Vegetarians, especially vegans, are often questioned about nutrition deficiency. This can be valid concern based on a vegetarian’s dietary choices, as one could theoretically just eat pizza and fries on a vegetarian regimen, but a well-balanced diet is always important regardless of one’s lifestyle or philosophy on eating. Opponents of veganism occasionally flag vegans for low vitamin B12 and protein levels, and if these opponents are particularly savvy, low calcium, iodine and even iron levels.

Although these deficiencies would seem enough to ward most people away from a vegetarian diet, new research (compiled by Dr. Michael Greger on Nutritionfacts.org) suggests that omnivores are just as deficient in certain vitamins and minerals, such as calcium, fiber, folate, iodine, magnesium, and vitamins C and E. Overwhelming research also suggests that most Americans, vegetarians or not, are deficient in several vitamins and minerals. Even though vegetarians choose to refuse animal products that do have plenty of vitamins and minerals, the indictment of deficiency is a two-way street.

One easy way to avoid malnutrition is to take supplements. Vegans need to take B12 supplements because B12 is only created by microbes, which are generally killed off by chlorinated water (no more cholera, though!). Multivitamins are great supplements in general that people should take every day. The “I-don’t-like-pills” argument is either laziness or some vain attempt to eat “natural” — while munching on your antibiotic-filled burger. However, the best way to avoid vitamin and mineral deficiency is to eat fruits and vegetables, and lots of them. A good number of vegetarians are more health-conscious when it comes to eating fruits and veggies because they constitute the majority of a plant-based diet. That doesn’t mean that vegetarians are always healthier, but when you think more about your diet, you’re more likely to make smart choices.

One sad fact of the American educational system is that nutrition is rarely taught. Some people believe that doctors across the country have little to no nutrition curriculum in medical school. It’s certainly important to have professionals who are able to prescribe medicine, but many health problems in the U.S. are caused by poor diets. An adequate understanding of nutrition should be required for everyone, regardless of age or profession.

When we talk about vegetarians and plant-based eating, the ideal balanced diet for them is rife with fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds and grains as well as supplements for things they can’t always get, like B12. Vitamin D is also recommended, particularly during the winter when you’re less likely to spend a fair amount of time outside. And of course, as long as you eat a varied diet while reaching your personal dietary and caloric needs, you will get enough protein.

So before you ask your vegetarian friends whether or not they are getting enough protein, B12, calcium, vitamin D, iodine and iron, make sure you know your own nutrition intake!

Benjamin Sylvester is the president of the Drexel Animal Welfare Group. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.
“Moo Over This” publishes biweekly.

If, in fact, “corporations are people, my friend” (shout-out to Mitt Romney for that one), what kind of people are they? Can they have a religion? And, if so, who gets to decide?

That’s a question we’ll get to, but first some background. In a way, Romney is right — corporations are people, just not in the way he describes later in that exchange. In the eyes of the law, corporations are legal, or artificial, persons. This allows them to enter into contracts, own land and incur debt, among other things. This has recently been (controversially) expanded to include broad free-speech rights during elections. There is now a case in front of the Supreme Court that asks the court to extend the freedom of religion to corporations. Or more specifically, it asks the court to allow a corporation (Hobby Lobby Inc., an arts-and-crafts store) to refrain from covering certain contraceptive methods in its employee health plan based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners. Hobby Lobby is owned by David and Barbra Green and their children. It is irrefutably operated with Christian principles in mind. For example, they aren’t open on Sundays and don’t sell shot glasses because they don’t want to encourage the consumption of alcohol.

They base their argument on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Everyone should be familiar with the Free Exercise Clause, which, together with the Establishment clause, reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The relevant parts of the RFRA state that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.” It then says, “Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person — (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest” (42 USC § 2000bb–1).

So in the application of this law, there are two stages of the burden of proof. First, Hobby Lobby has to show that it is under a substantial burden imposed by the government on a sincerely held religious belief. That, on its face, requires Hobby Lobby Inc. to be capable of religious expression. Then, if the corporation passes that hurdle, the government can still prevail if it can successfully argue that access to contraception furthers a compelling government interest and that the insurance mandate is the least intrusive means of achieving that goal.

Corporations, by their nature, cannot be religious. They cannot pray, believe or worship. Indeed, as the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the court with original jurisdiction in this case, has ruled, “Religious exercise is, by its nature, one of those purely personal matters … which is not the province of a general business corporation” (Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v Sebelius, 2012). Hobby Lobby surely cannot attend church along with the Greens and certainly cannot go to heaven or hell. In fact, it need not, and depending on your definition, cannot die. The whole point of a corporation is that it is a separate legal entity from its owners. Owners and managers of a corporation can operate it with principles derived from their religious beliefs, but they cannot imprint their beliefs onto an entity that is incapable of believing.

It doesn’t seem necessary to dive into the other elements of the burden of proof, as no one has questioned the sincerity of the beliefs of the Greens, and the test of strict scrutiny and compelling interest is more technical than would be appropriate to cover here. I would point you to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and the amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court from California et al for a compelling interest discussion.
This case, it will be argued, is part of a scheme to turn corporations into people in the eyes of the law. But that’s not the case. They have long been accepted as “people,” just with different status, rights and responsibilities. In this case, it’s not a matter of stopping the trend toward corporate personhood. It’s about not attributing characteristics to corporations that they patently do not possess.

Tom Petri is a junior majoring in management information systems, finance and legal studies. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

On its 150th anniversary, Thanksgiving doesn’t look like what it used to. While the feast has been attributed to the Puritans’ celebration in 1621, the modern holiday was declared by Abraham Lincoln in November 1863 to celebrate the Union’s advances in the Civil War. For Lincoln, winning the war meant maintaining the national unity intended by the framers of the Constitution and proving that it was God’s will for our republic to endure. In the intervening decades, Thanksgiving has moved in the American consciousness from a celebration of national providence to one of individual success. With the help of advertising media, the meaning of this holiday has been further conflated with excessive shopping.

Who could imagine, in Lincoln’s day, that a store would open at 6 p.m. on Thanksgiving? With the ever-earlier pre-Christmas sale season underway, Thanksgiving is slowly being absorbed by unbridled capitalism. And who works at Kmart, Walmart, Old Navy, Best Buy and countless other stores on Thanksgiving Day? Minimum-wage workers who must leave their own families to work for those above them. Gone are the 1950s, when minimum wage was reserved for teenagers working at restaurants. In the new America, 70 percent of minimum-wage workers are 29 or older. How many of them are raising children alone? What happens to those children when their parents have to work at 6 p.m. on Thanksgiving?

Every year at Thanksgiving, my mother encourages each of us to say what we’re thankful for. This year, like every year, I was thankful that we always have enough food. It’s polite and accurate. There is a longer list of things I’m thankful for that I wouldn’t mention at the table. I’m thankful that I’m white. I’m thankful that by virtue of my skin color, I have a higher likelihood of graduating college, a lower chance of getting heart disease, and a significantly higher earning potential. I’m thankful that I’m a man. I’m thankful that I don’t have to fight for access to the drugs I may need to prevent an unwanted pregnancy or the procedure to resolve it. I’m thankful that I will never have to experience pregnancy or feel pressured to take unpaid time off from work to raise a family. I’m thankful that I’m cisgender and have not been assaulted because of my sexual orientation. I’m thankful that I do not have to prove my maleness to others for it to be accepted. I’m thankful that I come from a two-parent home with a stable socioeconomic status so that I never have to worry about my health insurance. I am thankful for these things individually because I live in an America where I am individually accountable for them.

Many people would argue that these are horrible things to be thankful for or that rather than bragging about what I have, I should be working to help those in need. To those detractors, I say only this: “What’s your plan?” In this age of individualism, we are encouraged to be thankful for what we have as individuals, not what we have as a nation. And when we lose that sense of national providence, we forget that part of Lincoln’s gratitude belonged to us, the people, as well.

When Lincoln declared Nov. 26, 1863, the first official Thanksgiving, he thanked God for the turning tides of war. But the holiday was intended to thank the brave men and women who were fighting to keep the United States together. After the war’s conclusion, it was the efforts of Reconstruction politicians in the South who worked to maintain that sense of national unity. When we look to our government today, whom can we thank for the current state of politics? Who stands up for compromise and good order in Washington?

While many fear a War on Christmas, the true assault has been launched against Thanksgiving. Black Friday consumerism is eroding the base of this holiday. For the working class, it is another day to make money. For those above them, it blinds us of what we can all be thankful for (the blessings of liberty, the strength of our democracy, etc.). Rampant individualism and its child — consumerism — have made Thanksgiving a shell of the holiday that Lincoln inaugurated. We must make a concerted effort to preserve this holiday by combating the forces that are tearing it down. Peace cannot exist where greed has free reign.

Richard Furstein is a senior anthropology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

“IP? Internet Protocol?” “What’s ‘IP’ stand for? International policy?”

Shockingly, those were the two most common responses that I received from Drexel students when asking them if they knew what IP stood for and what it represented to them. Drexel has long been a school that prides itself on the level of innovation generated by its rising engineers and other students. Would it not make sense that its students should at least know the basic rights that they have with regards to their own inventions and creations? Apparently not.

In a world where the spark of creativity can ignite an unending flame of potential through one’s intellectual innovation, it is more important than ever that those who innovate are able to grasp the full concept of what rights they are owed when it comes to their intellectual property. Furthermore, the fact that many of these inventors commence such innovative activity from a young age, even as early as in their late teenage years, leaves many of them susceptible to having others who are quick with words manipulate them into handing over their property rights.

It is not surprising, therefore, that too many young adults see the time required to innovate as more and more of an unnecessary burden on their shoulders. What motivation is there to innovate when individuals do not even believe that they will reap the much-deserved rewards for their time and effort? This should most definitely not be the case at our institution, a university with patent and copyright policies that explicitly place the rights of students’ work in their hands.

I had a chance to speak with the very man who was directly involved with drafting our copyright and patent policies all those years ago in the hope that the rest of the community would better understand their intellectual property rights. Sadly, his efforts were to no avail. In fact, he has been actively campaigning for the rest of the Drexel community to take notice of the fact that we, as students, are severely undereducated about our intellectual property rights for a long period of time. However, his efforts have gone seemingly unnoticed. Longtime Drexel professor Neal Orkin worked with the first vice president for research, Richard Schneider, for more than a year constructing Drexel’s original patent and copyright policies back in 1986. What was all that work for? To have most of his fourth- and fifth-year undergraduate engineering students tell him 20 years later that they are entitled to the rights to none of their own work.

The actual model for the policies that were created is extremely efficient compared to the model at other universities for a reason that Orkin stated when I sat down with him to talk to him: “As far as I know, we’re the only university where the final decision is not made by a university administrator; it’s made by an arbitration panel, a professional arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association — someone who’s familiar with both labor and employment law and one person selected by Drexel and one by the inventor.” This model is one that could even be implemented at other universities.

However, the unfortunate truth of the matter is that these policies are not getting nearly enough exposure. Students do not know anywhere near enough information about what their ownership rights entail, and this needs to be changed. Orkin offers the perfect solution for this: “The University can deliver information, especially to freshmen, when they come in through their University 101 courses. It shouldn’t take more than two hours to explain what a patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret is. In addition, they can go over, paragraph by paragraph, the Drexel Patent Policy and the Drexel Copyright Policy. They should be given proper education, and I think that if they knew what the IP Policies stand for and are taught this as freshmen, when they create inventions that make money, this would be a great selling point for Drexel. We could compete with MIT for high-quality students if they see that they can become a millionaire by the time they graduate!” These are truly awe-inspiring thoughts that raise the all-but-answered question: Why is Drexel not giving more students exposure to these policies when it is ready to be served on a silver platter that has been crafted with years of work by hardworking individuals? That is still a question to be answered with time.

Until this happens, however, limited progress will be made regardless of how much creativity is garnered among the student body. Orkin put it best: “You could have the greatest entrepreneurial minds in the world and the greatest technology managers, but if you don’t have the idea, then there is nothing to manage and nothing to sell. I think a lot of Drexel students are extremely creative; but most of the students that I teach, including the engineers, have no idea that Drexel does have both these policies.”

Could this problem at Drexel be tied to a larger, more worrisome goliath of a situation rising on the horizon of our beloved country? I asked Orkin about his opinion on this as well: “Aside from the Drexel policy, most engineers and scientists in this country sign a pre-employment agreement that in return for promise of present or future employment, they will assign all the rights to their inventions and they get virtually nothing in return or very little. They get pen sets, plaques, dinners and honorariums. Germany was the first country to establish a national law requiring royalties to employee inventors — that was done in 1942 by the Nazis. The law was then re-enacted in 1957, and typically a German employee inventor can now get between 2 and 7 percent of the profits that his or her employer makes, so you could have a working engineer making more than the CEO of a company like Hosch Chemicals or Mercedes Benz.”

Boy, that situation sure sounds awesome to most of us engineers spending sleepless nights buried under our piles of books! Unfortunately, the situation in the United States does not look like it is going anywhere near that at the moment, and a potential slowdown and lack of innovation is a very real threat that many are unwilling to face. However, changes on our campus could represent the beginning of a major turnaround throughout the country where employee inventors are given minimal rewards for their vital work.

In conclusion, when asked if he could advise the student body about the most important thing related to their IP rights, Orkin had this to say: “As I mentioned earlier, they do have rights to term papers. They do have rights to their work: artwork, photography work, etc. They do have, in certain situations, patent rights to their invention, but they don’t know about it, and a lot of students don’t know about it in their fourth or fifth year. It’s too late for them to try to innovate, so it should be done freshman year.”

Sim Raghunathan is a business and legal studies major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

For decades, the ultimate diplomatic goal of South Korea and North Korea has been reunification. Both countries assume that if they reunify, the economic, social and military strength of the nation as a whole would increase tremendously. Unfortunately, I would argue that the reunification would result in the complete opposite because of the huge economic loss and the extreme social conflict between South Koreans and North Koreans. Thus, I believe it is too late for both Koreas to even attempt reunification. I would like to discuss economic issues first because money is a key aspect of understanding difficulties of reunification.

Ever since the armistice between South Korea and North Korea on July 27, 1953, the difference in economy, politics, ideology and society has become wider and wider. For instance, according to the United Nations, the gross domestic product of South Korea is $1.116 trillion USD, making it the 15th-largest economy in the world. In contrast, North Korea’s GDP is only $12.135 billion USD, which puts its economy at 125th. Approximately, the economic ratio between South Korea and North Korea is 100 to 1. Naturally, South Korea would have the entire burden of paying for reunification, much like West Germany.

When West Germany and East Germany reunified, the economic gap between them was only 3 to 1. Moreover, living conditions of East Germans were adequate compared to other communist nations in the Warsaw Pact. East Germany had suitable basic industry and relatively advanced technology. However, after the reunification, West Germany had to spend the equivalent of €1.6 trillion over two decades. Yet the economic power of former East Germany is still lacking compared to former West Germany. Even with relatively favorable conditions, West Germany had to pay enormous amounts of money for the reunification to cover the economic gap. If we apply simple math to the gap between South Korea and North Korea, the burden of South Korea will easily be double, triple, quadruple or even more than that of West Germany.

The phrase “shoveling sand against the tide” perfectly describes the situation of the Korean Peninsula if the reunification actually takes place. Everything in North Korea — including infrastructure, transportation, education, technology and nutrition — is vastly inferior to South Korea. For instance, North Korea’s primary mode of transportation is railroads. Supposedly, railroads are an affordable and efficient mode of transportation, widely used for moving various resources. The problem is that North Korean railroads and trains are seriously outdated, so much so that they are not safe to use. Simply, North Koreans still use trains and railroads that were built during the era of Japanese occupation in the early 20th century. Furthermore, they still did not fix the railroads — which were damaged during the Korean War — due to lacking “money.” Somehow, North Koreans have plenty of money for building a hundred-foot-tall statue of their supreme leader, but they don’t have enough money for fixing the railroads. Additionally, North Korea still uses steam-powered trains, which probably belong in a museum. Unsurprisingly, massive fatal accidents have occurred in North Korea . Obviously, if the reunification happens, it would be South Korea’s burden to install new train system.

The problem that I discussed above is only the tip of the iceberg. In other words, there are tons of problems that will be the responsibility of South Korea should reunification occur. The problem is that South Korea cannot afford these expenses because the economic situation in South Korea is not very optimistic. Due to the prolonged recession, the unemployment rate of South Korea is the highest since the early 1990s. Also, due to the low birth rate and retiring baby boomers, South Korea became an elderly society, which raises concerns about social welfare programs and preparations for long-term depression. South Korea does not have a “mountain of gold,” so there are only two options for obtaining money needed for reunification: sharply increasing taxes or taking loans from other nations. Obviously, people will not like the idea of increasing taxes, and huge debt will become a heavy burden sooner or later.

Economically, South Korea is not in a position for reunification.

Alex Cho is a sophomore political science major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Korean unification made impossible by inadequate infrastructure appeared first on The Triangle.

As the leaders of Pennsylvania research universities, we represent institutions that are large and small; private and public; urban and rural; ivy and land grant. Yet for our many differences, we are united in our commitment to serving the public good. We’re grateful for the support that taxpayers have shown our institutions during challenging economic times, and we’re committed to working for our common future.

To that end, we are pursuing an unprecedented collaboration: seven universities with a single vision for reinvigorating our manufacturing industry through science, engineering and innovation. Our goal is to support the entrepreneurial efforts that will make Pennsylvania a manufacturing powerhouse, and in doing so, create high-wage jobs.

Our nation is outpacing the rest of the world’s advanced economies with the creation of 500,000 new manufacturing jobs in the last three years, and there have been significant federal and state investments in manufacturing research. But as new technologies transform industries and jobs, there is the potential to achieve much more right here in Pennsylvania. Our state has the resources, workforce, optimal geographic location and educational opportunities to fuel a manufacturing revolution.

Each year, our seven universities leverage funds raised for programs that contribute more than $31 billion in economic impact for the commonwealth and support more than 100,000 jobs. Much of this economic impact is based on research activities.

Building upon this track record of research productivity, we’re working with the commonwealth to establish a statewide consortium for engineering and manufacturing research. This new statewide investment will strengthen the government-university-industry partnerships that advance Pennsylvania-based innovation and research in engineering. By housing such a program at our universities, we support the research necessary to grow emerging businesses and strengthen existing industries across Pennsylvania.

Already, our universities are partnering on several high-profile, national initiatives that include the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (namii.org), with headquarters in western Pennsylvania; and the University City Science Center (www.sciencecenter.org) in Philadelphia, the first and largest urban research park in the United States.

We’re also collaborating with hundreds of local and regional economic development organizations and industry partners. Additional investments in engineering research will expand innovation in manufacturing, lead to new companies, and develop the base for new industrial jobs in the state.
The Deloitte-U.S. Council on Competitiveness 2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index identifies talent-driven innovation as the most important factor in competitiveness. Universities are a hotbed of talent. We can use it to serve Pennsylvania while better preparing our students — some 222,000 strong— to meet the rising needs for skilled trades, research and development, entrepreneurship, and success in the workplace.

The fact is that we cannot revitalize manufacturing with old thinking, tinkering around the edges, working in silos, and retooling timeworn strategies. Research and advancements in science and engineering are the bridge to the future and the conduit to creating high-wage manufacturing jobs.
Research and science open the doors to innovation and collaborative thinking that will best prepare our future workforce.

We look forward to realizing the potential of our great state so that “Made in Pennsylvania” will be a model for our nation’s manufacturing renewal. We invite partners to collaborate with our institutions as we pursue the goal to increase research for manufacturing in Pennsylvania. Learn more at: www.PAENGN.org.

Rodney A. Erickson is president of The Pennsylvania State University, John A. Fry is president of Drexel University, Alice P. Gast is president of Lehigh University, Amy Gutmann is president of the University of Pennsylvania, Mark A. Nordenberg is chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, Subra Suresh is president of Carnegie Mellon University, and Neil D. Theobald is president of Temple University.

This op-ed ran in The Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday, Nov. 10.

The post Made in Pennsylvania appeared first on The Triangle.

This past week, Liz Cheney created something of a stir by stating her support for the traditional definition of marriage on Fox News. As a Republican candidate for the 2014 Wyoming senatorial election, it should not be at all surprising for her to make a statement on the GOP’s propaganda channel that follows the party line. But Cheney is not like other rank and file members of her party: her sister, Mary, is a lesbian.

While Mary Cheney’s sexuality should not define Liz’s policy positions, the family tie does raise some questions about the sincerity of Liz’s statements. Liz Cheney described her position on same-sex marriage as a “simple disagreement” with her sister, but Mary Cheney and her wife have reacted to it as anything but. From the perspective of Mary Cheney (who is a Republican in her own right), Liz’s opposition to same-sex marriage contradicts the love and support she demonstrated around Mary’s wedding. In addition to facing personal accusations from her own family of misrepresenting herself to get voter support, Liz is also being attacked by political opponent Mike Enzi,the incumbent senior Republican senator from Wyoming, for not taking a hard line against all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights.

In all this political turmoil, voters and observers are left to wonder, “What does Cheney really believe?” Is she a hypocritical conservative who only accepts her sister’s marriage because they’re related? Or is she a flip-flopping wannabe politician who will say anything to get elected? The likely answer falls somewhere in between. Regardless of how Liz Cheney feels about same-sex marriage or her family, her goal is to get elected in Wyoming. With less than 30 percent of Wyomingites in support of same-sex marriage, her position on the issue is clear.

This forced clarification of position is part of a larger trend in American politics: the expectation that politicians will follow the party lines on every issue. The extinction of the moderate Republican has been heralded by expressions like RINO (Republican In Name Only), which targets conservatives who do not blindly accept the party line. With the Citizens United ruling and the growth of super PACs, it has become easier than ever to attack “soft” conservatives with negative campaigning, creating an ultraconservative Republican Party.

Encouraging politicians to follow the party line is nothing new. The purpose of the majority and minority whips in our Congress is to enforce party discipline, and it’s a political mechanism inherited from the United Kingdom. Consequently, political whips appear in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The difference between the United States and these other nations is the lack of a “free vote” (or “conscience vote”).

The free vote permits legislators to vote however they choose on an issue rather than along party lines. Interestingly, virtually all votes in the U.S. are free votes because the party whip does not have the ability to remove politicians from their party based on how they vote. The point here is that while other English-speaking governments allow political parties to regulate themselves, the U.S. system relies on super PACs, lobbying firms and fundraisers to decide who can be part of the party.

What does this mean for us, the American people? It means that our legislators are prevented from representing our viewpoints. If the people of my voting district support the Second Amendment and a woman’s right to choose, who do we vote for? How can we ever run a candidate who supports our unique views if a super PAC will depict such a candidate as breaking the party line? In our two-party “democracy,” our social positions MUST be attached to our fiscal positions and MUST be connected to our views on foreign policy and domestic security. Not only does this limit our voices in our government, but it also discourages change and growth in the parties’ views on an issue, which ultimately makes compromise impossible.

Liz Cheney had an amazing opportunity to show her support for same-sex marriage not as a political statement but also as a manifestation of her love and respect for her sister. Although only an estimated 28 percent of Wyomingites support same-sex marriage, an additional 36 percent support civil unions. That’s nearly 65 percent of the population in support of recognition of same-sex relationships (compared to only 32 percent opposed, with 3 percent undecided).

For what it’s worth, Liz Cheney supported states’ right to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009, in line with her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney. Four years later, she is bowing to the party line and disrespecting her sister — a fellow Republican — in the process. Until our government returns party-line maintenance to the parties themselves (by passing campaign finance reform laws and curbing the power of lobbyists), the people’s views and politicians’ sincere beliefs will always be silenced by money.

Richard Furstein is a senior anthropology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Morals for sale in Washington appeared first on The Triangle.

On Oct. 29, Israel released 26 Palestinian prisoners: 21 to the West Bank and five to the Gaza Strip. The release is the second of four being made by Israel in an attempt to bring the Palestinian Authority back to peace negotiations.

While these prisoners were welcomed by their families as heroes, let’s not forget that these people were prisoners for a reason.

Damouni Saad Mohammed Ahmed, one of the released prisoners, was convicted in 1990 for taking part in the murder of an Israeli Defense Forces reservist. The reservist was severely beaten and then killed when his car was fire bombed.

Abu-Dahila Hasan Atik Sharif was serving a sentence for stabbing his employer to death after working for him for 15 years on a dairy farm.
Muaid Salim was arrested in 1992 for being involved in a group that swam from Aqaba in southern Jordan to Eilat, where they shot to death a 62-year-old security guard at the Interuniversity Institute for Marine Sciences.

The men who were released are not just criminals, they are terrorists — people who have proven they are a danger to society. And yet Israel agreed to set them free for the chance to negotiate peace. This strategic, risky move would not have even been possible without the incredible progress Israel has made in the past decade at creating relative stability with the neighboring Palestinian territories, especially with the West Bank.
In the years since the end of the Second Intifada, measures made by Israel have brought about safety to the region for both sides. According to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, the security fence has brought about a 90 percent reduction in terrorist attacks in Israel since its creation in 2003. The number of Israeli civilians murdered by Palestinian terrorists has decreased from 430 in 2005 to zero in 2012. Without Israel creating safety and stability, no peace talks would be possible.

Despite the incredible results Israel has accomplished, its security faces increased uncertainty with the recent instability seen in the surrounding nations.

The military coup in Egypt threatens the generally peaceful relationship that the two countries have had since they signed a peace treaty in 1979.
The brutal, ongoing civil war in Syria poses a strategic defense challenge for Israel, as fighting is occurring so close to its northern border.
In Jordan, which has been Israel’s most amicable neighbor, Palestinian and Syrian refugees are estimated to make up a combined 40 percent of its total population. The strain of that huge number on the kingdom’s resources will inevitably cause some drastic change in its operation.
And Iran, even though it is not Israel’s immediate neighbor, continues to place the most severe threat on Israel as it constantly works to obtain nuclear weapons for Israel’s destruction while funding Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon.

A strong Israel is the keystone holding this chaotic region together. The only true democracy in the Middle East allows for a thriving economy, which has become integral to the world market despite attempts to hinder it with sanctions.

A strong Israel means a secure Israel. A secure Israel means a stable and safe Middle East. Only when there is safety and stability in the region is there any possibility of creating a genuine, lasting peace.

Josh Dienstman is a biomedical engineering major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Israel’s security key to a stable Middle East appeared first on The Triangle.

I have gone to plenty of not-vegetarian-friendly restaurants with many nonvegetarian friends. Although it may seem to present itself as a dilemma, eating out with omnivores can be a worthwhile experience.

A menu at a primarily steak-and-potatoes joint can be daunting. I’m fairly sure your server won’t know which burger buns have milk products in them. Unfortunately, the salad option becomes our stigma because vegetables are apparently lamer than a juicy New York strip steak. Yet the trick to making a salad option worthwhile is to order appetizers that you can add to the salad yourself. Most places have some sort of baked potato (sans bacon bits) that you can order with your salad to cut up into chunks. Now we’re starting to beef up your salad, so to speak. Some places, like Texas Roadhouse, my dad’s favorite, even have peanuts — a free addition to a somewhat sober-seeming salad. If you are really lucky and in a somewhat healthy steak (oxymoron?)-and-potatoes place, then some restaurants will have a fruit cup as a side. Add that to your greens, and now your salad will actually look appealing.

Vegetarians have a responsibility, though, to order or eat food that is appetizing (particularly to the eyes). I have told my carnivore friends about the cruelties animals face in factory farms, and that hasn’t convinced them to go vegetarian. However, they’ve eaten vegetarian food that looked amazing and was something they had never experienced before and thus spared the life of the animal they may have eaten right then. Take control when you can! Sometimes I’ll invite friends to a vegan restaurant and watch them struggle to decide what will actually fill them up — all of them are shocked by the taste and quality of vegan cuisine. Vegetarians obviously do not eat salads all the time, but in tough situations with friends and peanuts at Five Guys, it’s the option we’re seen with most. It’s vital for others and helpful to animals to show how veg food can be pretty amazing.
Chances are that if you live in or near a city, it will have at least a couple vegan options. Some small towns, too, have vegan options that seem hidden away. You can take a few friends to a coffee shop to get the one vegan brownie they have and show them that almost anything can be cooked or prepared vegan. If you have no options like vegan cafes or restaurants with veg options, try the classic veg restaurants, like Mexican, Ethiopian and Vietnamese places. A lot of these cultures’ dishes are vegetarian just because they’ve always been made that particular way.
It’s easier than most people think to find vegan options while dining out. The trick is to be creative and plan ahead of time. You can use your smartphone to look at the menu on the go or even find another restaurant nearby. The veg options are there, but it’s up to you to encourage your friends and make it a worthwhile experience.

Benjamin Sylvester is the president of the Drexel Animal Welfare Group. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.
“Moo Over This” publishes biweekly.

The post Moo Over This | Dining with vegetarians appeared first on The Triangle.

News used to be a simple reporting of facts. People who wanted to know what was happening in places like Korea, India, Cleveland or Bosnia tuned in to the news and listened to the facts. Yes, believe it or not, people used to listen to the news so that they could get all the facts. Nowadays, it seems like news stories are rapidly becoming less news and more stories. No one listens to Glenn Beck because they want to hear unbiased facts. In fact, according to Pew Research’s News Coverage Index from December 2012, 46 percent of CNN’s broadcasts are “opinion/commentary” rather than actual reporting. You have to wonder how an organization that only shows news half the time can call itself a news network.

Even more shocking is the fact that, out of the three big news channels, CNN airs the least amount of opinion. Fox News fills up 55 percent of its airtime with opinion, and MSNBC airs commentary and opinion a whopping 85 percent of the time it’s supposedly reporting news. In fact, these networks make segments dedicated entirely to opinions, like “Hannity” or “The Rachel Maddow Show.” Still, they pretend to be real news networks. They have news scrolls at the bottom of the screen, nice backgrounds with a globe or an American flag, and a nicely dressed and vaguely attractive person in the foreground talking about something that sounds like current events. Don’t be fooled, however; these shows are news shows no more.

If you look at these networks carefully, you find that they are actually entertainment networks rather than news networks. They no longer serve the purpose of informing the public any more than Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert. The trouble is, these networks look so much like news that they end up confusing the general public, some of whom believe that Bill O’Reilly is a source of news equal to The New York Times. Another problem is how seriously these big networks seem to take themselves. No one is going to accuse “The Daily Show” of feigning impartiality, but Fox’s slogan is “Fair and Balanced,” for crying out loud! These networks are trying to pass off their content as news, and they’re doing a pretty good job. Their viewers are convinced that their channel’s content and their channel’s opinions are all true. Essentially, these networks are painting skewed realities for millions of Americans — the same Americans who vote for our politicians.

We wonder why Congress is so deadlocked, yet we ignore the fact that the people who voted them in are equally deadlocked in the worst way — neither side is wrong, because to each side, their respective viewpoints are the truth. When opinion becomes fact and those synthetic facts begin to contradict (as opinions tend to), then the resulting discussion is no longer about how to compromise on opinion to find common ground and reach a solution. No, these opinions are now treated as fact, and you can’t compromise on a fact. The thing is, these fake facts don’t agree with each other like real facts do, so the whole human decision-making system grinds to a halt. When networks begin planting ideas into people’s minds, we get a misinformed populace, and there is no greater threat to a democracy than that.

So, why do so many people allow the media to polarize them so much in the first place? Well, to answer that, we have to think about why people would watch MSNBC or Fox News. People used to watch the news for the sake of forming their own opinion based on the information handed to them. Nowadays, people still want opinions, but making opinions is really hard. You have to gather as much information as you can, make conclusions based on that information, figure out where you need more research and where you’re fine just making assumptions, and form a complex and dynamic argument. That’s a lot of work. What’s more is that when you present that argument to someone with a different opinion, there is a very real chance of that person having information you don’t, which invalidates your opinion partially or entirely. If that happens, not only have you wasted time creating and defending your position, but you’ve also lost a battle and your confidence that anything you think is correct. It becomes very stressful to make opinion after opinion only to have each one torn down. It’s so much easier, so much more relieving, to just listen to Bill O’Reilly and repeat whatever he says whenever you meet someone with an opinion that differs from his. When all is said and done, the reason we watch such terrible “news” networks is that the news they give us has been pre-chewed, with each new event accompanied by commentary that lets us understand what we ought to think of things and why we ought to think that. Everything’s just easier to swallow.

The world is getting smaller. More and more people are getting closer and closer to us in our previously isolated little corner of the world. As more and more people are being forced closer and closer together, we begin to get scared. All of a sudden, all of these different people and religions and cultures and morals and values and ideas are flowing in and crowding us all at once, and it’s getting really noisy and confusing. We aren’t sure how to act or what to do. We’re nervous, uncertain and even a little embarrassed. In the midst of this fear, many people, for whom this new world is changing too fast, panic and look for some assuring voice in the dark, some group to support them, some level of constancy in this chaotic and ever-changing world that is the 21st century. This solution, however, simply can’t work. It was Benjamin Franklin who once said, “Those who would lose their liberty to gain a little security deserve neither and lose both.” For the sake of security, we, the American populace, are sacrificing the very foundation of liberty: We are sacrificing choice. We are giving up our ability to choose what we want to believe, and we are losing the ability to make decisions based on information given to us. We are giving up our individuality, and we are giving up our reason. In short, in order to preserve our security from the hustle and bustle of the world around us, we are giving up the things that make us human, all while our stubbornness continues to destroy our nation and, as Franklin asserted, threatens to take away our security once and for all.

Talha Mukhtar is a freshman legal studies major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Abusing and misusing the news appeared first on The Triangle.