The immunity with which the safety of our planet and our bodies may be compromised as of late is sickening. The sheer quantity of transgressions that corporate giant Monsanto Co. is responsible for would be comical if it were not so dire. With every new facet of this corporation that I become aware of, my animosity grows.

I do recognize that the primary goal of a corporation is to make money, so I am empathetic when coming across quotes by Monsanto officials who display their blatant disregard for health and safety. Regulation for these biotech companies should come from the government, and extensive testing should take place before any genetically modified food is allowed to be grown or distributed. Being a proponent of science, I can safely say that if enough research is conducted and scientists can unanimously declare that a certain modified organism is safe for the planet and the human body, I will have no qualms with it being used. I shall not, however, blindly accept the implementation of a potentially devastating culture of natural degradation, regardless of its short-term positive effects. Therein lies the issue, the reason for the thousands of people marching against Monsanto, the reason for eight of the EU’s member states banning genetically modified organisms, and the reason for Russia’s outrage and warnings of war. The government cannot effectively moderate Monsanto because so many key people in the government have interests in the success of the corporation.

Our government, though markedly less so than many other nations’ governments, is an unreliable stew of corruption, partisan bickering, and conflicts of interest. Fortunately, concerned scientists and research firms take it upon themselves to raise awareness about the detrimental effects of GMO crops. Quite unfortunately, though, Monsanto has the financial means to combat those firms. A recent example emerged when concerns began to rise about the rapid decline of bee populations, which could lead to a catastrophic collapse of the world ecosystem. Any guess as to how Monsanto responded? They bought out the leading bee research firm.

I feel almost foolish now when I do further research because I know that I am going to find nothing to my liking, and what I do find will surely detract from any positive news in my day. Regardless, I update myself regularly on new developments and occasionally any old ones that I may have missed. As of a few months ago, my nerves had calmed, my fervent disdain for Monsanto had subsided, and I resolved simply to accept what was happening. I told myself that I could help when I graduated from college and that no amount of attending marches or rallies would make even a slight difference. That respite was welcome, but I was doomed to relapse, and so relapse I did. Section 735 of a recent bill (H.R.933), which President Obama signed into law, has come to be known as the “Monsanto Protection Act.” This act effectively makes the United States government unable to immediately cease the production and distribution of GMO seeds even if adverse effects of them are discovered. Livid does not even begin to describe my emotional state when I read that section of the bill.

It may turn out that GMO crops are not as harmful as current studies would imply, but that is not a risk that any human or collective of humans should have the power to take. Betting the habitability and health of our planet and all its organisms for the purpose of profit is not wise, and until responsible regulation and legislation is implemented, I will stand adamantly with millions of others worldwide in opposition to Monsanto.

Matt Gentry is a member of the Drexel Sierra Club. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post EnviroWeekly | License to till appeared first on The Triangle.

As a new adjunct instructor last fall in the Drexel English Language Center, I was informed that a large percentage of our students are from Saudi Arabia, most of whom are men. My first thought was, “How is this going to work?” I had no firsthand experience with the students from this culture, but I did know that people in Saudi Arabia don’t interact with anyone of the opposite sex outside of their families.

This April, after the bombing in Boston and the racial profiling of a Saudi spectator, I found myself worrying about my students. After working with them, I had come to know them as individuals, and it pained me that others might only see them as a nationality or a religion instead of as individuals. I have recently had the opportunity to sit and talk with some of my students and have learned more about their experiences.

Masoud Alhaddad and his wife, Hanan Hafiz, shared with me stories of what life was like for them when they first arrived in the United States. They explained that much like other Saudi students, they were able to study in the United States on a scholarship.

According to a U.S. News and World Report article, former President George W. Bush and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia launched an extensive scholarship program in 2005 that has led to a growing Saudi student presence on U.S. campuses.

“It’s a great gift from our king,” Alhaddad said. “We are trying to learn everything we can.”

When the couple first arrived, some adjustments were easy. “We are used to American-style food,” Hafiz said. “We have American restaurants in Saudi Arabia.”

It has been harder for these students to make friends. “We decided to reach out to [Americans]and to learn everything we can,” Alhaddad said.

From their experience so far, Alhaddad and Hafiz have been pleased with several aspects of American life. For example, Hafiz is not able to drive, so the public transportation system in Philadelphia is a big help. “We do not have anything like this [in Saudi Arabia],” she said.

As a couple, Alhaddad and Hafiz have some things in common with many American couples. Hafiz is interested in pursuing an advanced degree, and Alhaddad supports her in this effort.

“And he does the cooking!” Hafiz said.

“I like it,” Alhaddad countered.

Being flexible is the key for many international students living in the United States. Another student, Abdulaziz Altuwaijri, a Drexel Allison Rose Fellowship student, said that there have been some challenges for him, but in order to study, he was determined to adapt.

“We watched a lot of American TV before we came,” he said. He went on to explain that he went from living alone in Saudi Arabia to now sharing a house where several of his roommates are women. “I have to accept everything to live here,” he said.

Some things have not been easy. “It is hard how some people look at me when I’m waiting for the bus,” he said. One time on a bus, someone from another country guessed where he was from and started bothering him.

“I wish people would understand about my culture,” Altuwaijri said. “If anything happened bad from one guy, it doesn’t mean we are all like that.”

According to Altuwaijri, some Americans assume that all students from his country are rich. “A lot of people think that we are rich,” he said. “This is wrong. The government is rich, but it doesn’t mean that individuals are all rich.”

One thing that many of the students from Saudi Arabia have in common is an interest in learning as much as they can while living here. “We are interested in first learning the culture,” Alhaddad said. “The language will come through the culture.”

Learning the culture has not always been easy. For example, “In Saudi Arabia you should share your food if you want to eat in public places,” Hafiz explained. “If I have a bag of chips, M&Ms or even gum, and I want to eat on the train or bus or in [a] waiting room, I should share my food with people sitting next to me. For me I was really surprised, not because it is not a common courtesy in the U.S. but by how people react when I offer them this food.”

Knowing the culture “leads the people to connect with us,” Alhaddad said. For many international students, it is difficult to connect with American students, and that is particularly true of students learning English who are shy to speak.

In his role as an Allison Rose Fellowship student, Altuwaijri advises new students in the ELC and helps them make adjustments to living and studying here. Still, he wishes that he could help more students connect with Americans. After teaching at the ELC for several terms, I too have that wish.

Dawn Kane is an adjunct instructor at Drexel’s English Language Center and can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Saudi students speak appeared first on The Triangle.

There are many reasons why I love the City of Philadelphia. Naturally, growing up in the surrounding area gave me an affinity for the City of Brotherly Love, but there are a whole host of other reasons behind my deep love for this beautiful, dysfunctional city. One of them is unquestionably the abundance of diversity. From South Philly, where my people (Italians) win hearts through stomachs, to Chinatown’s colorful streets, my city is filled with all different types of people. Drexel, as a university in such a city, would theoretically be a reflection of this. Sadly, the diverse atmosphere found in Philly is not entirely present at Drexel.

Don’t misunderstand — I am not suggesting that prospective students should be accepted on the basis of their racial or ethnic backgrounds. Rather, I am commenting on the lack of true cultural understanding and acceptance at Drexel. Keep that in mind as I continue my rant. In my experience, I have come across more individuals of Asian descent and Caucasians on Drexel’s campus than Latinos and members of the black community.

Often, I have noticed that black people are presumed to be “Oreos,” which is a black person who is considered to be “white on the inside.” I have several issues with the term “Oreo,” chief among them being the saying’s implication that black individuals who are educated and successful must be “white on the inside.” This implies that only white people can be successful, educated, bright, etc., which is clearly and entirely false. I could detail the unjust reasons as to why this perception exists in some minds, but that would take up far more pages than anyone truly wants to read in a newspaper. History aside, these sentiments are indicative of a lack of understanding as to why there are few black and Latino individuals on university campuses. As my best friend Jazmin Sullivan (who happens to be black and is a self-proclaimed “semiexpert” on “some” of the features of the black population) explained, “It usually starts with elementary, middle and high school. [Black children are] receiving an education that’s ‘less than.’ It’s wrong. Most black students aren’t educated about college enough, to be honest. Their parents sometimes don’t encourage them, and neither do their teachers. It really frustrates me to hear black students [say they’re not going to college] because they think they can’t succeed.”

Lack of encouragement and resources are not only an issue for black students. Many Latino students face similar difficulties for some of the same reasons, sometimes in addition to a partial or complete language barrier. Commenting on his experiences, a close Latino friend of mine said, “Even if you’re legally in this country and grew up here, many schools don’t put in enough effort to teach you English to the point where you fully understand it and are comfortable using it just as much as your first language. Honestly, most of the time, teachers act like it’s your fault for not knowing English. And when you do poorly in school or get in trouble, you’re just bad and stupid. Because of these issues, it’s really difficult to succeed and be taken seriously.”

Indeed, in my own Italian-American family, I am about the fourth person to attend high school and the third to attend college. This is partially due to a language barrier, partially due to discrimination, and partially because my relatives couldn’t afford not to spend all their time working, let alone to spend money on college. My grandfather, born shortly after his family moved to the U.S., dropped out of school in eighth grade to work. Not working because of education is a ridiculous thought in many families like mine, and things like college are laughed at for being so unattainable. Yet my grandfather is still one of the smartest individuals I know, even if he isn’t necessarily “book smart.” Situations like these are far more common than most Drexel students may realize.

I encounter many students who believe that black and Latino individuals aren’t present at colleges because they aren’t smart, motivated, willing, etc. and that the ones who are at colleges can be considered white. This sort of conscious and/or subconscious thought process is not only incorrect but also insensitive, hurtful and ignorant. Rather than reveling in privilege and assuming that others had the same opportunities, circumstances and resources, students must realize that it’s up to those who are being educated to take the initiative to help those around them. Because we are already lucky enough to be able to attend college, it’s our duty to work to create a system that serves everyone properly and to provide people at disadvantages with prospects and the same, if not better, chances. This can be accomplished in many ways, one of which is through Drexel’s own Lindy Center for Civic Engagement. Helping others isn’t a chore, charity or “bonus karma points”; it’s a responsibility and something to be done out of love, kindness and respect.

Erin DiPiano is a freshman communications major at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org

The post Diversity and Drexel appeared first on The Triangle.

Two weeks ago I wrote in my column about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride events and LGBT organizations as well as protection laws and a multitude of other issues. Since then, the response toward my opinion on those issues has been mixed, with much opposition coming from many who deal with the reality of discrimination on a daily basis and support coming from various sides of the debate. Notably, one voice of support, Aaron Strauss, wrote into The Triangle in last week’s issue in support of the reasonable voice that I provided from one side of the issue. I admire his willingness to come forth with his own opinion with the full knowledge that his viewpoint may not be widely accepted in the immediate community. I feel compelled by recent comments and criticisms of my last column to provide additional clarification and a more in-depth analysis of the opinions expressed in said column. First and foremost, some base information must be established.
Several criticisms of my last article revolved around accusations that I was naive to the LGBT struggle and that a majority of my opinions were easy to state because I have not had to deal with the same trials that a majority of LGBT individuals have had to confront. I would like to dispel those accusations by formally stating that I am in fact a member of the LGBT community and have encountered those prejudices in my life. Secondly, my opinions expressed in the prior column still hold true despite the response received from a very opinionated community of readers. With that issue cleared out of the way, I would like to begin addressing the cause of this column.

In his article, Strauss brought up his religious convictions pertaining to LGBT issues, and although I personally disagree with them, it needs to be pointed out that those opinions must be accepted by everyone in order to move forward with the issue. As an LGBT individual I felt no personal assault by Strauss’ article, even though our opinions on various social issues do not align, and why should I? I have my opinions and others have theirs, but they should not influence how I treat them or vice versa. This brings us to a very important realization that many on both sides of the social argument need to adhere to: Instead of promoting the childishness of a playground argument (which most of the debate on LGBT rights has become), both sides of the issue must be willing to listen to and respect the opinion of the opposition. Society has experienced a very minimal amount of this basic courtesy. Especially in recent years, words such as “bigot” and “homophobe” have been thrown around without any real consideration or respect. These personal attacks serve no purpose in bettering the image of the LGBT community and only propagate an image of hostility.

In almost a militant fashion, both sides of the argument have used their rhetoric and actions to increase tension against the opposition. As a result, many LGBT individuals harbor a deep resentment to religion when, in reality, they should be content with the fact that the Catholic Church even has a compassion-driven position in its Catechism. LGBT rights may not be a desired outcome for more conservative organizations such as the Catholic Church, but their position should be respected. For many Catholics to adhere to this doctrine by disagreeing with LGBT issues such as marriage is perfectly acceptable; no one should be forced to accept something that goes against their personal moral convictions. Additionally, their opinions do not make them bigoted any more than your own personal beliefs in opposition to theirs make you a bigot. The system of religion-bashing and name-calling does not help either cause any more than it does in any other argument.

This brings me to a very caustic point that I feel needs to be reiterated in detail in order for the point to hit home. In my last column I wrote about abstaining from pride events and LGBT activist groups because I believed them to serve more of an alienating purpose than a universal approach. The main reason for this analysis is negative media portrayal of pride events. While such events do invite a sense of community and culture, it is important to be careful about how we approach them. With mass media honed in on anything that is deemed “out of the norm,” portrayal of the LGBT community lingers in the minds of the outsider as a queer fetish culture. Instead of telling the story of the happy couple, America’s television screens are bombarded with images of kink, hypersexuality and promiscuity. Additionally, many were upset with my statements regarding protection of the ally status under certain legal clauses. Most cited that heterosexual cisgender individuals already possess protection from discrimination based on their gender and sexuality. I respectfully disagree; in a work environment where personal opinion and political affiliation can still make or break a career, it is important that allies are included in such documents, as even support of LGBT individuals can spark tension.

When it comes down to it, most of what the LGBT community is doing today seems to be a gigantic waste of energy. A majority of time and energy wasted intensifies the standoff between LGBT detractors and the community as described above. Controversy, hatred and intolerance will only subside once one side makes the first move toward empathy. Tearing down the foundation of another’s opinion does more to offend than it does to comfort. Unfortunately, with animosity between both parties rising to higher levels by the minute, the playground debate doesn’t look like it will be ending anytime soon.

Vaughn Shirey is a freshman environmental sciences major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.
Queerview publishes biweekly in weeks 3, 5, 7 and 9 .

The post Queerview | Moderation has a place in LGBT rights issues appeared first on The Triangle.

Bei Bei Shuai, a Chinese immigrant from Shanghai, was charged March 14, 2011, with the murder of her daughter, Angel, by Marion County, Ind.
According to the Marion County Sheriff’s Office report, Shuai was eight months pregnant when she attempted suicide Dec. 23, 2010, by consuming rat poison. Investigators discovered that she attempted suicide because her boyfriend the  and father of her baby, Zhi Liang Quan, abandoned her. She survived the poison. Her baby, however, who was born Dec. 31 via caesarian section, died from a cerebral hemorrhage three days later. Due to the unnatural and sudden death of the baby, hospital doctors reported the incident to the police with the suspicion that Shuai may be responsible.
Shuai was taken into custody in Marion County Jail for 14 months without bail. Although Shuai was released in May 2012, the Supreme Court of Indiana refused to dismiss the charges. Meanwhile, the defendant refused to accept the plea bargain of taking a feticide charge (maximum sentence 20 years in prison) instead of a murder charge (maximum sentence 45 years in prison) and claimed her innocence.

Marion County Judge Sheila Carlisle scheduled Shuai’s trial for Sept. 3, 2013. The prosecution assigned Terry Curry, the chief prosecutor of Marion County, to Shuai’s case. On the other side, Linda Pence, an experienced defense attorney, is defending Shuai.

I believe this case definitely opened the Pandora’s box of women’s rights. Based on the verdict of this trial, pro-life and pro-choice advocates can both either strengthen or weaken their arguments on abortion’s legality. Therefore, it is obvious that women’s rights groups ought to advocate for a verdict of “not guilty” through protesting against the prosecution and creating petitions for her innocence. I do understand that this case is very crucial; it represents one of the most controversial issues in the United States. However, we should not forget that the duty of this nation’s judicial branch is to bring justice to everyone who rightfully deserves punishment or compensation. Therefore, we must not let external circumstances cloud fair judicial rulings in this case. Furthermore, it is indeed very painful and cruel to force a woman who lost her newborn daughter to go through the intense procedures of a criminal court. If she truly deserves the punishment for murder or feticide, the judge should not hesitate to declare her guilty.

On the other hand, if she is not guilty, not only does she need to be treated properly, but the government and interest groups should also cooperate to help any pregnant women who are experiencing psychological difficulties. Every mother has the right to protect and successfully deliver a new life.

After reviewing the facts written by Pence, I came into doubt that the baby died because of her mother’s attempted suicide. I will review the situation of Shuai at the time of attempt of suicide. She was experiencing severe depression from her breakup with her boyfriend just before the tragic incident. While she was pregnant, she attempted suicide at least three times in front of her boyfriend before that. Clearly, anybody might think about killing oneself after being left alone with a heavy burden. However, Shuai was not in an ordinary situation at all; the baby was almost fully grown in her womb. Obviously, she was aware of the baby’s existence and the consequence of her action. Anybody with even the slightest maternal love would think again if the suicide attempt would have cost the life of a baby.

Yes, it is true that her mental state might have been so extreme that she did not consider her baby, but when she was rescued by her friends and taken to a hospital, she did not refuse treatment. Moreover, testimony from hospital employees stating that she sincerely cooperated with doctors was more than enough to prove that her maternal love was real. How does this contradiction occur?
Regarding the rat poison, it is roughly 60 times stronger than any regulated poison. Chinese women have traditionally used it to ensure quick and definite death. Rat poison does not have an expiration date and is just as deadly no matter how old it is. Miraculously, the poison did not kill Shuai. She recovered completely in a matter of days, and her baby survived for at least three days, which is remarkable considering the damage that rat poison can do to a baby.

The question arises: If the poison was not enough to kill both of them, did Shuai underdose? I seriously doubt that she mistakenly consumed less poison because studies have shown that people who commit suicide with poison often use a large dose to ensure a quick and relatively painless death. If she intentionally consumed less rat poison to survive, why would she risk her baby’s life?
With limited information, I will not jump to conclusions. However, I do wish for the truth alone to be revealed in this case. In order to obtain the truth, the judge should exclude the external matter of woman’s rights even if this matter is very crucial politically.

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

The post Infanticide case causes controversy appeared first on The Triangle.

It’s been a long time coming for opponents of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline — public comments, rallies of over 50,000 people in D.C., petitions from all corners of the globe, and 72-year-old women U-locking their necks to pipeline equipment. The proposed pipeline (with various possible routes) will be used for transporting tar sands from Alberta, Canada, down to Texas for refining. There are two issues with this statement: “Tar sands” and “pipeline.” Let’s go over the usual retorts for why this pipeline is “good”:

“It’ll boost our economy!” they say. “It’ll create jobs!” “It will give the U.S. energy security!” “It will make our gas cheaper!” The list goes on and on. Now I want you to think about these statements as I delve deeper into our two root issues: tar sands and pipelines.

Tar sands. It already sounds gross. Tar, as we know it, is a black, gooey substance that our roads are made with. Sand is the stuff we find on beaches that is composed of ground-up rocks, seashells and coral. Now let’s put the two together, and what do we get? The Alberta Tar Sands. But how does that make oil? Well, the process is quite simple, actually:

Step 1: Clear cut the precious Boreal Forest that represents more than half of Canada’s land area, sustains countless plants and animals, and plays a critical role in mitigating global climate change.

Step 2: Start digging. And by digging, we mean use some of the largest mechanical machines known to man that are capable of gouging out 16,000 cubic meters of earth per hour, filling up dump trucks that are 22 feet high and nearly 50 feet long, then hauling 400 tons of sand per load.

Step 3: Crush the sand into tiny particles using crushers. Mix the crushed sand with hot water with added chemicals to draw out the sludge (known as bitumen). This tar is so thick that you have to cut it with solvents in order to transport it in the pipeline.

Step 4: So you added solvents. This makes it difficult to process, but there is a solution: just hydrotreat your sludge (use a lot of water, natural gas and oil) to get rid of those solvents like nitrogen, sulfur and other metals. Now heat it again to remove the carbon and add hydrogen. No big deal, we fixed it, guys!

Step 5: Now we’re ready to send it through another pipeline to refine it, but because most of our refineries aren’t built to handle the task of the heavy bitumen, we’ll have to build new ones. We got this.

That’s a lot, but what else? It takes as much as four tons of sand and four barrels of fresh water to make a barrel of synthetic oil, which is good for about 42 gallons of gas, or one fill-up for a 1997 Chevrolet Suburban. This process of extracting tar from sand to feed our fossil fuel dependence is just absolutely ridiculous. In addition, the greenhouse gas emissions are 19 percent higher than traditional fossil fuels. The European Union attempted to single out tar sands as “highly polluting,” and Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the British Liberal Democrats, compared them to land mines, blood diamonds and cluster bombs. Sounds great, right?

So then, let’s talk about the pipeline. There are obvious issues with it like leaking, explosions, damage to wildlife, imposing on people’s property, etc. (We’ve seen about five pipeline issues in the past few weeks not relevant to the Keystone XL Pipeline, which are signs of what’s to come), but there’s also a lot of false information about the benefits created by the pipeline that the U.S. State Department has put in its State Impact Report of the Keystone XL Pipeline. The U.S. State Department stated that the pipeline would create many jobs. In reality, it will create 35 permanent jobs and 3,900 construction jobs (for one year), and only 10 percent of those jobs will be filled by local people living in communities along the route.

But we won’t be dependent on foreign fossil fuels, right? The State Department found that the purpose of the pipeline will likely be to export Canadian crude from the U.S. after it’s refined. An estimated 60 percent of crude oil will be exported after it’s refined. Well, that does us a lot of good, especially because it will not lower gas prices for Americans by a single cent!

So the State Department got a few things right, but there are also some things they missed, like the fact that the Keystone XL Pipeline will drastically expand the tar sands industry and increase carbon pollution. The pipeline will also be a major threat to fresh water. The total carbon pollution impacts of Keystone XL increase to the equivalent of over 9 million cars on the road when considering the total emissions to produce tar sands and the combustion of the crude oil. Despite alterations in the route of the Keystone XL Pipeline, it will still cross more than 1,000 water bodies across three states and 875 miles, threatening fresh water for millions of people if there is a bitumen spill. Tar sands oil is almost impossible to clean up because it sinks in water, costing billions of dollars to recover. TransCanada’s first Keystone pipeline has spilled 14 times in the U.S. within one year of operation, including the spill in Kalamazoo, Mich., where 40 miles are still contaminated and may never be recovered.

I’ve had the privilege of attending both anti-Keystone XL Pipeline rallies on the National Mall in Washington. This past year in February, I gathered with over 50,000 like-minded friends and individuals to stand up to Big Oil and the government that it chokes with money. The Keystone XL Pipeline is not our future — in fact, it’s the end of the future. Please take a stand.

Nicole Koedyker is the president of the Drexel Sierra Club. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.
The Drexel Sierra Club contributes weekly.

The post EnviroWeekly | Stop the KeystoneXL oil pipeline now appeared first on The Triangle.

I bought seven brands of bottled water yesterday. I got the good stuff, waters from around the world. I am fascinated by regional-specific goods, especially foods. When these products come directly from the earth, I am even more interested. Location-specific waters, which most of these are, are luxury items for sure. Some of these waters are from islands, and others come from remote areas of Europe. They are expensive … and I’m not even talking about money.

Bottling water takes a vital commodity from the earth. The ecosystems in these areas are dependent on historical levels of groundwater and aquifers. I often feel as though my Western lifestyle allows for me to rob a pristine land of its most important resource, pack it in small toxic packaging we call plastic, and ship it over the ocean on massive boats. This happens partly because my own culture is too destructive to take care of its own water supply.

I feel like this bottled water issue speaks to a larger concern. The planet’s water is in a dire state, contaminated with everything we have tossed its way, including industrial waste and household refuse. Our inability to limit our waste or manage our consumption has resulted in a serious situation. Deserts are spreading. Oceans are diseased. Rain is toxic. Aquifers are being depleted. Drinkable water is limited, and the supply is shrinking. Life, which depends on water, is feeling the pressure.

We must begin acting now if we hope to keep the planet looking anything close to the way we found it. The speed at which we are changing the planet is rapid. The severe problems mentioned above arise because human-induced changes to the environment are occurring faster than the natural systems can accommodate them. Our goal moving forward is to begin consciously creating the future with manageable changes. We must think of how our decisions affect the world around us and attempt to minimize disturbances. Bottled water is one example of many.

One way to minimize disturbance to our environment is to learn how to slow down our lives. Sometimes technology and new products help make our lives better, but other times our possessions make things more complicated. If you can learn to be happy with owning less, you will have made a large, fundamental change in your life. With fewer things to think about, you can spend your time and money on things that will improve your life rather than distract you from it.

The post EnviroWeekly | Water: a resource in serious danger appeared first on The Triangle.

“Why sports? What’s so good about a few dudes and a ball? Don’t you have better things to do?” Questions such as these have been leveled at me for years. Every time, I roll my eyes, smile to myself and shake my head because the silly person asking any of these questions just does not understand. As if there is anything more important than sport. I sincerely believe that centuries from now, historians will consider organized sport as our contribution to the world, on equal footing with Roman roads, Greek government or Egyptian architecture.

One could argue that the personal computer is what will stand out in the chronicle of history. While we certainly live in the age of technology, those heartless machines cannot compare to the passionate feelings of sports. Can you connect to a computer? Can it make you feel? Of course not. Sports, however, embody emotion and storyline. They are the national unity of “USA 4, USSR 3”; Michael Jordan’s raw tears from winning the NBA title on Father’s Day, just weeks after his dad passed away; or the New Orleans Saints returning to the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina.

Sports are more egalitarian than any democracy. The last four presidents have all gone to Harvard or Yale, but in sports, greatness comes from anywhere and everywhere. Who was the last senator to spend the first 15 years of his life in the slums like Michael Oher? The best soccer player on Earth is 5 feet six inches, but only once since Kennedy has a president been shorter than six feet. How could one forget Jesse Owens putting the smack down on Hitler’s master race during the 1936 Berlin Olympics or Jackie Robinson breaking baseball’s color barrier almost 20 years before the Civil Rights Act?

Sports are an outlet; they are where we go when the world is too overwhelming. All the importance in the universe is contained within a few chalk lines. There is a score and rules to be followed, and it is fair. If my team is ahead when the time is up, you can argue all you want, but my team won. Results make sense and are not interpreted based on personal feelings — well, except in figure skating.
Sports are community and connection. There is still nothing like going to the ballpark on a warm summer’s eve surrounded by fellow lovers of the game. I’ve met a thousand people but have never felt more intimate than when executing a perfectly timed give ‘n’ go with a complete stranger. Our country is divided over every single political issue, but we can all agree on the doomed heroism of Colin Kaepernick in the Super Bowl.

Sports are magic. There’s a saying in Europe: “The ball is round so that anything can happen.” Sports replace childhood belief in fairy tales with the belief that no matter how far behind your team is, a comeback is still possible. Anytime you watch or play a game, something amazing could happen. Sure, we might get crap or monotony 99 times. But that 100th time, we watch the Red Sox come back from three games down to win the American League pennant over the hated Yankees, or we see Trey Burke’s 30-foot game-winner swish through the net. After 99 times, we jump to our feet as David Tyree desperately clings to a pass against his helmet, or we drop our jaws as Leo Messi runs past defenders as if they were training cones.

Sports are important. They are a form of dramatic art, the greatest. Real blood and sweat are poured into every moment, none of this corn starch stuff. It is art that can be created by anyone, from the young boy playing catch with his dad to the physical geniuses who rule the NBA. Sports are enjoyed by everyone who loves seeing great men and women do amazing things. Sports are not mere entertainment or work, as are computer games or construction. Sports are like music or painting, literature or photography, theater or poetry. Sports transcend.

Micah Watanabe is a freshman at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Sports have substance appeared first on The Triangle.

Pride extremism isn’t something that you encounter every day, but it’s out there and ready to strike at any moment. Choosing to abstain from pride events was not an easy personal decision, but it came with a good amount of thought. For one, most media portrayal of pride events only serves to further propagate the negative stereotypes of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals by showcasing LGBT as a fetish culture. Second, there should be no collective pride in sexuality, but rather it should be focused inward on self-acknowledgement and acceptance. Both of these reasons for my abstinence from pride events and LGBT groups have had a negative effect on the community as a whole and the reflection that it makes on others. While there is no doubt that LGBT groups have beneficial effects on their members by providing a support network for individuals, ultimately the cause appears outwardly alienating and extreme to the outsider. Even if unintentional, the attitude that a majority of the “mainstream” LGBT community portrays only serves to distance LGBT individuals further from acceptance by exhibiting a form of pride radicalism and internal conflict.

I was recently part of an online debate over the acceptance of LGBT allies as belonging to the protective umbrella of nondiscrimination clauses put forth by many educational and workplace constitutions. Overwhelmingly, many LGBT individuals did not support the inclusion of “ally” in these protective clauses, citing that heterosexual supporters of the LGBT community need no guaranteed protection under these clauses. I couldn’t disagree more; LGBT individuals and their allies are both in need of protection regarding their viewpoints on many issues. To isolate allies by saying that they should not be included in such corporate laws is ridiculous and selfish of the LGBT community. Coming from a community that stresses equality among all individuals, rejecting this protection toward others is hypocritical and makes the community look like it enjoys playing the victim.

Placing sexuality on a pedestal as the defining characteristic of an individual is what the LGBT community as a whole works to remove from a stereotypical standpoint, but in a strange turn of events, they define themselves by that sexuality. Who you love should not become you, your life or your career. In fact, sexuality should be the least important aspect of your life, and by moving it to the forefront, issues in pride extremism occur. In an almost cultlike mentality, modern movements in sexuality and gender aim to pick out every miniscule detail of society and label it as inherently sexist or homophobic. This is where difficulties arise because there are many out there who feel the way that I do, yet are reluctant to join an official community because of such pride extremism and self-victimization.

The most helpful thing that the LGBT community could do in an effort to stop the negative portrayal and alienating mindset is to regain some consciousness of reality. There is no elitism in the world, no group that deserves more respect because of who they are or are not. It’s time to take a step back and really look at the situation. Are we going to continue to be the thorn in the side of detractors just as they are to us? Should we continue to congregate and display pride when the mass media portray our actions and identity as a fetish culture? Finally, should we really be concerned about placing our sexuality at the forefront of our lives for all to see?

You might have different answers to those very questions, but just because you speak for a majority in the LGBT community doesn’t mean your answers are the best. Sexuality and gender cultures have morphed into an exclusive club for the elite; it’s almost as if the message of acceptance and understanding has been translated to “conform or be cast aside.”

Vaughn Shirey is a freshman computer science major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.
Queerview publishes biweekly in weeks 3, 5, 7 and 9 .

The post Queerview | Are we “playing the victim”? appeared first on The Triangle.

A recent report estimated that 260,000 people died in a 2011 famine in Somalia. Many blame the high death toll (previously estimated between 50,000 and 100,000 people) on the slow aid response from wealthy Western nations. This report, which has yet to be corroborated by agencies like UNICEF and the World Health Organization, claims that half of the dead are children under 6 years old. Families are forced to journey up to hundreds of miles along trails that have come to be called “roads of death” in search of refugee camps where they might find aid. The trip to the camps is particularly brutal, and the physically vulnerable (the sick, young and elderly) often don’t make it.

There is an obvious caveat that should accompany this new report: Political situations like the one in Somalia make it incredibly difficult to generate accurate and complete numbers. Not only is the government basically paralyzed in the capital city, but the widespread dysfunction and rampant violence make it very difficult to get an accurate count of the number of people who have died and from what causes they have died. With that said, these new numbers are staggering. No matter what we might think of American foreign policy (and it has its flaws), there is no justification for turning a blind eye to the suffering of the Somali people. Some reports have suggested that the aid that was sent was long delayed by militants in control of certain regions of the country. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that there were early signs in 2010 and 2011 that the people in East Africa were going to run into a food shortage. A more concerted effort should have been made earlier.

In my last article I discussed the importance of a preventative domestic policy instead of one that just reacts to tragedy; it would seem there is a similar problem on the international scale. America has long enjoyed a comfortable position on the international stage; we have the surplus resources that allow us to offer a hand of benevolence when we see people in need. But that kind hand is useless if it comes too late. Somalia is still navigating the murky waters of a violent internal conflict, famine and other setbacks that make it harder for the people to begin to rebuild their lives. Americans have run into tough economic times, but we can’t forget that there are people all around the world who have it so much worse, and the least we can do is offer lifesaving support when it’s clear that there is need.

Brie Powell is a freshman political science major at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Bringing an end to hunger in Somalia appeared first on The Triangle.