“Stand Up Guys” is not exactly movie that the trailers make it seem.

While the movie still has the basic punch lines that any run-of-the-mill action-comedy is anticipated to have, director Fisher Stevens (“Decisions”) also incorporates a surprising amount of heartfelt emotion and light drama. However, the inconsistency and sloppy transitions between the serious and humorous parts make the movie underwhelming and difficult to watch.

“Stand Up Guys” revolves around the reunion of released convict Valentine (Al Pacino, “The Son of No One”), better known as Val, and his longtime friend and crime partner Doc (Christopher Walken, “Seven Psychopaths”). After picking up their friend and former getaway driver Richard Hirsch (Alan Arkin, “Argo”) from a retirement home, the gang decides to pursue a night of debauchery. No night out with older-aged men is complete without stolen prescription drugs, a joy ride, awkward dancing, a brothel and a steak.

The laughs aside, Stevens adds some raw drama that is not expected in a typical action-comedy. Walken’s stoic dialogue and soft-put mannerisms along with visible tears allows genuine emotion to seep through an otherwise deadpan performance. Pacino gives a rather average performance filled with repetitive talk and cliché jokes. Nonetheless, Pacino is able to showcase his more expressive side in subtle scenes, such as when Val slow dances with a younger woman at a bar.

Arkin shines when he needs to despite having hardly any screen time. Shockingly, Doc’s granddaughter, Alex (Addison Timlin, “Afterschool”), who is a waitress in a diner, gives one of the most compelling performances in the film. Timlim’s upbeat, youthful energy is a nice contrast to the hardened and nostalgic attitude of the older men. Lucy Punch (“Bad Teacher”), who portrays the manager of a brothel, also adds some well-timed humor in her short time in the film.

Although presented as a crime-comedy, “Stand Up Guys” feels more like a soft drama at times. The joke-filled but honest conversations between the main characters speak to deep philosophical themes about old age, regret and responsibility. At certain points the laughs are necessary to counterbalance a few grim moments, such as the death of a friend.

However, the director unsuccessfully blends the action-comedy side of the film with the more serious and somber parts.  A slow-paced and heartfelt dialogue between Val and Doc immediately transitions to a brawl in a clothing store. The action in “Stand Up Guys” seems out of place at times and takes away from the thoughtful developments in the film. Stevens’ lack of focus takes away from the full potential this movie has to really engage audiences.

“Stand Up Guys” doesn’t fall into any major pitfalls that make it totally unbearable.  Although the mix of action and drama does not mix well, it does not completely take away from the enjoyable and hilarious parts of this movie.  Ultimately, the star-filled cast, tolerable directing and a mediocre plot make for a satisfactory film.

Despite our 2012 presidential debates devolving into mud-slinging over the intricacies of each candidate’s tax plan, the conversation stemming from the election did little to advance tax policy in the United States. Namely, for all of the discussion of closing tax loopholes, both candidates failed to significantly address the source of one of our most significant tax inefficiencies: the flawed definition of what constitutes capital gains.

A capital gains tax is a special tax paid on, unsurprisingly, gains from capital investment. The problem, however, stems from the fact that under the current tax code, people who make their money through the management of capital, instead of through its investment, are also taxed at the flat capital gains tax rate of 15%, rather than through the progressive income tax. While this may seem like semantic quibbling more suited for an accountant’s office than the Oval, this policy leads to significant losses in government revenue.

The problem arises from the difficulty in defining the income of capital managers. Hedge fund and private equity managers, including venture capitalists, are compensated based partly on a management fee (usually between two percent and three percent of fund size) as well as a performance-based fee (usually around 20 percent of the gains from investment.) The argument in favor of the existing policy goes as follows: since fund managers are paid based at least partly on the performance of their funds, their earnings represent capital gains and should be taxed as such. The logic behind the capital gains tax being lower than all but two of the marginal income tax rates (historically 15 percent, though raised to 20 percent in the January 2013 fiscal cliff compromise) is that the money invested was initially taxed as someone’s income, and it would be unfair to tax that income twice at the same rate. While this argument holds water for wage-earning Americans who choose to invest the fruits of their labor, it does not for those fund managers whose primary income is from capital gains. While fund managers’ income may be performance-based (and in that no different from salesmen who work on commission), it is no more capital gains than any other form of income. Working to maximize others’ capital gains is not capital gains itself.

In the context of our current political budget mania, it is strange that such an obvious loophole should exist, let alone go largely unacknowledged. A quick look at the campaign contributions made to various members of congressional leadership, however, quickly makes the reason plain. Key leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle are major recipients of hedge fund money. Both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) count Paulson & Co, one of the most successful funds in the United States, among their top five largest donors. Paulson & Co is also the single largest donor to Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Securities and investment firms number among the top donors by industry for every single member of the 112^th Congress’ leadership.

While it probably comes as no surprise that politicians have a vested financial stake in policies that favor the titans of finance, this breach of fiscal logic has gone unaddressed for far too long. Even in the most recent presidential election, so dominated by debates over the relative tax policies of the two candidates, neither seriously mentioned reforming the government’s definition of capital gains.

This shortcoming in Congress’ examination of the capital gains prevents lawmakers from utilizing a significant tool for deficit reduction. Even if only the 25 most successful hedge fund managers were taxed according to the system of progressive income tax, the government could raise millions of dollars of lost tax revenue from the so-called “one percent.” As the congressional battle over budget austerity rages on, the time has come for Americans to push leading politicians to address this tax oversight, even if in doing so they must bite the hand that feeds them.

National security threats often invoke images of bombs, guns and invading military forces, but one of the most pressing threats to the United States involves none of these things. Instead, powers hostile to the United States and its interests have quietly launched domestic cyberterrorism attacks against U.S. banks and, most recently, against popular American news agencies. Such subtle acts of espionage, and the likelihood that they will only become more damaging, translates into a dire need for Congress to quickly pass legislation that beefs up cybersecurity defenses.

The issue of cybersecurity came to the forefront of national discourse last Wednesday, when The New York Times revealed that they had fallen victim to a four-month-long network security breach that was reported to have originated in China. The initial breach occurred around Oct. 25, 2012, the publication date of an article reporting on the family of the country’s prime minister. This disturbing news was followed by revelations that The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News and The Washington Post experienced similar issues within their own networks.

The fact that unfriendly powers are carrying out such breaches against institutions of free speech is unsettling enough, but the threats extend beyond mere invasions of privacy. Large attacks were leveled in September against the online systems of JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank and PNC Bank, resulting in at least daylong denials of service.

Such attacks indicate that much more is at stake, with some especially problematic areas being not only economic institutions and tech firms but also power grids for nuclear power plants and water purification systems. “Nation-state attackers will target critical infrastructure networks such as power grids at an unprecedented scale in 2013  . . . These types of attacks could grow more sophisticated, and the slippery slope could lead to the loss of human life,” said Chiranjeev Bordoloi, CEO of security company Top Patch.

According to a CNN interview with James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, at least 12 of the world’s largest military powers are working to construct complicated cyberwarfare systems.

It would be no stretch to say that the United States has the most to lose at the hands of these powers if our government continues to put cybersecurity on the backburner.

Though the media’s constant bombardment of the public with images of war-ravaged Afghanistan would suggest otherwise, the events in a remote desert nation do not necessarily pose a greater threat to national security than seemingly less dangerous cyberattacks. The recent infiltrations should remind our legislators of this and prompt them to not only engage in serious discussion with other nations such as China, but also quickly pass legislation that would re-allocate substantial defense resources to building a stronger cyberdefense system.

Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) spoke to the immediacy of the situation in an interview with Politico: “Foreign cyberattackers are targeting every aspect of the American economy every day and Congress needs to act with urgency to protect our national security and our economy,” he said.

With the defense budget and looming sequestration cuts up for debate, Congress needs to take advantage of an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. Instead of continuing partisan bickering on troop withdrawals and timetables, lawmakers must work to pass serious legislation that will provide the tools necessary to combat lurking cyberthreats.

Attacks on public utilities and power plants can create not only inconvenient but dangerous situations for everyday Americans, and the crash of a bank’s computer system can wreak economic havoc. In addition, some of the nation’s most sensitive intelligence information could be discretely collected and used against us in unexpected attacks.

Aggression in cyberspace is unfortunately a product of our times, truly illustrating both the magic and terror that modern technology can bring. As such, our leaders must act so that we are prepared for whatever comes our way. Technological capacities will only continue to grow as time passes, and as nations unfriendly to the United States develop economically and politically, the possibility of more serious attacks will only increase. Constructing a stronger defense in U.S. cyberspace is of paramount importance, and waiting longer could only harm the nation — the time for action is now.

Four years after his Panglossian crusade for hope and change was slugged by the realities of a dysfunctional Washington, President Obama emerged reinvigorated from an arduous campaign and delivered a second inaugural address that boldly staked a progressive agenda for his second term. But despite his recent posturing, the disquieting evolution of President Obama’s puzzling political identity troubles me.

At the outset of his first term, an overcautious Obama squandered considerable political capital on tepid stimulus and healthcare bills due to a baffling inability to command the bully pulpit.  Mired in the minefields of increasingly radicalized Republican obstinacy, the administration’s myriad concessions and omissions rightly disheartened the president’s supporters.

To the glee of many of his supporters, the president delivered a full-throated defense of the social safety net, declaring that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security “do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”

Jabbing at climate change deniers, Obama asserted, “some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

The first president to ever use the word gay in an inaugural address, Obama most poignantly underscored the motif of equal rights for all people by grouping Seneca Falls and Selma with Stonewall, succinctly linking the women’s rights, civil rights, and gay rights movements.

The recent inaugural address revealed a bolder, more bellicose president who, no longer fearful of re-election, eschewed the traditional highfalutin, hollow rhetoric of inaugural addresses for an unapologetic liberal agenda. It was an eloquent rethinking of the American Dream through the progressive collective action embodied in the address’s refrain: “We the people.”

And the speech contained many points that Republicans ought to rally behind rather than impulsively dismiss as an unnatural return to liberalism, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did. Obama channeled the quintessentially American ideal of self-reliance in articulating skepticism towards government as panacea, a call for tax code reform, and a warning to reduce the size of the deficit.

Seeing that the House of Representatives remains under intransigent Republican control, it’s unlikely that the president’s emboldened rhetoric can affect actual change on the policy front. But Obama has begun his second term in the right tone: one that is a marked departure from the seemingly weak-willed tone of the first term’s negotiator.

But while the administration is in the throes of renovation, I cannot help but feel uneasy about the president’s identity (and not in the nonsensical birtherist way). After four years of pessimism with the way the president has authorized the National Defense Authorization Act and drone strikes and expanded the police state, I must ask—who is Barack Obama?

He’s certainly not the liberal messiah that the 2008 campaign hailed him as. There’s a striking cognitive dissonance between candidate Obama and his actions as president. This is evident when one looks at his administration’s continuation and bolstering of controversial Bush-era practices like warrantless wiretapping, kill lists that sanction the extrajudicial killings of American citizens abroad, increased reliance on drone strikes in Pakistan employing questionable tactics like double taps (follow-up strikes that target first responders) and signature strikes (unidentified victims fitting a certain description are counted as combatants). All liberals should be vehemently opposed to these policies, perpetrated by a one-time constitutional law professor, which so flagrantly infringe the Bill of Rights. The chorus of opposition to President Bush has sadly fallen silent.

One might try to prove him faithful to his campaign pledges by pointing to his first term “achievements.” But many of these were watered down to the point of irrelevance by a dysfunctional Congress, including the healthcare law, the rescue of the financial and auto sectors, and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Perhaps the question of Obama’s political identity is best answered by the man himself: “The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican,” the president said in an interview. It’s certainly true when one recalls that Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan increased the debt ceiling 18 times, and the individual mandate central to the Affordable Care Act was an idea promoted by the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank.

I worry about possible Democratic complacency as the Republican Party demagogues itself into obsolescence. Citizens should not embrace the false dichotomy of Democrat and Republican—the imprimatur of a self-identifying liberal president should not allow his controversial actions to go unchecked and unchallenged. The president and the establishment Democratic Party have drifted so far to the right that too many political debates are between center-right and far-right positions, leaving the center vulnerable.

As Yeats cautioned, when “the center cannot hold, things fall apart.”

America has been fighting against the terrorist organization al-Qaida since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and in May 2011 Osama bin Laden, the former leader of al-Qaida, was killed by Navy SEALs while hiding in a fortress in Pakistan. Bin Laden’s predecessors, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid and Abu Hafs al-Shariri were all killed by unmanned drone air strikes while in Pakistan.

The deaths of these men — and thousands of other al-Qaida affiliates — should be commended for doing so without putting more American troops in harm’s way.

However, the practice of drone strikes becomes controversial when the target is an American citizen.

On Sept. 30, 2011 American-born Anwar al-Awlaki was traveling with Pakistani-born American citizen Samir Kahn in Yemen when they were both killed by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft. Both men were high-ranking al-Qaida leaders and there was significant evidence they were planning to launch attacks against Americans.

The question is whether it is lawful and ethical to kill American citizens abroad, ignoring their constitutional rights to due process — even if they are affiliated with al-Qaida. A bigger question lingers as to how much power the executive branch has to overstep the judicial system in claiming that a suspect should be a part of this special rule — a rule that until recently was confidential in its definition and description.

America has been using drone technology for surveillance purposes since the 1960s, but has only been using them for air strikes for less than 13 years. Due to the immature nature of the technology, there are few military guidelines that precede over this kind of warfare.

The only documentation available from the Justice Department regarding drone strikes is a 16-page paper uncovered by MSNBC’s Michael Isikoff that only briefly describes the justification of such attacks.

Though the paper is not an official memorandum, it works as a legal representation of the classified documents that were reportedly distributed to the president and the executive branch agencies from the Justice Department’s legal council.

The justifications of drone strikes, the way they have been presented in the paper, leaves the legality of overruling an American citizen’s rights up to interpretation by the executive branch alone. Because the executive branch has the obligation to ensure national security, it can act on any threat without the oversight of other branches of the government.

America’s war on terror will never be free of controversy and hardship. The men killed by drone strikes were men who were determined to cause as much pain to Americans as they could, many men fighting these forces died in the process.

Unmanned drones allow the military to engage terrorists without the necessity having troops on the ground.

However ambiguous the current framework is, the president and the Executive Branch have the obligation to protect us from any threat both foreign and domestic. We should trust they will continue to work in the best interest of national security in fighting al-Qaida through any means necessary.

Irish coach Muffet McGraw spent much of her pre-Notre Dame life either playing or coaching basketball in the Philadelphia area, so it was only fitting she record her 700th career win there Tuesday night.

No. 2 Notre Dame held on to beat Villanova 59-52 at The Pavilion in Villanova, Pa., and McGraw joined 12 other Division I coaches in the 700-win club.

“It made it so much sweeter,” McGraw said of the homecoming atmosphere. “It was just so much better and so great to have all my friends and family in my hometown. It just really made this one special.”

McGraw said her players wanted to get the milestone win, but a road victory over the Wildcats (16-6, 5-4 Big East) was enough cause for celebration.

“I think they were acutely aware (of the milestone) early. I think they were aware and I think they wanted to get it done,” she said. “It’s a hard game for us. It was just a great effort by them to maintain their poise down the stretch. And having a win not just for 700, but just getting a win at Villanova is difficult, so I’m just really thrilled we got that.”

The Irish (21-1, 9-0) never trailed, but never pulled away either. They closed the first half on a 10-2 run to take a 29-21 lead into the locker room, but never led by more than 10 in the second half. With 4:45 remaining in the game, Villanova junior guard Devon Kane sank a 3-pointer to cut the lead to 48-46. Notre Dame responded with an 11-6 run to seal the victory. McGraw said the Wildcats’ slow offensive tempo kept the game tight.

“Their style of play, that’s the way they play, they use the clock,” she said. “You get one shot and then you know they’re going to come down and use 30 seconds, and if they get an offensive rebound they’re going to use 30 more.

“It’s a hard game to flow when you’re an up-tempo team like we are, because our whole game is based on running and getting the transition going and we just weren’t able to do that. It’s a very difficult game for us.”

The Irish turned up the defensive heat early in the contest, implementing a full-court press every time the Wildcats inbounded the ball. According to McGraw, the tactic was meant to counteract Villanova’s methodical offense.

“We were trying to use some of the clock so that when we were (on defense), we only had to guard their offense for maybe 13 seconds instead of 30,” McGraw said.

Senior guard and leading scorer Skylar Diggins struggled from the field, shooting 4-for-17 from the field, including 0-for-3 from beyond the 3-point arc.

“I think the pace was difficult. To play at that pace, you start to press a little bit because you want to go a little faster than normal, so I think (Diggins) was probably just trying too hard,” McGraw said of the guard’s struggles.

Unlike Diggins, junior forward Natalie Achonwa thrived in the matchup against the Wildcats. Consistently playing against undersized Villanova defenders, she registered 19 points, 11 rebounds and two blocks to lead Notre Dame.

“She’s playing extremely well,” McGraw said of Achonwa. “She’s just such a big part of our offense and what we need to do. I thought tonight she would have a big game because she had a big advantage in size and she used her advantage. We looked for her and we got her the ball, and she did a great job.”

The Irish will head east again this weekend when they face Seton Hall in South Orange, N.J., at the Walsh Gymnasium on Saturday at 2 p.m.

Michigan students, equipped with tents, began lining up outside Crisler Center at 11 p.m. Monday night. More than 25 hours and one low-scoring overtime period later, they walked away happy campers.

On the possession after getting stripped by opposing point guard Aaron Craft, sophomore Trey Burke blocked Craft’s would-be go-ahead jumper with just nine seconds left. Freshman forward Glenn Robinson III hit one of his two free throws, and with less than three seconds to play, junior Tim Hardaway Jr. blocked a Craft layup to secure the 76-74 win for the No. 3 Michigan basketball team.

Controversy immediately ensued, as many, including Hardaway, thought Craft was fouled on the last play, which would’ve sent him to the line with a chance to send the game into double overtime.

“I thought Trey fouled him, and I thought the whistle was going to blow, and I just went for the ball,” Hardaway said. “I saw the ball in my face, so I just wrapped it up and probably got his arm or something like that, but it’s up to the refs to make that call, and they let it go.”

Burke opened overtime doing what he couldn’t do in the closing seconds of regulation. The point guard, who missed a buzzer-beating 3-pointer to end regulation, knocked one down in the opening 30 seconds of overtime, which proved to be the game-winning basket.

The hard-fought battle gave Michigan coach John Beilein a win on his 60th birthday and kept the Wolverines (8-2 Big Ten, 21-2 overall) squarely in the conference title hunt. By the time Beilein addressed the media, it was past midnight and his hectic birthday was over.

“Thank God the birthday’s over, but it was a good one,” Beilein said, laughing. “This added a few more years (to my age). … That’s why the birthday thing — it’s usually in a stressful situation.

“I’m not a big birthday guy, but this was a good present.”

The teams continually traded baskets in the game’s final minutes. With just more than a minute left, Burke found freshman forward Mitch McGary wide open on the baseline to give Michigan a 72-20 lead. Ohio State tied it up on the other end when Buckeye forward LaQuinton Ross collected an offensive rebound and found Lenzelle Smith Jr. open on the perimeter for a deep two-point bucket. Burke missed a 3-pointer as regulation expired to send the game into overtime.

Burke’s miss, so similar to his miss at the buzzer in Columbus that Craft told Burke in the final moments of regulation that he was having “déjà vu,” was drawn up for the Wolverine point guard to penetrate and at least try to draw a foul.

“We settled there a little bit, but if it goes in, it looks great,” Beilein said.

After taking a one-point lead into halftime, the 10th-ranked Buckeyes’ hot shooting from the first half didn’t skip a beat. Ohio State (17-5, 7-3) built an eight-point lead in the opening seven minutes of the second stanza.

But after a three-point play from freshman forward Glenn Robinson, Hardaway took over to keep Michigan in it, scoring 15 of the Wolverines’ next 19 points — all from five-consecutive 3-point makes. With Michigan down one, redshirt sophomore Jon Horford blocked an Ohio State layup, firing up the sold-out Crisler Center heading into the official timeout.

“There were some times where we could’ve quit,” Beilein said. “There’s some times where some other teams, going way back, they just turn around (and say), ‘This is just too much. I’m getting every shot blocked, they’re getting easy baskets … it’s not our day.’ We didn’t have that at all today, and that was huge.”

Hardaway’s fourth 3-pointer, moments after play resumed, gave the Wolverines a two-point advantage, but the Buckeyes went on another run to retake the lead. The Miami native, who Burke said was “definitely the player of the game,” finished with 23 points on 6-of-9 3-point shooting.

“Some of them were heat checks,” Hardaway said. “If the ball’s going in, the ball’s going in. I can’t do nothing about it.”

Added Beilein: “He was terrific. We couldn’t dial up plays (for him) fast enough.”

Four other Wolverines — Burke, Robinson, McGary and freshman guard Nik Stauskas — registered double-digit points. Bukre finished with 16 points and eight assists, despite being seemingly stifled by Craft all night.

“Those two, you’re watching two of the finest point guards in America play against each other,” Beilein said. “Craft is like none other I’ve ever seen. … That was a great battle and they have a lot of respect for each other, too.”

Craft finished with 11 points, while DeShaun Thomas led the Buckeyes with 17 points.
McGary’s best half as a Wolverine wasn’t enough to stop Michigan from entering the locker room with just its second home halftime deficit of the year. The freshman scored a game-high 10 first-half points and pulled down five rebounds, while also recording two steals.

After Ohio State jumped out to a 4-1 lead, Michigan scored the game’s next 12 points and led by as many as 10 points, but after going 5:25 without a single field goal, the Buckeyes stormed back. With two minutes left in the period, they regained the lead, and after a Wolverine basket, the Buckeyes regained the one-point lead, 31-30, and took it into halftime.

Michigan connected on five 3-pointers in the first half but was unable to score a single point in transition. Ohio State shot 50 percent from the field, while its stifling defense blocked three shots and held Burke to just five points and two assists.

The Wolverines managed to outrebound the Buckeyes, despite getting just four minutes — all in the first half — from its regular post man, redshirt junior Jordan Morgan.

Adderall is an amphetamine-based medication intended to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or A.D.H.D. But the high levels of mental focus that the medicine provides has led growing numbers of young adults — with college students, in particular, the drug is especially popular — to fake A.D.H.D. symptoms in order to obtain prescriptions. They do this for help studying for exams or finishing papers. They also use it as a diet pill, since it decreases or eliminates the appetite.

But they don’t realize that the drug can be highly addictive, and that side effects can include serious psychological risks.

Saturday, The New York Times published the story of Richard Fee, the athletic and personable college class president and aspiring medical student from North Carolina who committed suicide (in 2009) after his Adderall prescription ran out. Fee had become addicted to the drug, unable to operate without it.

His untimely death highlights what the Times deemed the widespread failings in the system through which five million Americans take medication for A.D.H.D. It has become too easy for individuals “lacking concentration” to obtain a prescription for focus-enhancing drugs when, in actuality, they do not require them. The Times reported that doctors “tend to skip established diagnostic procedures, renew prescriptions reflexively and spend too little time with patients to accurately monitor side effects.” As a result, nearly 14 million monthly prescriptions for the condition were written for Americans ages 20 to 39 in 2011, which, according to the Times, is two and a half times the 5.6 million just four years before.

The numbers should be a signal that the drug has become too easy to obtain.

But it should be noted, also, that if people seeking Adderall have no desire to visit the doctor and take the all-too-easy exam, they can purchase the pills from their friends. It’s estimated that between eight and 35 percent of college students take stimulant pills to enhance school performance, according to the Times. On college campuses where the demand to focus is ever-rampant, pill-swapping is nonchalant, prevalent, and consequently hard to control.

It’s true that Adderall greatly helps in increasing levels of productivity. And it does what it’s intended to do: it can markedly improve the lives of children and others with the disorder it’s designed to treat. But for those without real A.D.H.D. — for those who suffer what everyone suffers: difficulty sitting in one place for too long, with one long paper, and one cup of coffee, for example — it is possible, as we see with the case of Fee, for an attachment to the drug to have catastrophic results.

True, Fee is a tragic and hopefully singular case. Most students who experiment with Adderall are unlikely to over-abuse it, and will hopefully shake the habit by the time their demanding studies are over. But the fact that doctors are loosely prescribing a drug that can have dangerous side effects is worrisome. Fee claimed that his doctor “wouldn’t prescribe [him] something that isn’t safe,” according to the Times. Doctors must realize that patients who “lack concentration” do not necessarily need medication — they might just have to turn off their iPhones and log off of BuzzFeed.

It’s important that people become aware of the dangers of taking stimulant drugs so that they can learn to be careful when using them. Hopefully, they will avoid the dangers by steering clear of the drug entirely. We all have difficulty concentrating; to be naturally high-functioning has always required effort. Making drugs do our work for us is an unhealthy habit.

It’s easy to ignore a grandparent who says a storm is coming because their knees are “acting up.” It’s even more ridiculous to think that Karen from “Mean Girls” knows when it will rain, thanks to her cleavage. But a new study suggests that people who suffer from migraines may actually be able to tell when lightning has been striking nearby.

What researchers found

Fourth-year medical student, Geoffrey Martin, and his father, Doctor Vincent Martin, a professor of Internal Medicine, conducted a study at U. Cincinnati that revealed that chronic migraine sufferers have a 31 percent higher risk of headache and a 28 percent higher risk of migraine on days lightning has struck within 25 miles of their home.

“So basically, on days with lightning, compared to days without lightning, there was actually 31 percent more people that had a headache on those days with lightning compared to not having lightning,” Geoffrey said.

The father-son duo said they analyzed several issues when evaluating the results, such as how lightning directly affects headaches and migraines.

However, the Martins also considered other weather factors often associated with lightning, such as barometric pressure, temperature, precipitation, humidity and wind.

This, Geoffrey said, allowed them to validate that lightning was truly causing the increase in headache frequency.

The study, published in the journal Cephalalgia on Jan. 24, showed that even when other weather factors were accounted for in mathematical models, there was still a 19 percent increased risk of headache on lightning-striking days.

“It was still statistically significant in our population,” Geoffrey said. “Lightning still had an effect on headaches beyond the meteorological factors that are often associated with lightning, such as high winds during a storm or rain, or high temperatures or high humidity.”

The researchers were also concerned about the long lifespans of headaches and migraines. Geoffrey said the life span of migraines often last more than one day.

The research also considered participants who may have suffered a headache prior to lightning, suggesting their headaches were not a direct result of the weather.

To account for this discrepancy, Geoffrey said he added a control variable to the model — he and his father accounted for the presence of headaches lasting up to two days prior to lightning storms. This variable reduced participants’ increased risk of headache from 31 to 24 percent and migraine from 28 percent to 23 percent.

“It’s like a weird Snapple fact,” said Boston U. sophomore Hannah Landers.

Like Landers, Jinzhu Wu, a BU freshman, said the new information was surprising.

“Usually the storm will scare people, but the lightning will only give us some tension that there will be some pretty terrifying noise,” she said.

Wu said this study might further people’s fear of lightning.

How they did it

For their study, the Martins researched detailed headache journals from 100 chronic migraine sufferers from previous studies at U. Cincinnati and U. St. Louis, Geoffrey said. These journals recorded activity during three-to-six-month periods.

“They were recruited in our study from other studies, actually, in which they recorded in a diary or journal their headache activity; whether they had a headache that day or not, their pain scale on that day, and whether they had nausea, vomiting, sensitivity to light or noise,” Geoffrey said.

Participants in the study exhibiting such symptoms were labeled as chronic sufferers, or someone who suffers from at least one migraine a month. Geoffrey said a doctor diagnosed this condition using the International Headache Society Criteria.

Participants from Cincinnati recorded their journals between 1998 and 2001 while participants from St. Louis recorded theirs from 2008 to 2010, Geoffrey said.

Geoffrey said he and his father compared this information to weather data recorded during the same time periods. This helped them determine whether or not patients had increased headache activity on specific weather days.

The participants used were 91 percent female with an average age of 44. Geoffrey said that migraine patients are predominantly female, with women making up between 70 and 80 percent of sufferers.

He also said that migraines are generally worse before women reach menopause, resulting in a generally younger population of sufferers.

“We did throw in both age and gender into our models as covariates,” Geoffrey said. “Those did not affect our results in any way.”

Why it happens

In a recent press release, Vincent said there were two possible causes for this strange occurrence.

“Electromagnetic waves emitted from lightning could trigger headaches,” Vincent said in the release Jan. 24. “In addition, lightning produces increases in air pollutants like ozone and can cause release of fungal spores that might lead to migraine.”

“I know that in laboratory studies that various electromagnetic fields can induce EEG [Electroencephalograms] changes,” Geoffrey added to his father’s statement.

What it means

The answer, according to Geoffrey, is not a whole lot yet.

The weather cannot be controlled, so migraine sufferers will have to deal with Mother Nature’s wrath for now.

To prevent migraines, Geoffrey said people should move to areas that are less prone to lightning. Unfortunately this is not a quick fix. However, Geoffrey suggested other headache prevention methods.

“You can’t really control the weather on a day-to-day basis, but you can do individual measures, such as things that are important in preventing offensive migraines,” he said.

He recommended getting adequate rest and staying hydrated, as well as keeping pain relievers on hand.

He also suggested that chronic sufferers with more serious conditions seek professional help and prescription medications.

“The problem is no one really knows when they’re going to have an attack so obviously if someone’s [attacks are] frequent enough, they’re just on the medication every day,” Geoffrey said. “But otherwise it’s very hard to determine when they should be taking these kinds of preventative migraine medications.”

Heeding the Martins’ study, sufferers might check weather forecasts and take medications in preparation for upcoming storms.

Even people without prescription medications can prepare by taking pain relievers at the first sign of a headache, rather than ignoring a slight discomfort and allowing it to develop into a full-blown migraine.

Student Responses

Simone Rauch, a BU sophomore, said she did not have many ideas when asked what the findings could be used for.

“I mean, nothing really,” Rauch said. “You can’t just tell the lightning not to be near headache sufferers, right?”

However Melissa Yee, a BU junior, said she has hope for the new study.

“I get migraines constantly,” Yee said. “I don’t know if lightning would necessarily correlate with that, but I hope it does. Then maybe I could prevent some of my major headaches.”

Geoffrey said he will continue to study the weather-headache paradigm in an attempt to develop better methods of migraine control.

“We’re going to start looking at more complex weather patterns,” he said, “such that we’re going to be looking at intricate relationships between some of the individual weather variables.”