising the least to consider the fewest bills, while enacting even fewer — many of which were routine or mundane matters like reapproving administrative procedures or formally naming post offices. Meanwhile, the U.S. Postal Service hangs on the brink of bankruptcy.

A Senate that is constitutionally sanctioned to form its own rules and procedures has embraced obstructionism to influence lawmaking in the form of the filibuster. So long as someone keeps talking — and boy do these senators ever love to hear themselves talk — no one has to worry about actually passing laws. The Senate does not have to do its job.

Congress allegedly serves ordinary citizens in matters of law, but our representatives have focused mostly on promoting themselves, kowtowing to deep pockets and special interests in a perpetual effort to stay in office. Lobbying has become a $3 billion-a-year industry with a revolving door plainly situated between the public and private sectors.

Even if a cabal of billionaires were ultimately unable to purchase the presidency for their fanatical free-market darling, it is no less assuring that President Barack Obama’s greatest financial supporters — including Hollywood and the banking industry — benefited from considerable tax breaks embedded in the recent band-aid legislation addressing the fiscal cliff. Meanwhile, taxes increased for just about everyone, while essentially nothing was done to curb an unsustainable, decade-long federal spending spree. (Congress says they will sort all that out in two months. What reason could we possibly have not to believe them?)

Tax breaks for corporations are one thing, but exoneration for clear criminal activity is another entirely. I could face life in prison for distributing cocaine just once at Dartmouth. British bank HSBC knowingly helped Mexican drug cartels launder billions of dollars through the U.S. banking system over the course of a decade. The Department of Justice slapped the bank with a hefty fine but refused to pursue criminal charges, citing fears of destabilizing the global financial system. First they were too big to fail. Now they are too big to jail.

While innocent moviegoers and schoolchildren are gunned down, our nation defers to a vaguely-worded passage in a 200-year-old document, as if our nation’s founders had prophesized the development and proliferation of lethally accurate, high-powered hunting rifles when crafting the Bill of Rights. A similarly reflexive concession to the preceding amendment prompted our most powerful judicial body to sanction unlimited, anonymous campaign donations and to defend the Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful spew over the privacy and respect of fallen soldiers.

If our legislative framework is failing us, Constitutional chicanery has often served as our primary mode of societal progress. The federal government was entirely powerless against nefarious private interests until it used a liberal reading of the commerce and elastic clauses to justify an expansion of powers. And while we surely require a formal framework to organize an American polity, maybe it’s time, after more than two centuries, that we reevaluate or even renovate that framework. Maybe instead of jury-rigging legal arguments to stay in line with some constitutional precedent, we need to reconsider the Constitution itself.

I acknowledge that mine is an audacious suggestion. To be clear, I fully appreciate the ingenuity of our Founders’ creation and do not propose a complete overhaul. But the idea that the social, cultural and political environment in which our Constitution was created would yield solutions that remain eternally relevant in an increasingly complex and interconnected world is absurd. The Founders may have known this — Article V allows for the ratification of individual constitutional amendments and more radically, the formation of a Constitutional Convention to propose and enact multiple amendments at once.

The need for such a convention and a comprehensive reformulation of a systemically problematic political system is inevitable. That may come two or two thousand years in the future, but in light of recent events, the conversation is warranted right now.

For the first time since 1996, no former baseball player will be inducted into the Professional Baseball Hall of Fame. 

The stigma of steroid use that has plagued a once-valiant American pastime, has left the fans, the players, the writers and the aspiring players without a hero. 

Whether through actual admission, hearsay or public opinion, none of the members on the list of players, who performed at the highest echelon of their sport, will have their achievements on the field etched in baseball’s history book.

While Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are often seen as the face of the Steroids Era of baseball, it is disheartening just how easy it was for steroids to infect an entire institution that was once so admired. 

With names like Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams, who inspired so many young people to dream of baseball stardom, it is sad that all of the qualified names are now replaced with an asterisk. 

There is no getting around the fact that steroid use is cheating. 

Every player that admitted or was caught using steroids knew what the drugs would do and they should have known the consequences. 

The problem is, to what extent do we question whether any player’s accomplishments in baseball were products of mere athleticism and dedication or products of steroid use? Now that steroids have become as much a part of the game as peanuts and cracker jacks, is it right to ostracize any one who reached greatness between 1990 and the present? 

One thing that we should remember is that steroids can only do so much. 

If a person off the street took steroids, they would not magically be able to hit 762 homeruns like Barry Bonds did. They would not be able to reach 3,060 hits like Craig Biggio nor would they come close to the 354 wins and seven Cy Young awards that Roger Clemens reached during his 23-year career. 

Of the top five names that were eligible to be inducted, every one of them made multiple All-Star appearances. There were 10 league MVP awards between them, seven Cy Young awards, 12 Gold Glove awards and more than 2,000 homeruns. The talent and the statistics that this group put up are unquestionable. 

The only caveat is that they played during a time when the threat of steroid use was a greater story than accomplishments on the field.

If we let the steroid era of baseball deter us from appreciating the accomplishments that the players reached because popular opinion dictates they cheated, then it will have ruined the game forever. We cannot allow the cynicism of assumptions and accusations to cloud the fact that this group of players performed at an astonishing level.

I wasn’t particularly popular in grade school. Consumed with academics, I disengaged from the social hierarchy, not consciously, but because there were always other things to worry about. I floated around the social ladder but never stayed on one rung too long.

In grade school, there were fewer social niches to inhabit, and accruing popularity points was a full-time job. In middle and high school, everyone was keenly aware of where everyone else fit in the social landscape, and they were lying if they told you otherwise. Everyone was dying to reach an imaginary social ideal built by the students. Perception was everything.

College has been a breath of fresh air for me. I have many friends who classify themselves as nerds, and they all seem to report the same feelings: The majority of grade school was a criminal waste of time and a frustrating crapshoot. College is less isolating, more rewarding, and generally a better place to be. Of course, there was the occasional teacher who made things worthwhile but, in general, the monotony of American schools brings no end in misery for the classic nerd.

For the nerd, self-achievement is everything. In his 2003 essay “Why Nerds are Unpopular,” Paul Graham explains that nerds don’t just want to be smart and do well in school. “[I wanted] to design beautiful rockets, or to write well, or to understand how to program computers. In general, to make great things.”

“You have no idea the hell I climbed out of to come here,” an acquaintance humored me on his admission to the Computer-Based Honors Program at Alabama. He was a quirky, intelligent guy whom I often spotted eating alone in the dining halls my freshman year. He was a natural introvert, and he liked it. He could do what he pleased in college, pursuing a major he loved within a culture that rewarded difference and ingenuity.

There is more of an incentive to be a hard-working, motivated, intellectually engaged, self-directed student in college. “Nerd” is no longer a derogatory term. Preferring knowledge to social dominance is not a bad thing. For the nerds, it does get better. You just have to wait it out and have enough self-confidence to find your niche.

Over the break tragedies uprooted a passionate issue in this country: gun control. Anti-gun enthusiasts are calling for immediate action, whereas pro-gun enthusiasts are attempting to create a “Gun Appreciation Day.” There’s even a home page for the event.

Last November, right before the break, we published an editorial offering our two cents on weapons. In reflection — on the shootings in the Clackamas Town Center in Happy Valley, in Newtown, Conn., at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and in New York where firefighters were lured to a burning house and car only to be shot upon — we still agree with what we said.

Guns have a place and time, people have the right to own them, but crazy people will be crazy. The guns aren’t the problem; the people behind them are. So naturally, we should outlaw people — or something realistic.

It’s true, President Obama is prepared to use executive orders to apply restrictions on weapons in this country — if he has to. It’s also true the plans being discussed limit which guns are accessible to civilians, decreasing the amount a magazine holds, banning Internet sales of ammunition and mandating federal background checks. Though, like everything left up to our elected officials, nothing has been decided on a countrywide level.

Although Congress is taking their sweet-potato time, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo made a plea to the Congress on Wednesday to step it up. He’s also pushing for New York to be the first state to reform laws on gun control.

But why is it so difficult for our nation to come together and work on this very serious issue?

On Tuesday, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart made the point that we can’t come together on this issue because gun advocates are afraid the government will extend their sticky fingers into our homes and take away our guns. Like Gov. Cuomo said, this is not about the government taking away our guns.

We own guns. We have gone shooting and hunting. We like our guns, and we don’t want anyone to take them away. These facts, however, do not inhibit our ability to see what’s in front of us. Americans need to understand there are unstable people willing to march into a shopping mall, lure firefighters to a fire or even barge into an elementary school with deadly intent.

We don’t believe taking all guns away will help — that would only lead to drawn out regulations on bows, knives or hammers. A free-for-all, however, isn’t the answer either.

We don’t have a plan of action, or a solution better than what our Congress has put out there. We do agree civilians don’t need a semi-automatic AR-15. We do agree more intensive background checks shouldn’t be fought. We do agree limiting a magazine to fewer than 10 bullets is a fair idea.

No, none of this will stop gun violence, because there will always be crazies. Just like prohibiting alcohol wouldn’t stop drunk driving. However, little things like a drinking age and a campaign to promote alcohol awareness has helped reduce drunk driving fatalities by 52 percent since 1982, according to The Century Council.

Just saying.

Exposure to alcohol advertisements and marketing may correlate with increased binge drinking activity, according to a study published in December by a research team from Dartmouth College’s Geisel School of Medicine.

The study found that alcohol marketers actively promote adolescents’ identification with and allegiance to particular brands of alcohol.

Lead author Auden McClure and co-author James Sargent collected and analyzed data from 1,734 subjects between 15 and 20 years old. The authors quantified the time each participant was exposed to alcohol marketing from television, internet, branded merchandise and movies, and then authors compared the amount of exposure to the participant’s binge drinking activity.

“Alcohol companies say that they don’t target underage drinkers, but it’s impossible to market to 21-year-olds without spillover to those who are younger,” Sargent said. “We wanted to show that marketers aim to target underage drinkers.”

The research for the published study was cross-sectional, meaning that all the data was gathered at a specific point of time.

Therefore, although the researchers saw a correlation between marketing exposure and the extent of binge drinking, the causal relationship between these factors cannot yet be proven, Sargent said.

The research results also indicate that if a participant self-identifies as a certain type of drinker or associates him or herself with a particular brand, he or she is more likely to engage in binge drinking.

Sargent said he hypothesizes that alcohol brand allegiance leads to binge drinking, but he cannot yet rule out the possibility that binge drinking instead leads to greater brand allegiance. He said that a longitudinal study which is conducted at different periods of time with the same participants must be done in order to substantiate his theory scientifically.

“We’re going to follow up with these particular kids to see which variable came first — which causes the other,” he said.

Sargent said that although he believes alcohol marketing encourages adolescents to seek to drink more alcohol when they arrive on college campuses, he does not believe that Dartmouth’s administration will take any steps to reduce alcohol marketing on campus.

Sargent said his research is significant because it has helped determine the “multiple forces” that produce binge drinking behavior.

Julie Campbell, who identified and analyzed alcohol advertisements for the study, said that she believes limiting alcohol marketing in the media will reduce underage binge drinking.

“The fewer that alcohol companies are clearly present in movies, the fewer adolescents will be able to pinpoint a brand as their favorite,” said Campbell.

Although the trends Campbell observed in her research were unofficial, she said it seemed clear that certain themes, like product quality and taste, targeted adults while others, like partying, were intended to entice younger viewers.

Psychology professor Todd Heatherton said that he hopes the implications of the findings will encourage the College to avoid alcohol-sponsored events and the distribution of alcohol-branded merchandise.

“By late adolescence, we can predict which participants binge drink,” Heatherton said. “This indicates to us some of the factors that might be involved in promoting binge drinking by adolescents.”

The paper was co-authored by U. Oregon research associate Mike Stoolmiller, Geisel pediatrics professor Susanne Tanski and Radboud U. professor Rutger Engels.

The study was published in the journal “Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research.”

The Casual Vacancy, J.K. Rowling’s debut adult novel, should not be taken lightly. This 500-page book is a first-hand look at various manifestations of disappoints and failings of human nature, yet it also demonstrates the complexity behind personal actions. In the small, picturesque, and fictional British town of Pagford, filled with mostly petty people, Rowling creates intense drama for each individual and the town as a whole.

The Casual Vacancy deals with the aftermath of the sudden death of Barry Fairbrother, a well-liked parish councilor who delicately held together the various social and political factions of the town. His passing creates a “casual vacancy,” an open seat on the parish council, setting off a fight for the empty seat. Through the course of the election, the serious but hidden tensions of the town are revealed. The most controversial issue is the Fields, an estate of public housing. Traditional Pagfordians see the Fields as an imposition from the larger neighboring city of Yarvil, a drag on parish resources spent on junkies who attend the Bellchapel Addiction Clinic, and an overall blight on all that is good and right about wholesome Pagford. The fight over parish control of the Fields and Bellchapel ultimately eclipses Barry Fairbother’s casual vacancy that starts the story and exposes marital struggles, teenage angst and parental attempts to handle it, class conflict, and cultural divides.

The Somewhat Good, the Bad, and the Worse

No character in the novel is truly likeable. They have occasional, fleeting moments of goodness or sympathy. The reader spends the story placing each character on a spectrum of disagreeability in relation to their fellow townspeople. A prime example is Howard and Shirley Mollison, long-time residents of Pagford who see themselves as fixtures of Pagford and all that the town stands for. They are also the leaders of the anti-Fields “movement” in Pagford. Howard and Shirley, like others, mourn Barry Fairbrother’s death very briefly, and only because it is the socially acceptable thing to do. Their thoughts reveal their almost immediate scheming to capture Fairbrother’s newly vacant seat so as to augment the anti-Fields faction and finally get rid of the Fields. Howard and Shirley are gossipy, petty, prejudiced, and entitled.

The novel’s teenagers are the most vibrant, relatable, and best portrayed. Considering Rowling’s past in adolescent fiction, this is unsurprising. Though they deal with serious issues, they focus mostly on typical teenage problems: crushes and sex, conflict with parents, and the general tendency to see things in binaries. One of the most notable teenagers is Krystal Weedon, used as an example of both the good and bad of the Fields in which she lives. Krystal is promiscuous, violent, angry, truants often, and occasionally steals. She is also the effective caretaker of her addict mother and infant brother and helped lead the local girl’s crew team to success. Krystal’s troubled history, her abject living conditions, and the stark choices she faces create sympathy for her situation, yet they do not completely erase her rough, defensive exterior.

Reality, Crude and Uncensored

The Casual Vacancy is a raw description of human character and its many immoral imperfections. In Rowling’s sometimes heavy-handed inclusion of almost any horrific experience that people can have, there is little room for redemption for any of the characters. This is a stark difference from the tale that made J.K. Rowling a household name and The Casual Vacancy. This novel is no doubt completely different in genre, perspective, and setting from Harry Potter; not even an about-face, it is on an entirely different literary plane. One of the most noticeable differences is the prevalence, often overly saturated, of sexuality and vulgarity. While Harry and his friends did not even start to like people until they were fourteen and kissing them until they were fifteen or sixteen, the teenagers in The Casual Vacancy have sex on their minds more often than not, either the real thing or the online porn they know far too well. In addition, words like “fucking,” “cunt,” “shit,” and the like are heavily used. One character notes that Krystal Weedon “used ‘fucking’ interchangeably with ‘very’, and seemed to see no difference between them.” Rowling herself is guilty of a similar authorial charge.

 “Little Vacancies” Not Totally Filled 

The Casual Vacancy has Rowling’s signature strong and engaging writing, but this does not make it easier to digest the novel’s stark subject matter. Frustration, sadness, even slight horror may come up in reading the stories of the interwoven lives of Pagford residents. Barry Fairbrother’s vacant council seat catalyzes and ultimately becomes irrelevant as the town is further embroiled in personal conflicts. Several messages from “The Ghost of Barry Fairbrother” left on the parish council website reveal intimate secrets of various town-members and contribute to the messy drama surrounding the election. Between an eventful council meeting and two more sudden deaths, the superficially polite and delicate seams holding together picturesque Pagford come apart. The town becomes aware of its glaring problems, but solutions are not initially obvious. The end of the novel leaves a sense of opportunity for improvement but uncertainty about Pagfordians’ ability to realize it.

Just as in her Harry Potter series, Rowling notes that her new novel deals with “mortality and morality, the two things that I obsess about,” as she told The New Yorker. The Casual Vacancy gives many glimpses into how these themes play out in real life, but does not provide much hope for their future resolution. Rowling, in the same New Yorker interview, says that she “was dealing not only with responsibility but with a bunch of characters who all have these little vacancies in their lives, these emptinesses in their lives, that they’re all filling in various ways.” The characters of this novel and the ways in which they interact to form a community are the true focus of this story. The political jockeying that lead to these events is just a premise, becoming secondary to the crude humanity Rowling presents.

At the start of the novel, Howard and Shirley Mollison “were contemplating the casual vacancy; and they saw it, not as an empty space but as a magician’s pocket, full of possibilities.” This novel is worth the read, but the possibilities it presents are dark and unpleasant, with no magic available to lighten the load.

As students wait in line to buy textbooks during the first week of classes, new research has been released to propose the most cost effective way to get textbooks.

The study, done by BigWords.com, a price comparison site for textbooks, suggests that buying used textbooks instead of renting them can potentially save the average student $1,000 a year.

Jeff Sherwood, the website’s founder and CEO, said his research indicated the average student spends approximately $1,137 on textbooks per year. 

The study, based on the website’s ability to compare textbook buying and selling prices, gathered data from students who used their “consider buyback value” feature.

“Students who used our recommendations wound up saving $1,000 a year,” Sherwood said. “They turned the third highest cost of college into something that can become groceries.”

Tia Salajan, a U. South Florida senior majoring in film studies, said she usually spends about $500 per semester on textbooks. Before she changed her major to film studies, Salajan said she used to spend $200 per science textbook when she was majoring in biology.

“(Textbooks) cost so much, and classes don’t even use them as much as I think they should, for what I pay for,” she said. 

The study was conducte by comparing prices of the 1,000 most popular textbook titles. The prices of the cheapest available option for each textbook at the start of the fall semester were subtracted from the highest offer price found for those books at the end of the semester.

“We record all of the prices we gather, and with a million users per semester, it’s a tremendous amount of data…” Sherwood said. “We found that students who bought the recommended used books and then sold it for the highest offer price did better than those who rented them.”

Kimberly McDaniel, a USF sophomore majoring in biomedical sciences, said she spends an average of $500 to $600 per semester for her textbooks. This semester alone, she said she spent about $700 for her textbooks.

“It’s ridiculous,” she said. “I paid $117 for an access code, and $120 for a textbook for pre-calculus.”

Also included in the study was the option of purchasing e-books. 

Sherwood said e-books are becoming more popular among college students, but that they are still nowhere near as popular as used textbooks.

“In general, an e-book is discounted 10 to 15 percent off the price of the new textbook, when you can buy a used book for
50 to 75 percent less than the cost of a new book,” he said. “It’s just dramatically better value.”

At the USF Bookstore, rented textbooks can be purchased for up to 50 percent lower than new textbooks, and e-books can be purchased for up to 60 percent less, according to the website.

Sherwood said used books are often better in value than e-books, because buying a used textbook can be permanent, whereas some e-book purchases will only stay downloaded for several months or a year. 

He said, however, though the price is not as cost-effective, students usually find e-books to be more convenient to use. 

A trend Sherwood noted of the study was the varying textbooks costs for different subjects. 

“Science books, engineering, medical, law, these books are generally more expensive than literature, journalism or other liberal arts disciplines,” he said.

McDaniel said she usually shops at the university bookstore because of convenience and the Bookstore Advanced Purchase Program, which allows students to purchase their books and supplies before their financial aid refund is sent to them. However, she said she plans on changing how she buys her textbooks next semester.

“Now I will shop for textbooks online,” McDaniel said. “I plan on looking around online before going to any bookstore in person. I want to make sure I compare prices and get the best one.”

Sherwood said his website searches the inventories of more than 50 different online retailers, renters and book buyers to compare prices and markets for students.

“At the end of the day, what we are trying to do is show students the best way to buy, download or rent their textbooks,” he said.