Dear Julius Genachowski:

I am writing to express my encouragement for reclassification of the Internet from an “information service” to a “telecommunications infrastructure.” I will begin this expression first by providing my personal view on the historical context of the DC circuit case, and second by connecting this discussion directly to the details of reclassification.

In my personal view, the historical context for this case goes back hundreds of years, but most pointedly to the late 1800s when corporations were liberated from the corporate charter that allowed governing oversight to ensure corporate service of public interests. Around this same time passing of the Santa Clara Act gave corporations similar rights of speech as the individual citizen under our legal framework. These constitute palpable distortions of a clear and healthy political philosophy, and a reasonable point to identify as the beginning of corporate ascendency.

Despite oscillations since then, corporate influence on our national fabric has only mounted. Given an especially large boost by Reagan’s deregulation doctrine, the last few decades have seen a proliferation of problems: concentration of wealth, debt increases, environmental negligence, labor abuses, and military belligerency. These can be traced back to the escalating dominance of corporate power globally, and specifically over the government. A respected professor from my university calls the public sector private sector fusion, combined with centrist politics, a “corpocracy.” This terminology indicates the extent to which such developments are impinging on the necessary qualities for an empowered democracy.

In a very recent context, however, I want to mention three important pieces of law, three major shifts in the political economic structure of our country, which have had no opportunity to take effect yet. The Citizens vs. United case freed corporations from any limits on political campaign contributions. The health care bill, while progressive in some ways, solidified the role of insurance corporations in the health care industry. Finally, the DC circuit case challenging the FCC places the internet, the last medium for open democratic exchange, severely at risk from similar abuses for which history has already provided ample evidence. Combining this development with a reminder that Bush illegally tapped phone lines during his presidency, and the real possibility of national censorship according to corporate interests of the rich elite looms.

The result of this analysis is a worrisome trend toward corporate dominance that is unprecedented, driven by the cultural engines of our country. To rejuvenate a healthy model of government involvement, and quell the rising supremacy of titanic private sector power, the internet needs to be protected. While I don’t necessarily advocate for full neutrality of the internet (I favor the “open access” policy proven by the Next Generation Connectivity report), the FCC needs to maintain general power over its regulatory parameters. Otherwise, it will roll over to corporate control, unable to address the issue in the first place.

Reclassifying the internet as a “telecommunications service” is a single, but absolutely vital, step toward restoring corporations as servants to the public interest, rather than monopolistic masters of our quickly degrading civil fabric. Please recognize how important the internet is to safeguard democracy.

Thank you for reading my words. They are not those of a lawyer, a lobbyist, or a businessman. They are those of a conscientious citizen trusting you to hold the current pro-neutrality 3-2 majority.

Mahalo and aloha,

Ioven Fables

Dylan Roberts -

Why is there a different standard of debate for financial regulatory reform?

One of the most frequent criticisms from Congressional Republicans during the tumultuous health care reform debate of the past year was that President Barack Obama and the Democrats were engaged in “backroom deals.” They harkened back to a campaign promise of then-Sen. Obama stating that all health care negotiations would occur in front of C-Span cameras. Republicans did have a point. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid and several senators engaged in sheltered dealings, i.e. the “Cornhusker Kickback” and the “Louisiana Purchase.” Yet, Obama did hold a health care summit that was widely televised and involved all relevant parties.

So why, now, are Republicans blocking the negotiations of a financial regulatory reform bill from even coming to the floor of the US Senate, the so-called greatest deliberative body in the world? There is no policy argument that can be made for their actions of recent days; their refusal to allow debate to continue is unadulterated political gamesmanship.

Such action by Senate Republicans is not surprising. However, their motives may be different than those of previous debates during the Obama administration. Debate concerning most pieces of serious legislation during Obama’s first year, Republicans, for the most part, actually did want to kill or significantly alter the legislation. Whether it was the stimulus bill, the budget, or health care, Republicans opposed the measures based on definable policy and beliefs.

The same cannot be said about financial regulatory reform. Reforms are necessary to prevent another collapse similar to the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009, and Republicans know that. It is also tremendously politically perilous to be seen as blocking these reforms. So why is Mitch McConnell and his unified caucus of forty-one doing so?

This strategy has not been reported as true and is merely hypothetical. It does, however, make perfect sense leading into the 2010 elections in November: Congressional Republicans are positioning themselves to claim credit for financial regulatory reform when it passes. Not in the way that many GOP congressmen did with stimulus projects that they voted against but took credit for months later in their districts but they are actually posturing so they are able to claim that financial regulatory reform, something a large majority of Americans want, was their success.

The reasoning may seem backwards, but it is politically ‘clever.’ On Monday, the Senate voted 57 to 41 in favor of opening debate Sen. Chris Dodd’s reform bill – not to pass it or amend it, just to begin debate. However, due to the filibuster, 60 votes were needed so the motion failed. This relegates the bill back to the evil backrooms that Republicans criticized during health care. The bill cannot be debated in the Senate chamber until sixty votes in favor.

So how is this a win for Republicans who actually do have an interest in making this bill better – typically done through debate on the Senate floor through amendments – and expect to pass? First, they know it is going to pass once it does reach the floor. No moderate GOP senator will dare vote for Wall Street and against Main Street.

Therefore, Republicans are going to get their way on altering the bill before it goes to the floor. This will necessitate some changes that Republicans want like weakening the consumer protection panel or placing fewer restrictions on derivatives trading. Once Republicans force these concessions from Democrats, they will let debate begin on the bill. Suddenly - ta-da – the bill is now approved by Republicans!

This gives many GOP senators like Scott Brown, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and potentially a considerable amount of others the green light to vote for passage. Essentially, it becomes the Republican’s bill, one that was constructed to meet their standards and brought to the floor by Republicans.

By blocking debate from beginning on a bill that everyone knows will eventually pass, the Republicans have wrestled control from the Democrats and have positioned themselves to champion financial regulatory. It does not even matter if they get the policy concessions they want during the backroom deals, Republicans now control when the bill passes. The headlines can be envisioned now: “Financial reform passes after GOP is allowed to make changes” or “GOP allows passage of Wall Street reform” but it will be no result of Republican policy but political maneuvering.

It is possible that this strategy is at the heart of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s motivation moving his caucus in lockstep until they get their say in the backrooms. As clever and politically beneficial as it may be for Republicans, it is hurtful to the American people. GOP senators are using arcane Senate procedure to block debate, make backroom deals, and come out as the saviors of Wall Street reform once they let it go to the chamber. Its great political strategy no matter how hypocritical it actually is. When this bill passes with 65 or 75, or even 85 votes, Republicans do not deserve the credit.

Christopher Fegan & Jamie Zhang -

Christopher Fegan:

The passage of the health care bill is being lauded as a major policy victory for President Barack Obama. Reform of the health care system was one of the President’s major initiatives upon entering office, and this bill represents the largest delivery of his campaign promises. As the dust settles on this historic legislation, however, we must ask at what cost Obama gained the reform he desired.

Conservative pundits swear that this legislation will shift control of Congress to Republicans in 2010 and ultimately lose Obama the presidency in 2012. While these two scenarios are highly unlikely, there is a good chance that Obama could be hurt by voter backlash. The congressional elections this November will be the first major reaction to Obama’s plan for reform. Unfortunately for the President, early trends show that his party is likely to lose multiple seats. Outgoing Democrats, especially in the Senate, are liable to be replaced by Republican challengers – even in states like Nevada and Indiana. The potential loss of so many veteran Democratic leaders, including Harry Reid and Chris Dodd, could throw the party into a vacuum of coherence. At the very least, Obama will be faced with the task of reorganizing his constituency to more effectively achieve his policy goals. Any mishaps in this process could be deeply problematic for the Democrats – after all, this is the party that almost failed to pass healthcare with a supermajority.

Early predictions also indicate that Obama will almost certainly lose his near-supermajority in the Senate. Even if the Democrats maintain their majority standing (and they probably will), the loss of this luxury could prove to be a major hindrance for the President. The health care debate saw the Republicans block together to vote against nearly any proposal Obama crafted. Be it right or wrong, this bitter partisanship is likely to hold over in the next Congress. This means that gaining even one or two Republican votes could prove very difficult, and the passage of even relatively simple legislation could become a hassle.

Such a scenario could have major repercussions for Obama in the 2012 election. Washington has been enveloped in deep and bitter partisanship since the health care bill was first proposed. If this toxic political climate persists, Obama could very well be left with the health care bill as centerpiece of his reelection campaign. That could be quite problematic. Most Republicans will predictably vote against Obama; most Democrats will vote for him. The problem for the President will be convincing independents and moderates that the health care bill was enough to warrant four more years in office.

The key word in the situation is uncertainty. Obama’s prime project has tremendous upside, but it is also steeped with uncertainty. Will this nearly-trillion dollar plan actually make things better over the course of ten years? Can we really afford to pay for it? How will hospitals respond? What does this bill actually mean for the country? Obama will be banking his campaign on his passage of a bill that elicits such massive questions. This could be a serious problem indeed.

As such, Obama will likely need to accomplish other policy goals to give voters a clear set of reasons to cast their ballot for him. If he cannot pass any additional meaningful legislation, it’s questionable whether the health bill will be enough to convince moderates to give him another chance. Again, the fact that Republicans are effectively voting to block him means it’s quite possible that little more will be accomplished.

It ultimately comes down to what Obama chooses to focus on in the next year and a half before he has to hit the campaign trail. He needs to emphasize the immediate benefits of the health bill to the extent that voters believe it warrants him another term. Even this task, however, is an uphill climb. A March 29 Rasmussen Report has 54 percent of voters desiring a repeal of the health care bill, with 44 percent strongly disapproving of Obama’s presidency against 30 percent strongly approving. Time and action will tell if these numbers persist. But if Obama does lose reelection in 2012 due to bipartisan inaction and political stagnancy, the health care bill will go down as the primary cause.

Jamie Zhang:

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” So claimed Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), referring to the health care bill which, in July of the past year, seemed anything but certain to pass. Republicans reasoned that by stopping the Obama administration on health care, they would effectively take away all initiative from the Democratic agenda.

Well, looks like that didn’t happen.

Instead, President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, et al were able to pass comprehensive health care reform on a historic scale, giving access to health care to tens of millions more Americans, without a single vote from GOP members of Congress. So what does this mean for Obama and the Democrats politically?

First, it shows beyond all doubt that the Democrats can actually accomplish something, not just in the eyes of the public, but also in their own eyes. For over 70 years, since FDR’s presidency, universal health care has been the unobtainable Holy Grail of policies, an ideal to which Democrat presidents from Truman to Clinton have strived but ultimately failed to obtain. Though the new legislation still fails to cover every person, it dramatically expands coverage and protects those who need insurance the most—those with “pre-existing conditions” and least able to afford necessary care.

Opponents of Obama point to his approval ratings (currently around 50 percent) and attribute his supposed drop in popularity to his support for health care. Yet the current approval ratings for Republicans in Congress make Obama’s seem astronomically high by comparison. According to the recent Research 2000 Poll, being the party of NO and tea partiers earns you approval from a mere 21 percent of Americans. Even George Bush, at the nadir of his popularity, was more well-liked than that.

Republicans who were most visibly against health care fared even worse than their GOP colleagues. John Boehner, leader of Republicans in the House, has only a 17 percent approval rating, losing 5 percent since the passage of health care reform. Meanwhile, Pelosi, who guided the bill through the House, reaped a 3 point jump in her popularity, which, at 39 percent, is more than twice that of Boehner. Most of these changes in approval ratings reflect the respective disappointment and euphoria from the parties’ bases. For a Democratic Party desperately in need of something to be excited about, this was, as Vice President Joe Biden put succinctly, “a big f*cking deal.”

If there is one certainty about American politics, it’s that voters like leaders who lead. For far too long, it seems, Democrats have forgotten this axiom and allowed themselves to be bullied by Republicans, shooting themselves in the foot from time to time. By passing the health care bill, Democrats have proven themselves to be a party of ideas, one that is not reactionary but rather proactive, willing to take chances to accomplish what they believe in.

Throughout the past year, while some Republicans were talking of Waterloo and trying to tie Obama to the likes of Hitler and Stalin, Democrats were out explaining why health care reform was so crucial to the long-term viability of the American economy. In this sense, Democrats appear to be the “grown-ups” in national politics, while Republicans seem ever more erratic and extreme in their politicking—a trend reflected in the national approval numbers for the parties, where Democrats have a 12-point edge over Republicans.

Finally, it is impossible to evaluate the current political situation in a vacuum. For comparison, just imagine how disillusioned and weak the Democrats would have been had the GOP succeeded in blocking President Obama’s single most important legislation, one upon which he has staked virtually all of his political capital. By passing health care reform, Democrats can claim a legislative victory and campaign for the midterm elections without having their tail between their legs. As for Republicans who plan on campaigning on a platform of repealing the health care bill, Obama perhaps put it best when he responded at a rally, “Bring It On!”

Yet for all this talk of political ramifications, history will judge our legislators not for the politics of health care reform, but rather for the impact their achievements will have on our fellow Americans. In the long run, it matters not whether certain politicians received temporary boosts in popularity numbers. What truly matters is whether our representatives in the highest legislative body in the land acted in the nation’s best interest and whether the next generation will find itself better off than this one.

Michael Mullin -

Bart Stupak missed one hell of an opportunity. The congressman from Michigan had President Barack Obama on the hook, to the point where the President had resorted to promising an executive order.  Stupak, the leader of a group of pro-life Democratic holdouts in the House of Representatives, found himself in a rare position of power; the President seemingly would have granted him just about anything for the votes of his compatriots on the healthcare bill. However, remaining true to his constituents and personal conviction, Stupak reached a deal with Obama, trading votes for a forthcoming executive order barring federal funds in abortion cases not involving rape, incest, or life-threatening circumstances for the mother.

Yeah, nice job, Stupak. Rule number one for a public official: if you get the President on the hook, you go big. Always go big, because carte blanche with the most powerful man in the world is a chance few will ever be granted.

In the interest of preparedness, and the indulgence of the mother of all my Obama fantasies, what follows is the official go-to wish list from the President for the future. A situation like the one presented to Mr. Stupak does not materialize every day; the only parallel hypothetical I can think of is if someone caught Warren Buffett and some farm animal engaged in inappropriate activity on camera.

The blackmail windfall from that is equal to the wide berth of “compensation” Stupak could have received from Obama’s executive order genie lamp. And, just to be clear, the President’s executive order genie lamp is painted to resemble a bald eagle, with the words “Keep It Real” inscribed on the banner the eagle is holding in its claws. Respect. Without further ado, the nine things you always ask for with the President on the hook.

One: College Football Playoff. Since Obama has already voiced his opinion on this issue, it should be the easiest to get off the table. How much longer can college football endure without a true playoff system? Probably a long time, but that is beside the point. The BCS is garbage. America does not do point systems or listen to sissy computers; debates over who is the best in college football should be settled on the field.

Two: A Las Vegas Basketball Team (given part-ownership). Classic low-ball technique. Slide the easy one in first, and then throw the big mama at him. Obviously, signing an executive order to establish a multi-million dollar organization might be construed as an abuse of power, but I am willing to look past specifics in this case. The sport with the craziest personalities gets a team in the City of Sin. It’s a recipe for debauchery. On a given weeknight, players are throwing down stomach-churning dunks, and, three hours later, they’re throwing up dollar-dollar bills. Give me the GM job, and I’ll put together the funniest, most over-the-top group of guys you will ever see. Potential starting five: Brandon Jennings, JR Smith, John Salmons, Chris “Birdman” Anderson, and Kenyon Martin. “Isn’t that just the Bucks and Nuggets rosters combined?” Who said that?

Three: Sleepover at the White House. It is imperative to finagle at least a one nights’ stay in the best hotel public money can buy. Accompanying the sleepover, the President would give a personal tour and offer up some of his favorite meals. Finish the night off with a couple of Bill Clinton’s old cigars, watching Sportscenter highlights, and make sure to pick the Lincoln bedroom.

Four: Lifetime Tax Exemption. Self-explanatory.

Five: Area 51/JFK Assassination Secrets. Absolutely necessary. I want to know about the aliens. Were there any? Did they mention me at all? And the real story about JFK is a priceless piece of information. I am betting that there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, but, for all anyone knows, it could really have been a magic bullet. State secrets about the existence of magic would be a welcome bonus. Alohomora, baby.

Six: A Seat on the 1st Commercial Spaceflight. Perhaps the President will be, or has already been, offered a spot on the Virgin Galactic’s inaugural launch. I would make the convincing argument that clearly he has better ways to spend his time, like run the country, than sightsee.

Seven: Ambassador Gig in Tropical Island/Europe. Ideally, I would be making friends with him at this point. “Mike, listen, some of this stuff I can do for you, but what are you thinking long-term? You can’t live in Vegas forever.” “No, you listen, Barry. I can live in Vegas forever; that’s a promise.” Obama continues, “I’m just worried about that type of lifestyle as you start getting older. I’ll let you be part owner, but I want you to take the position of US Ambassador to the Bahamas to jumpstart a career in foreign affairs. How does that sound?” “Did I ever tell you how much our friendship means to me?” I respond.

Eight: Red Sox Season Tickets. He must have connections, right?

Nine: 1-on-1 vs. Barack; Double or Nothing. Get ready to rub that lamp one more time, Mr. President.

By Meg Lister, Gavel Writer -

“(Hey, what up girl?) Grab my glasses, I’m out the door, I’m gonna hit this city.” I’m sure you’ve heard Ke$ha repeat these lines many times, maybe even a few too many. “Tik Tok” is catchy and fun, but what is breakout artist Ke$ha really saying?

In the beginning of the song, she’s on top of the world. Before this song, Ke$ha could only dream of “making the band,” much less receiving star status a la P. Diddy. She identifies with the hip-hop artist’s most recent nickname, rather than the vintage “Puff Daddy” or “Puff Diddy.” She creates a modern, sparse identify for herself, not bothering to complete her sentence or use P. Diddy’s full name. Like P. Diddy, Ke$ha favors anonymity through the use of a pseudonym. Pseudonyms are often used when the writer or artist has something to hide—what is Ke$ha’s secret?

Ke$ha follows this with the phrase “Grab my glasses, I’m out the door, I’m gonna hit this city.” She actually finishes her sentences here, which implies a strong sense of purpose. She has formulated these plans earlier, and they may be part of a normal routine. By “glasses,” the listener is unsure if Ke$ha is indicating reading glasses, sunglasses, or glasses to drink out of. Since she’s going to “brush [her] teeth with a bottle of Jack,” it may be the latter. After a night of hard partying, however, she may need the shades to protect her eyes from the harsh rays.

Next, Ke$ha embraces her feminine identity. She’s “talking pedicure on our toes, toes; trying on all our clothes, clothes” even “boys blowing up our phones, phones.” This is usually the part of the song where boys feel most left out. Ke$ha is targeting her audience and promoting a sense of female unity. This is a bold move, as only approximately 50 percent of the population will enjoy this stanza. Early in the song, she risks losing attention. This reinforces her bold attitude, and her pride in participating in traditionally female activities. No powersuits for Ke$ha—this girl means a different kind of business.

Directly after getting a pedicure and trying on an outfit, Ke$ha heads to the party. Either she has woken up very late in the day, spent a long time getting ready, or she is participating in some sort of “darty” or “dayger” (day party, day rager). The progression of time is a bit dubious, especially as daytime traditionally drags on in preparation for the big event. Either way, Ke$ha’s main objective is “trying to get a little bit tipsy.” She does not plan to get totally wasted, trashed, or blackout; she wants to recollect this party the next morning.

Her main objective, moreover, is dancing. She authoritatively commands “DJ, blow my speakers up.” It is unclear if this is specifically Ke$ha’s party, taking place in her abode, or if she controls the party simply because she is Ke$ha. She’ll keep on dancing and partying “till we see the sunlight.” The “tik tok on the clock,” the title line of the piece, is actually Ke$ha’s biggest enemy. She wants the night to last forever, and is “going to go til they kick us out.”

She reinforces this carefree, living-in-the-moment attitude with the declaration “ain’t got a care in the world, but got plenty of beer, ain’t got no money in my pocket but I’m already here.” Alas, Ke$ha has fallen back into the trap of failing to complete her sentences. This could be attributed, however, to the effect of her “tipsy-ness.” The boys previously “blowing up [her] phone” are back, because “they hear we got swagger.” Ke$ha and her entourage, however, will “kick em to the curb unless they look like Mick Jagger.” Here, she asserts her femininity in a powerful way. Boys are attracted to her self-confident attitude, and she can afford to be picky. Ke$ha has a true appreciation for badass men, like Mick Jagger, paying homage to the Rolling Stones frontman. In the hip-hop and rap age, Ke$ha manages to recollect the good old days of rock-and-roll.

Ke$ha’s song is remarkable, despite its initial impressions, for its strong feminine assertions. The song mentions alcohol only four times, a relatively low number for the genre. Ke$ha aims to have a good time, but the emphasis is not on drinking per se, only as an aspect of a fun night out. She has her pick of boys, and they are drawn to her precisely because of her strong, assertive qualities. She does not need to humble herself and wait for their phone calls—they respond to her. Annoying as one might find her, Ke$ha is somehow on the right track.

By Karen Kovaka, Gavel Writer -

We’ve all heard some variation of the horrifying statistic – that only 1 in 4 American adults finish reading even a single book in a given year. I can’t imagine it. There hasn’t been a single year out of the last twenty in which I haven’t read (or had read to me) dozens of books. The thought of not finishing even one book a year is so removed from my experience it almost seems impossible.

That is, as long as I think of reading as skimming a text for information. If I adopt a more rigorous definition of reading that includes gaining not only information but also understanding, such as the one Mortimer Adler uses in How to Read a Book, then it’s much easier to imagine myself going for an extended period of time without actually reading anything. Adler says we can think of the art of reading as “the process whereby a mind, with nothing to operate on but the symbols of the readable matter, elevates itself by the power of its own operations. The mind passes from understanding less to understanding more.” This sort of reading requires entering deeply into the words on the page. It requires an attempt to go beyond the obvious and a stubborn search for a meaning that is not apparent to a quick glance.

This kind of reading is in need of defense at Boston College. While it’s valid for us to avoid closely reading books that professors assign if we think the books themselves are not valuable, the tendency is to skim the books that address the topics that are closest to our hearts. A couple weeks ago, I gave Darwin’s Origin of Species the most cursory reading possible, even though philosophy of science and the environment is, to me, one of the most interesting things in the world.

This tendency alarms me when I see it in myself. It’s not that hard to get an A without carefully reading the assigned material, and because of this, it’s extremely hard to make myself read well, given the other activities competing for my time. Excuses like this miss the point, however. Reading isn’t supposed to happen only when we’re cloistered away somewhere, when there’s nothing else to do. On the contrary, I think reading is supposed to be the kind of thing we have to fight to make time for in the midst of many enticing ways to spend time. We don’t get the benefit of it until it’s a quest and a struggle.

Here are two reasons why I think good reading is worth fighting for, even given the hectic swirl of events that compose our lives. The first is that good reading makes one more sophisticated. There is value in being able to assess the general shape of a situation and to avoid unnecessary details. However, if these skills aren’t balanced by seeing the intricacies and nuances of a situation, then one’s ability to judge and evaluate circumstances runs the risk of becoming crude and easily deceived. Good reading helps one practice identifying complexities that lie underneath the ‘main point.’ It helps one become cleverer at following someone else’s mind and at interpreting the true meanings behind the (often confusing) words that people use to express themselves.

The second is that good reading brings insight. Having a profound insight as a result of reading a great book requires not only that the book itself be profound, but also that the reader be willing to immerse herself in the process that the author has designed. The Brothers Karamazov is a thousand pages long for a reason. Dostoevsky means for the insights he has to impart to cost the reader all the time and confusion and bewilderment that are inherent in a good reading of the novel. This book has fundamental truths to give to anyone who takes it seriously, but it is simply not possible to ‘get it’ by skimming. The only way to understand what the book means is to concentrate fully on the text and to engage it in all of its difficulty.

This list of reasons could be extended for pages. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by fighting to make time to read some (though of course not all) books well. The habit of skimming is all too easy to pick up, and it requires concentration and effort to avoid it. John Lennon famously tells us that ‘words are flying out like/endless rain into a paper cup/they slither while they pass/they slip away across the universe.’ We need to keep trying to catch them.

Ioven Fables -

Consistent with the trend of rising corporate influence in general is the trend of corporate control over the media, which often runs contrary to our shared interest in protecting the environment.  Large corporations are by far the most responsible for environmental destruction, and given the tight network formed by many corporate executives, the net effect on our nation’s media is that many important environmental issues are either underemphasized or ignored entirely. Thus, moving counter to this current, and consistent with the emphasis on local business by environmentalists, it is extremely important that our media sources also reflect local concerns in their reporting, and where possible are scaled and structured specifically for this purpose.

On Jan. 27, the Supreme Court heard a case that bestowed the right to make advertisements directly advocating for one political candidate or another. Since the 1886 Santa Clara Act that gave corporations the same rights as individuals, there has been no piece of legislation more significant (before 1886, there were a variety of tactics to control corporate influence, including one strategy of putting a strict 10 year life span on banks, and conducting evaluations of whether the corporation were serving the public interest in order for it to remain in existence).

Now, not only are corporations treated like individuals, which removes a strong sense of public accountability, but they are given incredible leeway in their ability to influence electoral and legislative proceedings, the effects of which we can currently only imagine (eg. imagine an oil company smearing carbon cut or green energy legislation).

Part of the reason this was able to occur may be related to the fact that support for the environment has dropped significant percentages recently, and has generally struggled to regain the momentum lost after the 1960’s and 70’s movement, a trend that runs directly parallel to a growth in corporate influence over the media. This is apparent with a deeper look at almost any major issue presented by the mainstream media. Take, for example, a recent article in the New York Times headlined “New Way to Tap Gas May Expand Global Supplies.”

The first line of the article says, “A new technique that tapped previously inaccessible supplies of natural gas in the United States is spreading to the rest of the world, raising hopes of a huge expansion in global reserves of the cleanest fossil fuel.” But according to the analysis of a more environmentally conscious news source, CommonDreams.org, this topic coverage is wholly inadequate: “There was not one single word in the entire article about this technology’s serious environmental repercussions – from its use of large quantities of highly toxic chemicals, to the truly incredible quantities of water it requires.”

And in fact, this criticism doesn’t even begin to address the structural issue behind this new approach of expanding natural gas acquisition as a general model of energy production. The most important flaw is that it is still a fossil fuel source, a protest that cannot be reiterated enough times given the failure of our energy industries and government to make a significant shift to sustainable sources of energy.

It would be better for everyone – even the standards of efficiency a conservative economist would worry about given the current quality of green technology. To be fair, this resource could help ease a transition period to sources like wind and solar, but a natural gas solution derived from shale will ultimately do little more than postpone a mounting need for structural change, which should not be nearly as difficult as the fossil fuel industry is making it. Why don’t oil companies invest in green technology and make the necessary sea change easy and profitable for everyone?

To ensure that a higher level of environmental literacy is instilled in the citizens of this country, a shift away from the mainstream media would not only be helpful, but vital to reshaping the way our socio-political structure adheres to principles of sustainability.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from gigantic conglomerates like News Corporation (which most notably includes Fox News), is the Green Guide here at Boston College (http://www.bc.edu/clubs/realfood/greenguide). While just getting started, the project has been developed according to the correct mentality of a grassroots, local focus in light of the problems with major news corporations. It begins with a student led investigation of an environmental issue on or near the BC campus, such as landscaping practices, food waste, bottled water or the organic garden, and explains each topic in an engaging way immediately relevant to the Boston College community.

Given this spectrum of opposites within the world of media information sources, and to support the growing need for a shift toward a more sustainable socio-political structure, the trend toward larger and larger media conglomerations should be countered not only by regulatory legislation, but also by as much bottom up reporting as possible. If our media sources move more in this direction, it will be much easier for each citizen to extend a model for effective action, based on genuine ecological literacy, from his or her immediate surroundings into larger and larger communities.

By Karen Kovaka, Gavel Writer -

Several weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article called “Climate Change and Open Science,” which advocated greater transparency on the part of scientific researchers as a means of securing public trust in the wake of climategate. The author, L Gordon Crovitz, said, “Science is having its Walter Cronkite moment,” meaning that statements of scientific consensus possess the same kind of authority that enabled Cronkite to end CBS Evening News with the pronouncement “And that’s the way it is.”

The ‘Climategate scandal’ refers to the November 2009 release of hacked e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Some of these emails include conversations among climate scientists about using statistical ‘tricks’ to defend themselves against global warming skeptics. As a result, many people are questioning the trustworthiness of climate science’s claims regarding anthropogenic global warming.

It’s not quite so simple. The non-scientific public has a far more ambiguous relation to scientific conclusions than trust, respect, and acceptance, even in the absence of climategate-like incidents. The Climate Research Unit hacking just serves to illustrate this ambiguity by demonstrating how great a polarization exists between scientists and non-scientists, and by showing how seriously in need of attention this polarization is.

There has been a curious sort of schadenfreude (pleasure at the misfortune of others) at what has been perceived as the discrediting of climate science. What does this gleefulness reveal if not a pre-existing suspicion about the methods and conclusions of the scientific community on the part of the non-scientific public? I think there would not be so much delight in a perceived “downfall” if there already wasn’t some bad blood, if a lot of us weren’t already awaiting the opportunity to say that science does not have the right to tell us “that’s the way it is” with such authority and frequency.

While climategate makes clear a certain amount of suspicion and distrust, many still buy into the authority of science. Practically speaking, the simple use of a kitchen appliance, computer, or ATM machine is a demonstration of great faith in scientific research and its applications. We owe a lot to science, so much that it’s hardly an exaggeration to say that for many of us, science sets the rhythm of our lives. We like it that way, most of the time.

The genesis of this ambiguity, this Faustian “two souls within one breast” may be our simultaneous awareness of our dependence on and ignorance of science. Being so dependent on a force that we know so little about makes us uneasy, because all of a sudden we are cast in a relation to science in which we have very little power.

This dependence/ignorance dynamic is, of course, troubling. Speaking on this topic in a 1959 lecture, the British physicist and novelist CP Snow said of “the industrial society of electronics, atomic energy and automation” that it “is the material basis of our lives: or, more exactly, the social plasma of which we are a part. And we know almost nothing about it.” Snow goes on to explain why he sees this ignorance as a matter of concern:

“In our society (that is, advanced western society) we have lost even the pretense of a common culture. Persons educated with the greatest intensity we know can no longer communicate with each other on the plane of their major intellectual concern. This is serious for our creative, intellectual and, above all, our normal life. It is leading us to interpret the past wrongly, to misjudge the present, and to deny our hopes of the future. It is making it difficult or impossible to take good action.”

Applied to the Climate Research Unit, these words ring true. As important as the issue of climate change is, we can’t really afford to misjudge the present or be incapacitated when it comes to taking good action. There are various reasons for our slow response to the concerns raised by climate science, and many of these reasons have more to do with economics than ignorance. However, because of the polarization between the scientific and non-scientific community, it is much easier for economic considerations to outweigh the scientific ones that may, in the long run, be more important.

Given this polarization, what kind of response is needed? The WSJ’s comparison of science to Cronkite on this issue is a very useful one, because by invoking the words “and that’s the way it is,” Crovitz makes clear that this whole issue can be framed as a question of epistemology. When scientists make an assertion, non-scientists naturally ask the question, “But how do you know?” Somehow or other, we have to figure out a way to answer that question that is meaningful and convincing for people who are not scientific experts of any kind. Otherwise, we will continue to see this same level of distrust and suspicion that has the power to “deny our hopes of the future.”

By Meg Lister, Gavel Writer -

Hi, my name is Meg. I’ll pass on the chicken. Nope, no hamburger. I don’t actually eat meat, thanks. Yeah, that means no fish either. Really, no animal products — I’m a vegetarian. I’m still American, I’m still sane. I don’t miss meat. I’m not a member of PETA, I won’t spray ketchup on your fur coat. I really don’t care for your jokes. This is important to me, and I will explain it to you if you actually listen. Please stop waving your chicken fingers in my face — that’s gross.

Hi, my name is Meg. I have been a vegetarian for over three years, and I haven’t eaten red meat or pork for five. Why don’t I eat meat? Usually, I simply answer, “Oh … I don’t like eating animals. It’s not a big deal.” I don’t want to have to tolerate your jibes and self-imposed, closed-minded attitude. This time, I’ll start off with a few objective, unbiased facts.

83 percent of all chicken meat is infected with campylobacter or salmonella at the time shoppers pick it off the shelves. 24.6 million pounds of antibiotics and antimicrobials are fed to chickens per year. Factory farming and livestock cultivation now accounts for one-third of worldwide land use.

Animal agriculture is the number-one cause of global warming. It uses 19 percent of the United States’ factory fuel resources. 98 percent of captured matter on fishing and dredge lines is “bycatch” — discarded sea plants, coral, and other (often endangered) animals, the loss of which leads to decreased biodiversity and ocean resources. Widespread abuse and slaughterhouse negligence directly contribute to the deaths of millions of animals each year. Most livestock never see the light of day, except when transported to slaughterhouses. They are packed into cages so tightly they cannot turn around and share space with a few dead companions. Slaughterhouses not infrequently skin live animals, cut the legs off live pigs and boil live chickens.

I will not go into the technicalities of factory farming and the horrors of day-to-day life in the industry. Moreover, this is not a purely “vegetarian” standpoint — it is receiving increasing national attention, including a Time article on the subject (see “Getting Real about the High Price of Cheap Food, Aug. 21, 2009). The real issue at stake is not the atrocities committed against the animals or the environment, or the industry’s blatant disregard of human health in favor of cheap, okay-tasting meat. These things cannot be resolved or dealt with until the American public starts noticing and caring. The facts and statistics are all there, but we just don’t give a damn. In the not-too-long run, we’ll start feeling the effects: high (typical American) meat intake is linked to obesity, high blood pressure, increased risk of stroke and heart attack. As a friend recently remarked, “I’d rather have a great life, eating a steak-and-cheese per day, than add an extra 10 years to my lifespan.” (Interestingly, I have never heard anyone repeat those words as they’re wheeled on a hospital gurney.)

Even more important is the pattern we are setting for the next generation. Meat demand and intake has exponentially increased in the past few decades and is expected to further expand by 25 percent by 2025. This means more pollution, more mistreated animals, and more destruction. Everyone and their mother has tried one of the latest fad diets — Dr. Atkins, South Beach, the Master Cleanse — which demonstrates that people do care about the food they eat, or, at the very least, how it affects their bodies. I do not understand, and perhaps do not want to understand, how people can affect such a callous attitude towards the meat they put inside their bodies, their children’s bodies, their loved one’s bodies.

This does not mean I advocate vegetarianism for everyone, everywhere. I merely wish to express my motivations for something that I consider a crucial aspect of my lifestyle, both practically and morally. I do not want you to “go veg,” only to understand what you’re eating and where it comes from. Ignorance is bliss, but not a type that tomorrow’s society can afford. My veggie burritos are not going to change the world — in fact, my efforts and those of the 2 percent vegetarian American population will make very little impact. Interestingly, Buddhists who ate meat used to think they were the karmically “lucky” ones — they killed only one animal for their food. Others, living in more agricultural areas, had to kill numerous bugs and worms living on rice paddies and vegetable gardens to obtain their nourishment. However, I cannot accept and inherently endorse a practice so environmentally, socially and morally bereft in an area over which I have the most control.

By Michael Mullin, Gavel Writer -

In light of the season-ending loss to Virginia in the opening round of the Atlantic Coast Conference men’s basketball tournament, it is almost completely inappropriate to profile a squad that mustered enough ineptitude to defy even the lowest of expectations. But, like ski pants and jackets, the best sales pop up after the season ends. I have heard arguments against writing this column at the end of the season, that this is the worst time to attempt a single-handed visibility boost of a team that won’t play again until next winter. I think it is more appealing to begin following a team when its stock is low. The personal gratification of fandom is that much sweeter when you know that you loved your team when no one else did. Judging by the attendance at basketball games against teams other than Duke or UNC, there is as much love for hoops here as there is for ResLife.

Basketball is criminally underrated at this school. Maybe it’s not underrated; maybe the prevailing student body mentality has too much else to focus on when it comes to athletics. I’ll let you in on Boston College’s best-kept secret: basketball games are easily the premier sporting events to attend. For the first half of the season, no one shows up for the games, so you can sit courtside and yell at head coach Al Skinner. Let me repeat: you can sit. If you are like me (lazy, unmotivated) this is all you need to know. Football games are great, until you actually show up at the stadium and have to stand up for 3 hours. I left at halftime more than once this year, solely because it rhymed with naptime. I’ve never left a basketball game before it was over., because, nourished by Papa Gino’s, there is no reason to leave my seat when I can sit in it.

The best reason I can give for the basketball team’s superiority over all other BC sports is the personalities. Every player is a character. Yeah, they are real kids and I see them walking around campus or at the Plex sometimes, but, after watching them for two full seasons, they’re still larger than life. In September, I sent a text to my friend that read, “OMG JOSH LOOKS GOOD TODAY,” which is hilarious now because Josh Southern proved this season to be void of excitement. The only football players that have garnered a reaction like that from me are Montel Harris, Mark Herzlich, and maybe Colin Larmond, Jr., whereas every guy on the basketball team has been the subject of a text or a conversation at one point or another. It’s not just because I like basketball so much – I have taken that into consideration. Going to the games, sitting close, getting to know each player’s style and role – you don’t need stats to get attached to these guys. Only five are on the court at any one time, with ten (or twelve – Nick Mosakowski and Peter Rehnquist – in blowouts) getting playing time on a given night, so the number of players to learn about is not as daunting as that of the football team.

The starters from this season will all be returning, so any self-professed Beginner’s Guide would not be much use without introducing the main actors from this season’s installment of the Skinner Saga, what I like to call, “Picking Up Rese’s Pieces.”

I’ve had an 8” x 12” professional photo of Reggie Jackson shoving the ball down some non-factor from North Carolina State’s throat pinned up on my bedroom wall in Jersey since the summer. Reggie is the man: if you haven’t seen him literally jump over Miami’s 6’10” center, Reggie Johnson, and throw down a superman dunk, look it up on Youtube. Reggie is Mr. Unpredictable; he can shoot, he can distribute, he can make things happen.

Injuries marked the season for shooting guard Rakim Sanders. Expectations for him to take over Rese’s mantel as alpha dog were deserved, but he was unable to deliver. The most disappointing moments this season were turning to my friends during games, and asking, “ Superstar Rock?” But, inevitably, he would stop putting the ball on the floor, and start chucking up threes. If nagging injuries were the true cause of his momentary lapses of disinterested play, there is still hope! Rock Superstar will be back, mark my words.

At small forward, Corey Raji, alias Corey Swag, holds down the starting job. All the guy does is grab offensive rebounds and shoot jumpers. He is the definition of a Tommy point. The phrase “typical Raji basket” should be the universal way of describing an offensive board, followed by a quick put-back. He has the nicest style, and it demands your respect.

Last are the big boys, the bodies, the grinders. Sadly, the only player worth mentioning is Joe Trapani. Joey is a 6’8” power forward, who led the team in scoring this season with 14 points per game. Joey is a streaky shooter, but he can score from downtown, and his range and size create tough mismatches for opponents. Although earning recognition from the ACC this year, Joey has shown a knack for pulling a Patrick Ewing and disappearing in big games. On the bright side, he possesses a voice with remarkable timbre, on par with Dikembe Mutombo.

Only four players out of a possible 12, and I had to cut a substantial portion off of what I wrote about them. These guys write the column themselves. The team will always have my support, but one guy, yelling “DALLAS!” every time Dallas Elmore gets a touch, is not enough to maintain a home-field advantage. Don’t forget about them next year.