In my opinion, a lot of attitudes expressed on this campus are ones of ‘over-privileged’ impatience. This innate thought that because you need something now, it has to be there or there is going to be a problem. This is very frustrating to me because it reveals the classist, self-importance issues that are so prevalent on campus and have been over looked.

Middletown’s crime rate is below the national average, yet Middletown has been deemed by many on our campus as a ‘bad’ area, whatever that may mean. As one student has put it, “I think the amount of violent crime that happens on and off campus should be a good indication of the fact that Middletown is not exactly the safest of towns in the world.” The fact that people create this dichotomy between Middletown and Wesleyan, again, shows a huge class divide. I do acknowledge that crimes do occur in Middletown, but I also acknowledge that crimes happen everywhere.

I have been at Wesleyan for about four years and have only used the ride a handful of times. I have no fear walking around at night, nor have I ever had any real problems. I know things do happen but these are isolated incidents and should not escalate the community into a fearful, angry panic. This only fuels misunderstandings and impulsive reactions that usually lead to wrong decisions.

I wish that people would just step back, take a deep breath and realize the implications of their words and actions. One comment that really caught my attention was “I'm not trying to be overly aggressive towards the drivers, but they should sit down, shut up, drive, and deal with students, because for some of them, the RIDE is their livelihood.” These types of comments show that classism is an issue that is fueling this heated reaction.

I worked in retail for awhile this past year and had to deal with a lot of ungrateful, nasty customers. Sure, I dealt with it for the mere fact that if I did not I would have been fired and would have been unable to buy food or pay bills. Most people on this campus will never have to experience this. This is fine and I hold no grudge because we all follow our own paths and must learn different lessons. However, there should be a realization that it does get frustrating, extremely difficult, and demeaning to help or serve people who are demanding, unappreciative, and rude. The times that I had used the ride, a lot of the people being transported or picked up were loud, obnoxious, offensive and rarely said thank you. I am not here to judge but there is a definite disconnect from the real world at this school. You can’t expect to not give respect and then receive it with full contentment.

The fact that some people are requesting to have some drivers fired is really upsetting. I understand that there may have been disagreements but requesting that jobs be taken away from people, especially in this economy, is another display of the real world disconnect. Most people who express these views probably do not have to pay for everything themselves let alone others. I think this is a pertinent issue that needs to be remembered.

I would really love to see people come together to be constructive and positive when dealing with this issue rather than vindictive and aggressive. The issues have been made aware, so let’s try to deal with them in a mature manner, look at all sides of the issue, and try to be conscious of our privilege and actions. Plus walking is a wonderful activity.

Unlike Tufts, we don't have an entire office of full-time staff dedicated to sustainability. Unlike Middlebury, we don't have a biomass plant on campus. And unlike many other colleges and universities, we have no institutionalized source of funding designated specifically for sustainability. What we do have is one of the most passionate and innovative student bodies in the nation, and an incredibly supportive faculty and staff.  It's time for our entire student body to take environmental responsibility into our own hands.

The Green Fund will be an entirely student-elected, student-financed, and student-managed source of funding for sustainability initiatives on campus, and will thus be impervious to the University’s financial vulnerabilities. Initiatives sponsored by the Green Fund will decrease our carbon footprint and waste, increase our use of renewable energy and increase visibility of environmentally responsible practices on campus. This 15 dollar semesterly fee will be opt-out, so those students with financial limitations or who do not support the fund will have the opportunity to decline payment. Over 50 other schools, including Tufts, UConn, UC Berkeley, College of William and Mary, and even (!) our neighbor Conn College have already successfully implemented similar initiatives with some impressive results. Most schools experience an opt-out rate of about 10%, and if we follow suit we will end up with more than $70,000 in the fund every year!

The Green Fund also poses an incredible opportunity for collaboration—it will provide a hub for students, faculty, and staff concerned about sustainability issues to come together and debate the most effective ways to make our campus more sustainable. Projects may include the installation of solar panels, insulation of senior housing, energy metering, and other innovative initiatives. It will allow some of the current initiatives under review by the administration to come to fruition by financing a portion of the costs.

The Green Fund will benefit all of us in the Wesleyan Community. A more sustainable infrastructure will increase our competitiveness among peer liberal arts institutions and provide substantial financial returns, and the streamlining and organization of the Fund will increase the effectiveness of our money that is currently being spent on diverse and uncoordinated projects.

The Green Fund will create an unprecedented opportunity for coordinated and effective progress that will last longer than our tenure at Wesleyan. Let's leave a legacy that we're proud of.

The Green Fund will be on the WSA ballot in the first two weeks of December.  Get online and vote yes if you support it.

Today’s incredible victory has already had an immense impact on people all over the world.  After watching a live broadcast of the game, tens of thousands of soldiers in hundreds of different countries have decided to lay down their weapons in order to begin training for the 2010 Dandelions.  Millions more laid down their weapons to begin trying to hook up with Eric Bissell ’10.  CNN reports the Dandelions’ victory immediately ended the war in Iraq, as well as the Sa’dah insurgency in Yemen, the Mexican drug wars and the fight between humans and Cylons.

While the Dandelions’ win is sure to have an enormous impact on the lives of millions of people, it has been a truly life changing experience for Director Michael Bay ’86.  The New York Times quoted Bay: “The Dandelions have shown me that life is about more than making shitty movies.  Fuck them motherfuckers.”  He has pledged to devote the rest of his career to making documentaries about the lives of each member of the Dandelions.

Wait, what is the Senior Gift?

Wesleyan has provided us with outstanding academic resources, lasting friendships, and countless memories over the past four years. For the oh-tens, this is our first chance to give back to the College and enrich the experience of the students that come after us. The donations that you and I make will go straight to financial aid and make it possible for someone else to attend in the future!

Our goal is to break the Senior Gift record of $19,000 by graduation for a tuition grant for one 2014er. Right now, we have collected about $9,140.10. We are happy about what we have thus far, but we clearly have a long way to go.

So who’s helping cement oh ten’s legacy and getting people excited and enthusiastic about the senior gift?

Those people would be the fearless Senior Gift Managers of oh-ten:  Brendan

McEntee, Ankur Verma, Johanne Lin, and myself (Joseph Nsiah). We are all working closely together to ensure that people remember the illustrious class of oh ten and our accomplishments long after we are gone.

We have put together a bunch of events to get our class motivated and committed to reaching our goal. So keep your eyes peeled for announcements! In the meantime, don’t hesitate to ask any one of us any questions about supporting our school. We are here to help.

Over the last 100+ years alumni and parents have continuously supported Wesleyan's commitment to open access to a liberal arts education—let’s keep this going. Give to the senior gift with the idea that we are all contributing to something greater than ourselves while giving future students a better chance for the same opportunity we were provided. Spread the word and FEED THE BIRD. Let’s make this a year to remember! Oh-ten.

Before I go any further, I will explain what the Stupak does. This Amendment disallows private insurance companies from offering abortion coverage to anyone who is part of the federal insurance exchange, even if a woman pays for private premiums. Up until the last minute, a compromise called the Capps Amendment had been agreed upon that would maintain the status quo on abortion; no federal funding (due to the Hyde Amendment of 1976 which forbids federal funding of abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the woman), but women would be able to use their own money to buy insurance that would cover them. Then before the final vote, anti-abortion representatives threatened to vote against health reform unless there were new restrictions placed on abortion rights. Insurance companies are allowed to offer a rider, which is a separate policy that covers only abortion, yet the cost of such a plan would end up being similar to the cost of an out of pocket abortion. The Stupak Amendment is the only part of the entire health care reform that tries to prevent insurance companies from covering a service they already cover.  Thus the Stupak Amendment oppresses all women, but especially women of lower economic standing.

I don’t want to get into an argument about the morality of abortion or whether or not you think your tax dollars should have to pay for an “elective procedure.” I want to draw attention to the fact that your representatives, many of whom have claimed to be pro-choice, have sold you out. Do not listen when they tell you we have won the war and this is only a battle. People will try to convince you that our representatives had to compromise in order to get everyone on board with health care reform. Look at what has been compromised: women! I am infuriated at the perpetual perception that women’s issues are not main issues, that other matters are more important. When will it be our time? When will women’s issues be valued? When do our rights come first?

Women, we comprise 50 % of the world. We are not peripheral. We are core. Make your voice be heard. Oh and to view a list of which democrats sold you out, go to: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/07/who-voted-take-away-your-basic-rights-tonight-the-64-dems-who-voted-yes-stupak.

I am both saddened and hurt by your recent Wespeak. While I appreciate that you think you are looking out for the Wesleyan campus community (which I love by the way) and their health, you are wrong about two of your main points. First and foremost, as I stated in my original Wespeak, I do not, did not, and never have had the H1N1 virus. Secondly, even if I did have the swine flu, I would never try to infect others! In fact, you are next door, and did NOT ever get swine flu from me - you did acquire pneumonia, but that wasn't from me! I didn't have that either!

Unfortunately, you seem to have misunderstood my Wespeaks, and now, as a result of your advice, people have ceased to come within a 25-yard radius of me. My social life is really suffering from that, now. You can only make so many friends while shouting across a 25-yard divide. Please, Mr. Kaltsas, and also broader Wesleyan community, understand that I do NOT have the piggy flu, and that I am not a danger to infecting anyone. :-(

One Love,

Ben Carman

p.s. Dear Wesleyan. Christopher Kaltsas has SARS and wants to infect you. Watch out for this man!

After just a few hours, I received an email from a friend abroad saying he had seen my post and that he was “sorry about all the comments…How you holding up?” I immediately rushed to a computer to find 17 (which eventually became 24) anonymous comments in response to my posting.

Most of these comments attacked the group’s basic tenets. Putting forth some historical inaccuracies and harping on loaded buzzwords, these comments screamed at the Pro-Israel Advocacy group for supporting an occupier, a state that commits war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and racial hierarchies. Some comments, though, went so far as to attack the group’s legitimacy in general, wondering how “such a prestigious and liberal
school full of smart people” could host students with these opinions. One comment offered an outraged reaction to those of us who might think this way, asking us to “please go fuck yourself and die.”

I was immediately disheartened and disillusioned. This violent rhetoric is exactly why I have avoided discussing my opinions on the conflict for my first three years at Wesleyan. I second Jared Gimbel’s ’11 response on Weselying, where he writes, “outright flames in this manner have made me afraid to go asleep at night and voice anything concerning Israel in public”.

My disappointment to these reactions is tempered only by this: the lack of voices in response to this one-sided hatred is exactly why Matt Nestler ’10 and I created the Pro Israel Advocacy group in the first place.

In my three years at Wesleyan, there has only been one student-group on campus addressing the conflict in Israel/Palestine. This group is called ADAPT, which stands for Awareness and Dialogue About Palestine/Israel Today. Hoping that this title suggested campus-wide education and discussion about both sides of the issue, I quickly realized that ADAPT is biased towards the Palestinian cause and does not represent a balanced
dialogue between the two perspectives. Which is fine. While I do not agree with ADAPT’s standpoints and do not attend their meetings, I adamantly respect the events they host on campus and their commitment to sharing their beliefs with Wesleyan’s student body. However, the limited scope of activism on this issue on campus creates an imbalanced conversation. Having only one group on campus means reinforcing pre established opinions and alienating those who might disagree. The Pro-Israel Advocacy group hopes to fill this hole on campus in order to promote helpful conversation for all those interested.

We know that the Israeli government is not perfect and we do not pretend to offer a group where everyone will agree with each other. But in order for fruitful discussion to really happen on this campus, shouldn’t we be allowed the freedom to express our opinions without being immediately attacked? Wesleying is not a productive medium to discuss these emotion-filled political disagreements, especially when those who comment leave their messages anonymously. If you feel passionately about these issues, please attend either our meeting or ADAPT’s—or both—so that Wesleyan can boast of a campus where these two equally legitimate opinions can be criticized, analyzed and studied productively and openly. If two student groups with differing opinions cannot be tolerated on our campus, how could we ever expect progress to be made in the Middle East?

Firstly, I thank you for your mostly cordial and in all respects rational response. Whether I agree with you or not, I can say that it was a refreshing break from the usual model of Wesleyan discourse, and certainly an example from which the activist community would profit. Speaking solely as a student with an interest in rational debate, thank you very much.

That said, I do have to disagree with you on certain points. Most obviously and least substantively, you got the title of my column wrong. It was not “…But I don’t even like boys,” but rather “…And you don’t even like boys.” This is hardly a large critique, but it should be noted nonetheless. Secondly, you paraphrase my argument as, “rather than the straight majority accepting the queer minority as fellow humans right off the bad (GASP!), it is the queer minority’s duty earn [sic] acceptance by proving to the straight majority that it is equally human.”

I take issue with this characterization on two counts: firstly, on the level of interpretation, I did not intend to imply a moral duty on the part of the queer community to demonstrate its similarities to the straight majority, but simply a practical one. As one commenter helpfully put it on the Argus website, “People need to remember that Mytheos isn't talking about what is right or wrong, but rather about what it realistic.” We could have the argument over whether such a requirement is just as a matter of abstract morality (and I think there is a strong case that it is not), but my point was solely that this requirement exists, especially given that the only means to tease civil rights out of such places is through the Democratic process, given the current strict constructionist bent of the Court system.

Secondly, I do not think it is fair to argue that, from the anti-queer perspective, the issue is the queer community’s humanity, but rather its decency. I know of nobody except for the rare dominionist or Christian reconstructionist who argues that gays should be stripped of their legal rights. The usual argument is that they should not have the privilege of marriage extended to them because, from the anti-gay marriage perspective, they are not fit for it. For a useful analogy, from the anti-gay perspective, one can safely assume that while criminals are still obviously human, the relevant point is that they are not decent humans and as such, deserve lesser rights and privileges than those who are decent humans. From this same perspective, especially if it is religiously motivated, gays may be human, but they are not decent humans and, moreover, because marriage is legally defined as a privilege, society has a choice about whether to offer it to them.

Now, quite frankly, I do not think it is fair or logical to view gays as fitting into the same category as criminals, given that I believe crime must have a victim to be meaningfully criminal, and also given that, like former Vice President Cheney, I am skeptical of the claim that homosexuality is inherently immoral. However, right or wrong, this is the argument which the anti-gay community will make, and given that it has already proven its ability to win elections, if you want to be able to fight it with a numerical minority of people via the ballot box, you will need all the help you can get, and thus cannot afford to alienate people via the use of radical, inflammatory tactics. If you were solely fighting social sanction, such tactics would be appropriate, but law is a trickier thing to change in a democratic society, because in order to change it, you must make 50%+1 agree with you.

I have no doubt you could do this at Wesleyan – my concern is what will happen when you actually go to the places where the majority believes that homosexuality is wrong. Will you draw ejaculating penises on their streets and, when they protest, call them “losers,” “eyesores” and “haters” and instruct them to “kiss your ass” as well? If I were a genuine homophobe, I would say I hope that you will, because such a set of tactics would embolden the anti-gay cause. As it is, I will say that I hope you do not because I fear for your safety and your cause’s viability if you do.

Cordially,

Mytheos Holt

That being said, I don't hate the 2009 Yankees for trying to win. Yes, they spent the most money, but they were also the best team in baseball, an offensive juggernaut that scored the most runs, hit the most home runs, and I must admit that a tiny part of me was glad to see the best team win. GM Brian Cashman assembled this orgy of talent last winter by bringing in the two best free agent pitchers, as well a switching-hitting gold-glove robot to play first base. They indeed spent a disgusting amount of money in the process, but it doesnt make any sense to call the Yankees evil for trying to win. The decade old argument against the Yankees is that they are somehow at fault for having a payroll 52 million dollars higher than any other team, that they are evil for spending whatever it takes to win, and that they are cheating the other teams by doing so. There is nothing wrong with what the Yankees do. They take in more money than any other team, so why wouldn't they use that to their advantage? It would be foolish, and perhaps even unjust towards their legions of stormtrooper fans, for them not to spend away. Major League Baseball allows the Yankees to spend as much as they please, and its not the Yankee's job to worry about anyone else.

The real fault lies in the unfair system that allows a team playing in the massive market of New York City to compete financially with teams from smaller markets, like Milwaukee and Kansas City, that have no means of leveling the playing field. It's like letting LeBron James play on a youth basketball team. This is not to say that the mindless spending of money guarantees victory (just ask the New York Mets), but that massive resources well spent becomes an unbeatable combination. Fifteen of the last sixteen teams to make the postseason out of the AL East have been the Yankees and Red Sox, because they are able to spend more money than the other teams, because they have front offices that spend money intelligently, and because they have the ability to outspend whatever mistakes they make (Kei Igawa) that would financially cripple other teams. The Toronto Blue Jays are buried beneath a glut bad contracts, and will likely have to trade Roy Halladay or watch him sign elsewhere next year because they cannot afford to keep him. In 2008, the Florida Marlins spent less money on their entire team than the Yankees did on Alex Rodriguez. The Milwaukee Brewers watched CC Sabathia waddle over to the New York last winter because they weren't able to offer him a contract anywhere near the one the Yankees threw at him. The financial giants of baseball have a tremendous advantage over the smaller teams, and the Yankees are the tallest, ugliest giant in the land of giants. But again, the Yankees are doing nothing wrong by using every advantage available to them. Should Mariano Rivera stop throwing his cutter because no one can hit it? Should Alex Rodriguez not be allowed to bat anymore because he can hit a home-run on any pitch? Why should the Yankees be blamed for their spending when it is allowed by the rules of MLB? The Yankees aren't cheating, they are just the team best equipped to win.

So don't hate the Yankees for their spending. Hate them for other reasons. Mock Sabathia's weight and his presumably perpetually greasy fingers, mock how high and oddly shaped Derek Jeter's hair line is, and mock Nick Swisher's general aura of douchiness. Enjoy hating them, because its fun to boo and hiss the villains. But don't hate the Yankees for trying to win, because they play by the same rules as every other team. Hate the system that allows them to have such a massive head start.

There seems to have been some confusion recently, and I just wanted to clear the air again. I still do NOT have swine flu. I have been a little tired recently from midterms and preparing for a mock trial tournament that is coming up, but it's NOT the H1N1 virus, just a little sleepiness! Thank you again for your friendly concern for my well-being.

Once again, God Bless! It's good to know I have your support!
Benjamin Carman