To apply, email Editor-in-Chief Kim De Guzman at editorinchief@luchameleon.com .
Don’t Blend In!
HEY YOU.
Interested in any of our seven alternative themes?
Interested in writing, photography, art, blogging, videography, or design?
What are you waiting for?
JOIN THE LUCHAMELEON.
Come to our weekly section meeting at 7:30 PM on Thursday nights in Mundelein Center, in the lounge across from Center Stage Cafe.
Or email editorinchief@luchameleon.com to get involved.
All majors are welcome. No prior experience is necessary!
Zoo [Politics and Social Justice]
Welcome to Zoo, the Chameleon’s Politics and Social Justice themed section!
Here, you will find all the politics and social justice content, including news and feature articles, photographs, art, and multimedia features.
The politics and social justice theme explores political happenings related to our university demographic, and social justice issues.
Just click on the links below to start browsing!
If you have any story ideas for Zoo, or if you want to write for Zoo, contact Audrey Kelly, Zoo Section Editor, at greenscene.zoo.hots@luchameleon.com.
Infographic designed by Hannah Otto/The Chameleon. The infographic provides a breakdown of the gun-related deaths in 2012 throughout the United States.
By Lauren Cutshall Chameleon Staff Writer
On February 13, students and community members gathered at Loyola to talk about gun violence, an issue we have been reminded of with each shooting since the infamous Columbine shooting of 1999.
Most recently, memories have resurfaced as the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting killed 20 children and seven adults, prompting each subsequent shooting to gain even more media attention.
While the press and civilians wonder, “Is this the worst and most devastating shooting?”, Dr. James Garbarino, a Loyola professor, explained why this is not a question we want to ask.
He went on to explain the celebrity-factor in any mass shooting, as the news continues to place more and more attention on the shooter.
If we deem each shooting to be the most devastating, it is likely there is someone out there who thinks they can become an even bigger celebrity. And according to the media’s track record, a bigger crime means a bigger celebrity.
While people may jump to the conclusion that these shooters are psychopaths, Dr. Garbarino explained that this is not always the case.
Though there often seems to be a “last straw” for students being bullied and harassed in school, Dr. Garbarino said there is often “an accumulation of causes.” These smaller causes continue to build upon each other and can eventually lead to an aggressive act.
Also speaking at the event was Loyola professor, Dr. Linda Heath, who discussed the numbers behind gun violence.
Though it is the school shootings that garner most of the media attention, the percentage is relatively small when put into the larger context of all gun-related deaths.
In 2010 alone, there were a total of 31,076 gun-related deaths, two-thirds of which were suicides. Dr. Heath drew attention to this number as she discussed the issue of how readily available guns are.
Dr. Heath discussed the various forms of suicide, saying that gun-use was among the most effective, while overdosing on pills was among the least.
Research has shown that people are less likely to attempt suicide for a second time if they are stopped or fail on their first attempt.
The availability of guns does not allow people at suicide-risk a second chance, because they are more likely to be successful in their first attempt and never get the help they need.
In other words, the availability of guns must be lessened, and the availability of mental health facilities must be augmented.
Dr. Garbarino said that student surveillance, which includes students reporting aggressive behavior, may prove helpful in the case of school shootings.
Dr. Heath explained that guns must not be as easily accessible in order to lower gun-related suicides.
To contact Lauren, email her at lcutshall@luc.edu.
For more information on gun control and violence, watch section editor Sean Keenehan’s video: Hayida Pendleton
Check out the very first episode of Chameleon News, filmed in front of this week’s Campus Hotspot, the St. James Chapel at the corner of Rush and Pearson near the Water Tower Campus.
Stay tuned for next week’s episode of Chameleon News, with a brand new Campus Hotspot!
Anchored by Ericka Reyes/Marketing Director Written by Kim De Guzman/Editor-in-Chief Produced by Sean Keenehan/Section Editor
Here’s what’s been making headlines during the past week:
Photo from telegraph.co.uk
A/E
According to BBC News, a play about late singer Amy Winehouse set to debut in Denmark in January 2013 has been canceled. The singer’s estate has blocked the use of her materials in the production.
The Standard, Hong Kong’s biggest circulation daily publication, reports that Hong Kong has been named a “superpower” in education, along with Finland and South Korea, by an international study known as the Global Index of Cognitive Skills and Education Attainment.
According to the Huffington Post, the Church of England faces a possible “major constitutional crisis,” after rejecting the possibility of women bishops. After the unexpected defeat, the church said the process to allow women bishops would need to begin anew, and couldn’t start again until a new General Synod (the Church of England’s legislative body) is seated in 2015.
Photo from guardian.co.uk
Liberation
The Guardian reports that a Swedish toy retailer is “arming children with the ability to question outdated gender roles.” The retailer, Top Toy, has released their annual holiday catalog with advertising designed to “confound every gender prejudice.” The catalog shows pictures of girls holding Nerf Guns, and boys playing with dolls.
Photo from Reuters
According to Reuters, Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras welcomed a debt deal agreed by lenders to unlock aid, promising skeptical Greeks a new dawn after months of haggling under the threat of bankruptcy. Euro zone finance ministers and the International Monetary Fund agreed to reduce Greek debt by 40 billion euros ($52 billion), opening the way for 43.7 billion euros of loans to be disbursed by early 2013.
Kim De Guzman is the editor-in-chief. She can be reached at editorinchief@luchameleon.com
This weekend, the LUChameleon celebrates its one year anniversary.
It’s been a whirlwind year for us.
We published our very first issue last November. We started this publication because we wanted to give a voice to the alternative students on campus.
We wanted to provide another student media opportunity on campus, as well as “talk about things that aren’t usually talked about publicly” on campus.
We started out with the half the number of staff members that we have now, with no resources whatsoever, and we started out as an online only magazine while we caught our footing.
Over the past year, we continued to grow. Our staff grew bigger, we added a new theme to our coverage, and we decided to publish a print magazine to compliment our online outlet.
We can only dream of what is in store for us during our toddler years.
Here’s a look back at some of the content during our memorable “first year in business”:
In October 2012, staff writer Stevenson Valentor explores the concept of “no soul” in his “Soul Reflection.”
One of our popular online features from the fall 2012 semester is our Wednesday sexuality blog, Wednesday Heartbeats. Entries include decisions on abstinence, dating conundrums, and a personal commentary from a date rape experience.
Back in February, copy editor Andrew Kletzien wrote an opinion piece entitled “A Letter to Catholic Apologists.” The piece was a commentary regarding several sexual assault incidents involving children in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Andrew’s article invoked much discussion from Catholic students on campus.
Every Friday throughout the school year, our Friday Fashion Spectrumbloggers have kept you in the know with all the latest style tips, deals, and trends, as well as beauty/makeup/accessories advice, what NOT to wear, and where to shop on a college student budget.
In honor of Election Day 2012, Editor-in-Chief Kim De Guzman discusses her thoughts on voting in her first ever presidential election in “My First Time [Voting, That Is].”
In September 2012, staff writer Michael Lechowitz offers his two cents about the “death of diversity.”
In one of the very first articles published in the Chameleon, staff writer Barbara Crowley interviews several anons about their feelings towards the taboo subject of sex in “Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby.”
Our very first print issue came out on September 25, 2012. Featured articles included summer study abroad stories from the John Felice Rome Center, a look at the environmentally friendly Cuneo Hall, and the Campus Movie Fest student film festival.
The Chameleon gives you an inside look at Hunger Week, and the significance of this series of week long events on campus in “What do you hunger for?”
In March, staff writer Erika Vigen offered her opinion about the prospective USGA bottled water ban on the Loyola campus in her “environmentally friendly” commentary entitled “Forever Thirsty.”
We’ve started using Storify as a creative tool to tell stories. Check out this one compiled in honor of Election Day.
Our second issue ever [October 2012], came out on October 30, 2012, just in time for Halloween. Featured stories include vegetarian awareness month, a look at Hunger Week, and a neighborhood guide to Chicago ‘hood Lincoln Square.
Staff writer Barbara Crowley follows up with her “Let’s Talk About Sex” article by interviewing more anons for another article about the act of masturbation. Is doing the dirty with yourself really so dirty?
This past week was quite an eventful one for American politics. President Obama was reelected for a second term as president of the United States…and the world reflects.
Not because I didn’t want to, and not because politics goes against every fiber of my being (which is not true), but because I wasn’t registered to vote.
Why wasn’t I registered to vote? Frankly, I was lazy.
I’ll do it later, I thought. The election’s not until November anyway. I kept thinking this all throughout the summer, and when the semester first began.
And also I put off voter registration for so long because I wasn’t sure where exactly I should register to vote. I’m originally from Nevada, so I could have registered there and did the whole absentee ballot thing. But I could also use my school address and register in Illinois.
However, when October showed up and I was off gallivanting with my friends during fall break, I realized I completely forgot the deadline to register, which was only a few days away.
Needless to say, I ended up registering on the very last day I could possibly register. And I decided to register in Illinois. After all, I really am only in Nevada for less than two months in the calendar year so I found it more fitting to file my registration here.
Tomorrow, on November 6, 2012, I will cast the first ballot of my lifetime.
And I’m actually excited.
I could have let my laziness overtake me and just not bothered to register at all. But I did.
My mother is surprised that I’m voting in the first place.
“Do you know how to vote?” and “But what do you even know about politics?” [Yes, she actually asked me those questions. But I digress; this is not about my mother]
As miffed as I was at her apparent surprise in my political participation, it’s reactions like that that make me glad I registered in the first place.
I honestly feel I can make my difference with my vote. I feel like I’m getting an opportunity to have a say so in governmental affairs. [And no, this is not turning into a “Vote or Die” speech.]
On a side note, the fact that I get to vote makes me feel like an actual adult and a political citizen. I’m being trusted to make more decisions, and while some of these decisions in the end will be personal, I know some of them in the long run will affect other people, people that I’ve never ever met.
Voting is also an opportunity I have that some of my peers don’t. Over the past few weeks, several people I know have expressed deep regret at not being able to vote, for whatever reasons.
I’m looking forward to tomorrow, to my first election day. I’m looking forward to hitting the polls as early as I possibly can, despite the fact that I’m not a morning person; I’m especially looking to my first “I Voted” sticker.
After all, you only get one first time.
To vote, that is.
Kim De Guzman is the editor-in-chief. She can be reached at editorinchief@luchameleon.com.
Photo By Anna Kebe/The Chameleon. JQ1 is a new drug shown to effectively stop the development of sperm in mice.
By Nicholas Moutvic
Chameleon Staff Writer
JQ1 is known as the new drug that has shown an ability to effectively stop the development of sperm in mice.
The drug appeared on the scene this past August.
Baylor Medical University scientists say that because of the positive results throughout testing, they are confident that the drug, essentially a “Pill for Him,” will be able to cross over to human males in as soon as one year.
This has prompted many questions, not the least of which is how soon will it be before republics start another tired tirade on the value of God’s plan, as well as what crazy illogical arguments will they use?
But there’s another conundrum that plagues me.
What is this obsession with wanting to procreate in the first place?
Where are all of my sound-of-mind people who realize that the desire to reproduce is a fundamental weakness?
Besides the obvious problems associated with such matters, like the current state of our planet being in utter flux with overpopulation, it brings with it havoc that is closer to home.
Women, do you really wish to be so substantial of mass for the duration of your pregnancy?
Just reading this you should feel your back getting fatter.
And men, what’s the over/under that your offspring won’t inherit all of those genetic gems, like your dad’s immensely lobular ears or that persistent yet unfortunate schnoz that would even make Barbara shutter that seems to be popping up everywhere on your mom’s side?
Take a beat.
Where’s the fire?
At least I have the decency to hate myself.
Young people aren’t taught this.
I’m all for birth control being available for men, if that’s the only option being presented, but honestly I’d prefer that everyone besides a select few just get neutered.
Take a look at where societal attention is being directed and tell me you don’t agree.
From Teen Mom to The Pregnancy Pact, viewers are fueling this idea in our youth that living in a train wreck will make you successful–or at least get you a television show, which, by our culture’s standards, is basically the same thing.
Thank God there’s a cord or it would be called Look What The Plumber Found.
I give you permission instead to be a more socially responsible individual and take a page out of my book. Instead of wanting to create, I’ve chosen to one day adopt a foster-care runaway teenager, who has the inability to love and trust, and if he or she is dyslexic too it will be the perfect trifecta.
I will nurture and fix them, get them into Yale, and one day they will cure cancer, culminating in my life story becoming a Lifetime movie. Which is really all any of us can dream for ourselves, am I right?
The majority of you will read this with your mind already made up, and neither I nor anyone else can change it. However, for those of you who are on the fence about the subject of birth control because of your religious beliefs, come hither for a moment.
Isn’t your God all-knowing? Then why has he let all of these tragic events in our world unfold? You should stop listening to him and listen to me. I mean, he sent his only son to die on the cross.
All in all, men have the right to be in charge of their sexual health just as much as women and mice do.
While some may venture that in the future this will be seen as a bad idea gone worse, it is my strong belief that the effectiveness will uphold itself at least to be considered a great idea gone decent.
To contact Nicholas Moutvic, email him at nmoutvic@luc.edu or follow him on Twitter, @nickmoutvic.
Photo taken from peacefulmind.com/The Natal Zodiac Map is a popular astrological tool.
By Lauren Hannigan Chameleon National Contributor
Due to rising interest on the topic of astrology, I decided to look into the horoscopes of the presidential candidates and their partners. Astrology is a study that is complex, beautiful, and enlightening.
Although astrology is often written off as a pseudo science, there must be a reason it has survived since ancient times.
Like Carl G. Jung said, “We were born at a given moment, in a given place, and like vintage years of wine, we have the qualities of the year and of the season in which we are born.”
Mapping the Zodiac charts of presidential candidates and their partners is very relevant. The Romneys have been married since 1969 and the Obamas just celebrated their 20th anniversary. Astrology explains compatibility between lovers- reading the compatibility of these couples will be fascinating.
Furthermore, the future of America will be determined by whether the Leo or Pisces is dubbed President this November. Who is best suited for the job? Like the great Astrologers of the past, I look to the nighttime sky for answers.
One studies Astrology with a Natal Zodiac Map. A Natal Zodiac Map is a map of the sky including the sun, moon, stars, and planets from where and when one was born.
It describes habits, temperaments, and potential. Astrology does not predict the future.
I will only explain the most vital part of each map, which includes the sun sign, moon sign, and rising sign. For example: 1. Sun Sign:
This is the “horoscope” one would read in the newspaper. The sun travels through twelve constellations in the sky annually, creating the twelve signs of the Zodiac.
Whatever constellation the sun is “in” at birth determines this sign. It describes one’s essential self. 2. Moon Sign:
The moon changes what sign it’s “in” every few days. The quickest way to find out a moon sign is to ask Google.
The moon sign describes a person’s emotional or intimate side. This is how one acts when with family, the closest of friends, or alone. 3. Rising Sign:
This is determined by the sign that was rising over the horizon at the moment of your birth. The Rising sign describes how one acts socially or their surface personality.
Let’s see how the signs work in action.
Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 pm in Hawaii. Thus, his Sun is Leo, Moon is Aquarius, and Rising is Gemini. Being a politician is a Leo’s dream! Leos love to be the center of attention; they are the proudest of the Zodiac. Leos are known for exaggerating and telling people what they want to hear- not actually what they mean.
Bill Clinton and Fidel Castro are other politician Leos. Sandra Bullock (acting is a typical Leo profession) is a Leo with an Aquarius Moon just like Obama.
Michelle Obama was born January 17, 1964 in Chicago. Her sun is Capricorn, moon is Pisces, and Rising is Taurus. Capricorns are perpetual adults- they are responsible and have a work ethic like no other.
Patient and thrifty, the mountain goat represents Capricorns and their rule-following ways. Any job is the right job for a Capricorn. Other Capricorns with their moon in Pisces include Elvis Presley and JRR Tolkien.
As a couple? Expressive Leo loves drama while workaholic Capricorn likes to keep calm. They both enjoy living comfortably.
With plenty of money, this pair can work. Michelle and Barack are an A+ Zodiac Match.
Mitt Romney was born on March 12, 1947 in Detroit. His sun is Pisces, moon is Scorpio, and rising is Cancer.
Pisces are sensitive, emotional, and intuitive. Pisces love to serve others- social work is their ideal field. Other Pisces with a Scorpio’s moon include Elizabeth Taylor and Johnny Cash.
Ann Romney was born on April 16, 1949 making her sun Aries, moon Sagittarius, and rising Leo. The first sign of the Zodiac, Rams are perpetual youth. This is why she’s wrinkle free and bleach blonde at age 65 (maybe she’s had a little help!).
Aries are enthusiastic, bold, intimidating, and can be very self-centered. Other sun Aries and moon Sagittarius include Thomas Jefferson and Vincent Van Gogh.
And how do the Romneys fare as a couple? The emotional Pisces can woo the dominating Aries for a while but at some point the Fish is going to need nurturing the Ram can’t offer.
Astrologers agree that this match is not compatible for the long run.
In conclusion, the White House will be occupied by a Lion and Fish or Goat and Ram come November.
The stars on the days of each of their births differ as much as their political views.
Who will win the race between the Fiery Lion and Fluid Fish? Only time will tell.
Lauren Hannigan is one of the Chameleon national contributors. She attends California State University in Long Beach. To contact Lauren, email her at lh.hannigan@gmail.com.
Photo taken from nytimes.com/Although the Chicago Teachers’ Union strike is now over, its’ effects are still long lasting on students and teachers in the Chicago area.
By Chloe Doherty Chameleon Staff Writer
For millions of students across the United States, the beginning of September brought the beginning of a new school year.
However, many Chicago students began school only to leave it a few weeks later.
On Monday, September 10 teachers in the third largest school district in the country put on their red t-shirts and hit the streets of Chicago to go on strike.
The Chicago Teachers Union planned to stay on strike until Mayor Rahm Emanuel agreed upon a more just contract that included higher wages, job security, improved classroom conditions, and better resources for the students.
For new teacher Nick Plefka, joining the strike was “more of an obligation than a decision,” but it turned out to be a positive experience, he said.
Plefka, originally form Tinley Park, Illinois, teaches first grade at a school in the Austin area of Chicago.
He only had been teaching for four weeks in the West Side of Chicago when the CTU went on strike.
“I think this has been a long time coming,” Plefka said. “I believe it was a necessity…to get what is needed for the betterment of the education system.”
Plefka said factors such as classroom conditions, in which 35 children have no air conditioning, or the way that the majority of teacher evaluations are taken from standardized test scores reinforced his desire to participate in the first Chicago teachers strike in 25 years.
“The teachers are grossly underpaid and are more than just babysitters,” Plefka said.
While Plefka thinks of the strike as a positive “learning experience,” he said it was hard to know that his students were not in school.
For schools similar to Plefka’s, many of the students come from low income backgrounds, making the meals they get at school the only meals they may get all day.
The students Plefka teaches were able to stay at local community centers or other schools, so that they could remain in a safe environment during the day.
Despite children being out of school, the public has been supportive.
“Overall community support has been outstanding,” Plefka said. “Parents and others living in the area have shown us hospitality and encouragement.”
The Chicago Teachers Strike ended on September 19.
The Board of Education has agreed to hire over 600 more teachers, minimize the importance of standardized testing and focus more on teaching in the classroom, make resources available on the first day of school, make parent voices heard, and supply more funding and attention for special education and social work.
Plefka described the mood of the strike as “a mix of optimism and positive determination.”
Even though the strike has received mixed opinions and reactions, Plefka comes away with a positive feeling.
“I really think it is for the better in the long run,” he said. “I feel honored to have been a part of it.”
Photo By Anna Kebe/The Chameleon. It could come down to feminist vs. woman.
By Aviana Willis Section Editor
There were many moving speeches and memorable moments at this year’s Democratic National Convention that took place in Charlotte, N.C.
The image and moment I remember most is that of First Lady Michelle Obama in a pink dress speaking passionately about her husband. “…He believes that women are more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care…That’s what my husband stands for,” she said.
In that same speech, she mentioned the president’s signage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that was meant to close the gap between the pay of men and women, giving equal pay for the same jobs.
The picture was painted that President Barack Obama is a friend of women and their push toward equality, and he will fight for the rights and other issues that affect American women. Because of this and his track record, the president seems to be a friend of the feminist and might even be one himself.
Reiterating these views, President Obama recently took a strong stand on the controversial comments made by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) about “legitimate rape” and its small incidence of causing pregnancy.
“Rape is rape,” said Obama. “I think what these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women.”
Obama has been applauded by feminists about the decisions that he has made in the Affordable Care Act, especially regarding family planning. Prominent feminist activist Kathy Bonk from Communications Consortium Media Center, made a remark about ObamaCare and family planning at Feminist Majority Foundation’s “Women, Money and Power” event this year.
“First of all, the thing about the Affordable Care Act that people don’t fully understand is that it’s probably going to do more for women and more for advancing women, equal to, on par with what Title IX did for sports,” said Bonk.
On the surface at least, Obama understands the plight of women. This obviously seems to give him an advantage with female voters, especially if you take into account the views of his opponent Mitt Romney.
Romeny, a Republican, has been condemned by women’s and reproductive rights groups because of his call for the end of government funding to Planned Parenthood and his outcry against the ObamaCare proposal for employers to include birth control in their insurance.
But because President Obama has been so straightforward about his position on women’s issues, voters who do not subscribe to similar beliefs may view him as extreme and unwavering. Surprisingly to some, many of these voters could be women, because being female does not equal pro-feminism.
Luckily for Romney, these ladies are most likely to be older, religious white women, one of the only demographics he has a lead on. His campaign encourages these women to gather, organize, and try to persuade others that he is the candidate who truly cares about women and femininity.
Some political analysts have predicted that the race will come down to young versus old, rich versus poor, moral versus immoral, male versus female, but there is also a possibility it could come down to feminist versus woman.
Aviana Willis is the section editor for Culture Shock and Liberation. She can be reached at cultureshock.liberation@luchameleon.com.
Photo by Sarah Murray/the Chameleon. The Chicago Teachers’ Union strike affected 350,000 Chicago Public School children and their families.
By Sean Keenehan Section Editor
Faced with a teacher’s strike that had over 350,000 (yes, that is correct), Chicago children out of school and a 30 percent homicide increase in 2012, Chicago does not seem like Chicago right now.
At 7 a.m. last Wednesday morning, I was alarmed as I heard the sound of screams, which were mostly loud “woos” in succession with a loud chorus of blowing car horns.
As the voices grew louder, I stepped out of my front door to witness a passing mob of striking Chicago Public School teachers, chanting something along the lines of “Teachers united…”
An hour later, riding on the Blue Line, I saw a man holding a sign that read “Educate or Die!”
What is going on here?
At 10 p.m. Wednesday evening, while watching ABC News, I witnessed a commercial advertisement showcasing the current battle between the Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago Teachers Union.
“Chicago teachers are on strike, and kids are the losers. The deal is on the table. All the CTU has to do is reach out and grab it,” the advertisement said.
These words were not just spoken, but they were also written in large text across the screen.
A minute later, I caught another advertisement that stated, “CPS has put out a good offer. The teachers seemed intent on striking from the beginning.”
These advertisements play off as slander advertisements paid for by government politicians.
Is there a local election that I am unaware of?
On another side of this battle are the affected 350,000 Chicago Public School children and their families.
This is where Chicago needs your faith.
Chicago is better than this.
Could this teacher’s strike have been avoided? Yes.
Should it have been avoided? Yes.
Was it avoided? No.
If you are currently a student, be grateful as you listen to your next lecture.
Although the teacher’s strike has ended, in the battle between the CPS and the CTU, one has to hope that education wins in the end. Only then can the child be saved.
Now, what is being done about Chicago’s increasing homicide rate?
Sean Keenehan is the section editor for A&E and Co-Exist. He can be reached at artsent.coexist@luchameleon.com.
Photo Courtesy of Ralph Braseth/School of Communication. The panelists answer questions from the audience of 150.
By Jason Rhein Chameleon Staff Writer
Journalists from media outlets in the Chicago area participated in a forum on Tuesday, September 11, which was put on by Loyola University Chicago’s School of Communication in Corboy Law Center, to discuss the objectiveness of the media during the 2012 presidential campaign and hot issues that the media is covering.
The forum, titled, Bridging the Great Divide: Partisan Politics, the Press and the Modern Presidential Campaign, was hosted by Phil Ponce, host of WTTW’s Chicago Tonight and a professor of journalism at Loyola, and consisted of Tom Bevan, co-founder and executive editor of RealClearPolitics; Daniel Libit, political reporter for The Daily; Kristen McQueary, editorial board member for the Chicago Tribune; Salim Muwakkil, senior editor of In These Times and radio host for WVON-1690-AM; and Jim Warren, editor-at-large for Newsweek and The Daily Beast.
The panelists discussed the role that the media plays in today’s politics, stating that many media outlets are progressive in society and often push toward one political party or another.
The form quickly shifted into a discussion about what the major political parties believe and how these views are put into place in major news outlets.
The majority of the participants expressed that a necessity for journalists today is checking the facts and making sure that everything is in proper context, otherwise readers or viewers will not trust their news sources.
“Our stories are grass on the field that news consumers graze. We [journalists] no longer control the news,” said Libit, expressing the importance of gaining the readers’ trust.
The debate at the forum heated up with discussions about the Tea Party and whether or not this party is racist. Muwakkil claimed that many of the Tea Party members are “white supremacists.”
The other panel members quickly shot this idea down, explaining that Tea Party members have actually diversified the Republican Party.
Muwakkil then expressed his beliefs about how the 2008 election has affected African-Americans, stating that there is great pride in having an African-American President. However, the opposition level and ambition of African-Americans has decreased because they are now in a position of power.
The forum ended with a brief question and answer session from the audience and advice from the professionals for journalism students at Loyola.
The panelists concluded that students should remain optimistic, contrarian, skeptic, cosmopolitan and curious in order to become successful in the always-changing field of journalism.
To contact Jason Rhein, email him at jrhein@luc.edu.
Need a study break and want to catch up with the most popular articles, videos, and blogs we had this year? Here’s our mascot, Charlie, with his top 20 picks from this year! (In no particular order.)
Back in February, copy editor Andrew Kletzien wrote an opinion piece entitled “A Letter to Catholic Apologists.” The piece was a commentary regarding several sexual assault incidents involving children in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Andrew’s article invoked much discussion from Catholic students on campus.
In March, staff writer Erika Vigen offered her opinion about the prospective USGA bottled water ban on the Loyola campus in her “environmentally friendly” commentary entitled “Forever Thirsty.”
Every Friday throughout the school year, our Friday Fashion Spectrum bloggers have kept you in the know with all the latest style tips, deals, and trends, as well as beauty/makeup/accessories advice, what NOT to wear, and where to shop on a college student budget.
In one of the very first articles published in the Chameleon, staff writer Barbara Crowley interviews several anons about their feelings towards the taboo subject of sex in “Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby.”
In February, staff writer Audrey Kelley produced one of our most popular multimedia pieces featuring different Loyola students and their opinions about feminism and what it means to be a feminist.
Every Tuesday throughout the school year, Chameleon blogger Audrey Kelley produced “Tattoo Tuesday,” a blog featuring Loyola students and their tattoo art. In the blog, Audrey also explores different aspects of tattoo culture. Readers are encouraged to interact with Audrey using the comment section of the website and share their own tattoo stories.
In February, copy editor Brittney Rooney explored the hidden meaning behind the “LGBTQA” acronym, and what each label of the acronym personally meant to those people who identify as said label.
Staff writer Barbara Crowley follows up with her “Let’s Talk About Sex” article by interviewing more anons for another article about the act of masturbation. Is doing the dirty with yourself really so dirty?
In February, Chameleon staff writer Dimitri Plikas profiled Loyola student organization Cru, and took an in depth look at how the students who are involved in Cru “go forth and set the world on fire.”
Following copy editor Andrew Kletzien’s article about the recent outbreak of sex abuse scandals in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Loyola student (and Catholic) Emily Sammon penned this commentary.
In February, Photo Editor Kevin Bautista profiled The Center for Urban Environmental Research and Policy (CUERP). Kevin goes inside the heart of Loyola’s green initiative, and explores the different ways CUERP fuels the university’s drive for sustainability.
In March, Multimedia Editors Sarah Murray and Marie Janzen produced a video entitled “An Inside Look at Loyola’s Dining Cuisines and Services.” Several Loyola students were interviewed about their opinions of Loyola’s dining services.
On Wednesdays throughout the school year, an anonymous Chameleon staff writer published the “Not-So-Whisper-Wednesdays” blog, a sex blog about…well, all things sex.
In honor of our namesake reptile, in February, Multimedia Editor Sarah Murray went on an adventure to a reptile store in Evanston to find a real live chameleon (YES, A REAL CHAMELEON) and learn about it.
In April, His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama visited the Loyola campus to deliver a speech on “Interfaith Collaboration.” Editor-in-Chief Kim De Guzman recapped His Holiness’ speech and students’ reactions to it.
Photo By Kim De Guzman/The Chameleon. On Thursday, April 26, 2012, His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, visited Loyola University Chicago's Lake Shore Campus for a lecture on interfaith collaboration.
By Kim De Guzman Editor-in-Chief
On Thursday, April 26, the Loyola University Chicago campus was abuzz with the excitement of welcoming a world-famous spiritual leader to campus.
There were two programs: a morning session and an afternoon session. The morning program, although also held on the Lake Shore Campus, was sponsored and organized by the Tibet Center of Chicago.
The afternoon program was sponsored and organized by Loyola.
Anticipation for His Holiness’ arrival to Loyola has been slowly building up for weeks, ever since tickets went on sale last month on March 26. Tickets to the event were sold out to undergraduate and graduate students within 24 hours, leaving no tickets available for faculty, staff, or alumni to purchase.
By noon on Thursday, there were three long lines of Loyola students, faculty and others waiting to get into Gentile. When students finally reached the front of the arena, they were greeted by an airport style security system.
Before the program officially started at 1:30 PM, there were different theatre, music, and dance performances from several interfaith campus organizations and groups, including the Muslim Student Association, Hillel, and the Buddhist Student Organization.
Before officially starting the speech, His Holiness was given an honorary Loyola degree, Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa. The degree was presented by President and CEO Michael J. Garanzini S.J. and Frank Fernell, PhD, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
After the degree (and a red Loyola golf visor, which His Holiness was ecstatic to receive) was presented, it was then that His Holiness took the stage.
“I am very happy to have the opportunity to talk in a Catholic university,” he said.
The 40 minute speech centered on the ultimate source of happiness, the importance of fostering discussion between religiously diverse groups and people, and the focus of compassion and understanding.
“The ultimate source of happiness is your peace of mind, your inner peace,” he said to a crowd of almost 4,000. “The transformation of the mind is not that simple. The mind is formless but difficult to control.”
After His Holiness’ lecture presentation, several pre-selected Loyola students had an opportunity to ask questions in a Q-and-A session. However, not all students were able to ask their question due to the program’s time restraints.
Several questions included: “Who has influenced or inspired you in your life?” “What advice would you give to someone who wants to be an advocate for peace?” and “What are your views on globalization and the fluidity of modern culture?”
Many students who attended the event were honored that they had the opportunity to see the Dalai Lama.
“His insight was really inspirational,” says Dylan Gilmore, 21, a senior political science and international studies double major. “He had a really good message and as human beings, I think we lose sight of that message sometimes, so it was good to hear that perspective.”
Overall, audience members say they enjoyed themselves.
“This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and it was a really awe-inspiring one,” says Matthew Morris, 20, a junior criminal justice major. “His message was perfect for our university, and I think it’s really cool that we can call him an “Honorary Rambler” now too.”
Kim De Guzman is the editor-in-chief. She can be reached at editorinchief@luchameleon.com.
Photo Illustration By Kevin Bautista/The Chameleon. Trayvon Martin, who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, is believed to be a victim of racial profiling.
By Brittney Rooney Copy Editor
Trayvon Martin, a seventeen-year-old boy with no criminal record, was staying with his father and his father’s girlfriend. Right around dusk, Martin walked to the nearby 7-Eleven and bought a pack of Skittles and an iced tea.
On his way back from the store, Martin was walking quickly with his hood up to get out of the rain. This is when George Zimmerman saw him.
Zimmerman was the self-appointed neighborhood watchman in a small, gated community in central Florida. It was a rainy night, and Zimmerman was doing rounds on high alert, because there had been robberies in the neighborhood earlier that month.
After calling the police and being told not to follow Martin, Zimmerman left the car and followed Martin anyway. While the events that followed are still under investigation, minutes later Zimmerman shot Martin, killing him.
Zimmerman said he shot Martin out of self-defense. Because Florida’s law gives the benefit of the doubt to those who claim self-defense, Zimmerman was not arrested and no investigation was immediately called for.
He said he followed young Martin in the first place because he looked sketchy walking through the neighborhood in the dark with his hood up. However, America is not buying Zimmerman’s excuse.
Martin has become the newest face of the fight against racial profiling in America.
Racial profiling has been an issue in the United States for centuries, but has been a prominent issue in the past few decades, from terrorism fears after 9/11 toward Muslims to forcing Latino men and women to show identification in Arizona.
However, Martin is just one example of the racial profiling that takes place everyday, and this time it went beyond just prejudice.
Racial profiling typically leads to inconveniences, rude disruptions, and other annoyances that plague the daily lives of minorities. While I am not undermining the effects of this cruel and unnecessary interrogation, it wasn’t until Zimmerman went beyond civil rights to civil liberties that America spoke out.
Civil rights are typically what are focused on in this day and age. Healthcare rights, marriage rights, and education rights are examples of civil rights. Civil liberties are those rights that are innate. Life is the most basic of all the civil liberties.
When Zimmerman took Martin’s life on a racial assumption, he took his most basic liberty. When the police did not arrest Zimmerman immediately, many say that they were sending a message that Zimmerman’s actions were permissible.
I do not know what was in Zimmerman’s heart the moment he shot Martin. If he truly felt that his life was in danger, I can’t say that he should not have protected himself. However, Zimmerman was not truly in danger. So, we must ask, why did he think Martin was a threat?
It wasn’t the area of town that made Martin seem threatening. It wasn’t the time of day. It wasn’t because he was carrying anything suspicious. Was it really because he was wearing a hoodie? Or was it because of the skin color beneath that?
Maybe it was a combination of the two, but very few believe that Martin’s race played no part in his death.
Protests have sprung up all over the country since Martin was shot, demanding Zimmerman be tried and racial profiling addressed properly.
President Obama spoke out against racial profiling soon after this tragic event in a very public and formal setting. He made a powerful statement: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
Even presidential nominee Rick Santorum made a statement against the racist events that unfolded that evening. However, Newt Gingrich attacked President Obama, saying he made the shooting into a racial issue when it was unnecessary.
Why does America have such a severe phobia of young black men? It has been around for as long as I can remember, and Martin is just one example of the millions of young men targeted everyday for their skin color.
Even with a president who shares the same race and gender, the media continues to portray black men the same way. What will it take for America to suspend its judgment on racial minorities? Or is it just a natural aspect of such a diverse country to always make someone the bad guy?
Brittney Rooney is a copy editor. She can be reached at brooney@luc.edu.
Photo By Kevin Bautista/The Chameleon. Nick Passerelli, LIFT-Chicago Uptown Office Public Relations Manager.
By Kevin Bautista Photo Editor
LIFT, a movement started by Kirsten Lodal and Brian Kreiter, aims to “combat poverty and expand opportunity for all people in the United
States.”
The issues surrounding poverty and opportunity were certainly not novel to other student leaders, however. The founders confirmed this when they discovered that the issues were among conversations on many college campuses.
As a result, LIFT expanded from New Haven, Connecticut. Soon, Kirsten and Brian started recruiting people to open sites across the country. LIFT now serves five major metropolitan cities: Boston, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C.
LIFT-Chicago, like the other chapters of LIFT, mobilizes student leaders to work with clientele one-on-one. Clients make appointments with a volunteer to help them achieve their goals. Some people come into the office seeking employment or housing, to further their education, or to appeal for public benefits, to name a few.
Each volunteer works a shift that lasts three to four hours, and, on a regular day, works with one client every hour or so. LIFT stresses that they do not hold “eligibility requirements,” meaning services will be offered across the board.
Essentially, anyone that needs help will receive assistance.
Some of the responsibilities LIFT feels it needs to fulfill include education (increasing awareness of poverty and opportunity issues), propelling themselves to make their work less “invisible” to the student body, and implicating their work in the mission statement.
Most importantly, their aim centralizes around “engaging LUC community in discussions to broaden the scope of the issues and how they get addressed.” LIFT encourages critical thinking of what it means to have opportunity in society, as well as to consider the realities of poverty in the community.
Nick Passarelli, Public Relations Manager of the LIFT-Chicago Uptown Office, says that “the issue of poverty is a lot more pervasive and affects many more people than we probably assume.” He argues that there is actually no face to poverty.
Statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010 say that one in six individuals in the United States live below the poverty line. Essentially, poverty isn’t a socioeconomic status limited to a single type of person or demographic.
Passarelli wants to challenge the preconceived notions that some hold about poverty in order to achieve a fuller understanding of poverty and its effects on society.
Poverty Awareness Week, LIFT-Chicago’s second annual week-long awareness event, aims to educate participants about poverty and opportunity while challenging them to think more critically about these issues.
“American Dream,” one of the week’s events, collects monologues from participants. These monologues contain a person’s opinion on their idea of the American Dream-more specifically: whether or not it exists, what it is if it exists, how it’s achieved, whether it’s a fair goal or not, and what they think the chances are of obtaining it.
The monologues are anonymous and read out loud to the participant group and are compared against monologues collected from other sources. This facilitates discussion among the group.
“LIFT-opolis,” another event, is a simulation activity that puts the participant in the shoes of a client seeking help. The client may be applying for housing, public benefits, or other privileges that we [as students] tend to take for granted.
Passarelli says his involvement with LIFT-Chicago changed his perspective on poverty. He has gained a greater sense of the realities of opportunities and poverty as well as a greater sense of the realities of public services, housing, etc. in Chicago.
LIFT allowed Passarelli to become an advocate for poverty awareness; to appeal to his fellow students to force them to look critically at what’s really going on with the issue. He says, “Without LIFT, I think it would’ve been easy to continue my college career without seeing these issues, but they’ve given me the privilege to see these issues.”
The fight to get out of poverty continues to be a struggle for many Americans. Systemic issues with how poverty is preserved/maintained poses as an obstacle, as well as understanding that poverty has a direct relation to other social issues.
Passarelli notes that the most direct steps you can take to fight poverty involve “holding yourself accountable and empowering your community.” He believes that Loyola students can contribute to the fight by “challenging the notions of poverty and making each other think critically and constructively.”
LIFT-Chicago measures their success on multiple scales. As a non-profit community, they rely on our numbers to show that they’ve served clients and secured jobs for people, among other things.
One measure of success they use includes scheduling an interview. Another measure could be receiving a response from a company regarding securing a job position for the LIFT client. Yet another measure could be assisting a client with renewing their lease on their housing site.
To them, all of these are equal measures of success. Since LIFT’s founding, over six thousand volunteers have served more than forty thousand people and families.
Their theory of change presents a strong method of expanding opportunities to people who would otherwise never see them. The collaborative efforts and strong values system complete the entity that we know as LIFT.
If you would like to be a part of the LIFT movement, visit http://www.liftcommunities.org/chicago and click on “VOLUNTEER LOCALLY” under the tab “GET INVOLVED.”
Photo By Anna Kebe/The Chameleon. Currently, Mitt Romney is the front-runner in the Republican primaries.
By Brittney Rooney Copy Editor
March 6th was “Super Tuesday,” where thousands of Republicans (and some Democrats and Independents) voted in the GOP primaries. The Republican Party currently has four candidates still in the running for the Republican Presidential nomination.
It is not uncommon to have more than one candidate at this point. In 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fought for the nomination until June. However, Obama and Clinton were very similar. While they had some policy differences, they were considered equally leftist.
The difference between the 2008 Democrat primaries and the current Republican primaries is that Obama and Clinton were tied in support until the very end. Right now, Mitt Romney is a clear front-runner. He has more than twice as much delegates as his next closest opponent, Rick Santorum.
The problem is that the Tea Party, an ultraconservative side-party that formed in 2009, does not believe Romney is conservative enough.
Now, the Republican Party is split. Do they nominate Romney, winning the vote of many moderates and losing the vote of many Tea Partiers? Or do they nominate Santorum and lose the votes of moderates, but keep the conservatives happy?
However, we can’t forget about Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul, who are behind Santorum but refusing to back out.
With four candidates fighting for the vote for the 2,286 delegate votes, the price tag of each vote has been rising in the past few months.
Candidates have spent approximately $130 million on just the primaries. Mitt Romney has spent nearly twice as much as any other candidate, at $56 million.
Each candidate must separate themselves from the other three, and negative advertising is the fastest way to do that. Each candidate has spent millions of dollars, not only building himself up, but also on ripping each other down.
The good news for Obama is that when the time comes for him to start campaigning full-fledge, he does not have to spent time or money attacking his Republican opponent, because the other three Republicans have already done that. It is also possible that Obama will not have anything new to bring out about his opponent and it may work against him.
However, Obama still has an advantage: it is never easy for a new candidate to beat an incumbent, a returning politician. Obama has high approval ratings, even though he played a more moderate role in his first four years. However, many moderates fear that Obama will swing left if reelected.
With the Republican Party split between ultra-conservatives and moderates, the chances of finding a candidate to make everyone happy is very low. Finding a candidate that makes everyone happy and can afford to run against Obama is even lower at this point. If the Republicans want to beat Obama in the 2012 Presidential election, they better get their act together… quick.
Brittney Rooney is a copy editor. She can be reached at brooney@luc.edu.
Although I am glad you issued an apology to Miss Fluke, I still am writing you this letter to inform you of how disappointed I am in your comments about her. I am a 20-year-old conservative female college student from Loyola University Chicago. Please be aware that your comments are making it more and more difficult for young women to call themselves Republicans.
In addition, I am wondering why you even are against health insurance companies paying for birth control for women in the first place? Since you oppose our right to have an abortion, surely you must realize that women who have unwanted babies are going to heavily depend on government handouts to support themselves and their child. I would think that a fiscally conservative individual such as yourself would welcome an opportunity to significantly decrease the number of welfare-dependent unwed mothers. I know that the majority of Republican men do not consider women to be childbearing chattel. But you are not making a very strong case for them when you make degrading comments like that on your show. I appreciate your passion and wholeheartedly support your right to free speech, but as a public figure you must realize that your degrading comments are only hurting your own party.
Sincerely, Sarah Murray Multimedia Editor
Sarah Murray is the multimedia editor. She can be reached at semurray3@gmail.com.
Photo Courtesy of Creative Commons, flickr.com/24939341@N05. Loyola mandates that students convicted of marijuana presence, possession, or use take e-Toke, an online assessment that provides personal feedback.
By Paul Guziewski Chameleon Staff Writer
Loyola’s “e-Toke” checkup is a mandatory online program for students convicted of marijuana presence, possession, or use. After finishing the program, I can honestly say that I have learned nothing from it.
Having taken a behavioral change class, I recognized the bulk of the program as little more than a behavior tracker: a glorified calendar used in the quantification of behavior.
The purpose of this quantification is to scare “abusers” by giving them a number, which corresponds to frequency of use and several other variables, and showing them how their number ranks among the rest of the student body.
There are few psychological desires stronger than our desire to belong.
Despite the fact that the majority of cannabis users are well-adjusted, productive members of society, programs like e-Toke continue to inspire a sense of alienation among users by providing statistics that are biased and most likely skewed.
My results stated that zero percent of college students use cannabis more than I do. I find this laughable, considering that I know for a fact that there are several people at this very school whose consumption dwarfs my own. Yet, they are conveniently omitted from the statistic.
Any psychology professor will be quick to point out the dangers that response bias poses to the accuracy of statistical data, as surveys are limited to the number of willing participants. Students, wishing to protect their standing at the university, are naturally hesitant to admit to criminal activity, even more so when it is just one of many questions on a long survey. This means that one should expect to see a low number of admitted users and, of those admitted users, the extent of their use is likely to be underreported.
It surprises me that an institution as prestigious as Loyola Chicago would let such glaring errors be purported as fact to its students. The only reason I can think of is that this was a hastily made program that got no more than a glance from anybody with significant knowledge on the subject.
Furthermore, the program pads its anti-marijuana message with the inclusion of alcohol measurements. Comparing these two substances is ludicrous, as alcohol is considered by the medical community to be a significantly more dangerous drug than THC and has no place on a program dedicated to cannabis education. It is fine for the university to be against cannabis consumption, but only so long as it is a well-informed belief. But based on the information found in the e-Toke “resource,” it is clear that this is far from the case.
Cannabis is an amazingly safe drug; its only dangerous property is its ability to incite academic apathy and insatiable munchies in large doses. While neither of these are desirable normative behaviors, they are far from the dangerous physiological effects of large amounts of alcohol.
The university needs to rethink its priorities regarding the “issue” of cannabis consumption. There is a growing pool of research stating that not only is it not dangerous, it is proving to have a vast array of medical applications. That a university with such a prestigious medical school would neglect to provide information on the legitimacy of cannabis use for the treatment of depression, anxiety, insomnia and a series of other psychological and physiological conditions is baffling, and I honestly expected a more even-handed approach.
It is illegal for the bulk of undergraduates to drink alcohol, yet Loyola provides a mandatory alcohol education program for incoming students because the university wants its students to be well-educated and make good decisions concerning alcohol.
The only reason that this is not the case for cannabis is that our society has a bias against it that was established in the 1920’s as a means to validate the anti-Mexican sentiment growing in the country. It was pushed even harder by Richard Nixon in a desperate attempt to draw the public eye away from his glaring political and personal flaws. Then came Nancy Reagan and all hope for an intelligent discourse on the legitimacy of drug use was extinguished with the three words “Just Say No.”
We now have, and are continuing to acquire more, credible medical information on the subject of cannabis use. I hope that Loyola can rise above the intellectually binding mantras of the past and take the time to educate themselves on the matter before attempting to educate others.
To contact Paul Guziewski, email him at pguziewski@luc.edu.
All of these are questions and comments that I receive on a weekly basis and answer exasperatedly: “I don’t have a Facebook.”
I deleted my Facebook in 2010 right before finals. It was a tactic to force myself to focus and prevent distractions. To my surprise, it worked. It worked so well that I never signed back in.
The thing that scares me about Facebook, besides the hours of procrastination that it allows for, is the ultimate lack of control.
What your friends say about you, what pictures you’re tagged in, not to mention any content posted on your wall, is out of your control.
Any information posted is permanent. If it disappears off the news feed, or if someone deletes it, it is forever in the Facebook archive.
Even if the information is no longer available to the public, anyone can pay to see that information. The “deleted” comment belongs to Facebook, and they can do whatever they please with it.
While there are privacy settings that can be set, Facebook does not make it easy. Facebook encourages transparency, because it makes them wealthier.
The more transparent Facebook users are, the easier it is for advertisers to place ads effectively, and Facebook’s profit increases. For example, if you list a movie under your favorites, the advertisements placed will be other movies that are in a similar genre. While this may not bother people, because advertisements can simply be looked over, it is unsettling that the capacity to advertise to individual’s interests even exists.
As I watch the advances Facebook makes, I become more and more cautious about reactivating mine. However, every day that goes by, it becomes more and more difficult to not have a Facebook.
Employers will assume I am hiding something if I do not have a Facebook, just like my mother does. They assume that I go to parties with hard drugs and naked strippers, and if I have a Facebook, they would see pictures of me in that situation.
I miss out on weekly announcements and discussions on all of the groups I would belong to. I could not tell you when my friend’s birthday is, and if an old friend wants to get in touch with me, they will not know how.
I do not hate Facebook. I think it is a fantastic social networking tool and has opened many doors to the future of communication. It connects people on levels that have never been possible and is capable of organizing them in extraordinary ways.
However, at the end of the day, Facebook is a business that has one goal: to make a profit. The Facebook Corporation has created the perfect product. Any price its users pay is not monetary and not obvious. Even if you do not care for it, you have one because life is difficult without it.
Facebook is a product that may eventually go out of style. But for now, it’s a must-have.
Brittney Rooney is a copy editor. She can be reached at brooney@luc.edu.
On January 27, the organization, which provided essential social aid to over 60,000 Chicago area residents, was forced to close its doors due to financial difficulties.
The announcement came as a shock to its 300 employees and those who were dependent on its services, which included housing assistance, education, domestic violence support, job training and countless other forms of aid. The abrupt closing has left a community void for which there is no apparent successor, and it is likely that many of its duties will remain unfulfilled.
The Hull House Association had been a prominent Chicago institution for over a century. It was the inheritor of the legacy of the famous humanitarian Jane Addams who worked tirelessly to assist Chicago’s immigrant communities at the turn of the century.
Founded in 1889 in Chicago’s west side, the Hull House provided education and support to Chicago’s booming immigrant populations.
Progressives such as Jane Addams were few and far between, and her services were in great demand.
Struggling to adapt to their new home and subjected to industrial poverty, countless families were able to receive aid and education at the settlement house, which stands to this day at the University of Illinois Chicago campus. It currently serves as a museum, but the Jane Addams Hull House Association continued its original purpose.
Hull House’s closing is indicative of a larger more distressing trend: the financial decline of charitable institutions in the time when they are needed most. As the economy declines, charitable donations decrease while demand for their services increases every day. In the case of the Hull House Association the situation was unsustainable and led to the abrupt closure of one of the most storied charities in America.
As Loyola students, most of us have the luxury of being able to assess poverty abstractly and will not experience the repercussions of the closing of a charity. But we are a part of the larger Chicago community, and if we profess to be responsible members of that community, then it falls onto our shoulders to give back in some way.
There are countless forms of service we can provide, and everyone has their own ways of giving back.
But I guarantee any help you can give will be dearly received by the less fortunate members of your community. The legacy of Jane Addams need not die with her charity.
This is a sad ending to one of Chicago’s brightest stories. It is sad that an organization, which has given so much, must close from lack of support. It is sad that it could serve with distinction through the turmoil of industrialization and the great depression but not withstand our current economic downturn. Most of all, it is sad that those who looked to Hull House for support must now look elsewhere in a time when there is very little help to go around.
To contact Stephen Skleba, email him at sskleba@luc.edu.
Photo Illustration By Sarah Murray/The Chameleon. From our informal poll, we found that the majority of students believe that the decriminalization of marijuana would be beneficial to Chicago.
By Sarah Murray Multimedia Editor
Chicago in the roaring twenties was America’s hotbed of crime, dissidence, and social upheaval, and some believe it was the illegal status of alcohol that led to this rise in crime.
Today, marijuana is the drug of choice for over 1,027,000 Illinois residents, according to a 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. But despite reports of its relative harmlessness and effectiveness in preventing and treating disease, pot continues to be stigmatized, and today’s gangs are just as dangerous as Al Capone’s.
In November, Chicago aldermen proposed legislation that would decriminalize possession of up to ten grams of weed. Instead of arrest and costly jail time, offenders would receive a two hundred dollar fine and up to five hours of community service.
In an informal poll, we asked Chicagoans about their views on decriminalization.
We found that all but one of the ten respondents agreed that decriminalization would benefit Chicago at large.
In 2010 alone, the federal government spent over 15 billion dollars fighting the production, consumption, and distribution of illegal drugs, while the state of Illinois spent around half a billion. In this time of recession, people seem to think that this money could be better spent elsewhere.
“It’s a waste of money to throw someone in jail for something petty like that,” 20-year old student Sara Reyna says.
But cutting down on the state’s budget is insufficient for some citizens.
Loyola student Brendan Burns, 20, would prefer that the government not interfere in our personal lives at all. “Decriminalization would restore trust in a government many people believe is over-extending its role,” he says.
The United States has the highest amount of incarcerated citizens of any nation in the world, and this number increases by approximately 43,000 each year.
While Burns sees drugs use as a private, individual matter, Michael Ryva thinks it is a social health problem. He explained, “Drug addicts in our current system are sent to over-crowded jails where they receive little or no help for their condition.”
Another responder, Paul Guziewski, a 19-year-old student, agrees that is it a medical issue, stating, “Problems with drugs use are a result off addiction, not criminal activity.”
However, some Chicago residents do see marijuana users as criminals. Anna Barrson is concerned that decriminalization will allow criminals to remain on the streets. “Instead of going to jail and paying for what they did,” she says, “they’re just going to pay it off… and they can get the money easily, by distributing.”
Many people seem to share the viewpoint of business strategist Kevin Sapp when he says that people are ready for decriminalization.
“There will be lots of differences of opinion… and drama initially,” he says, “but it definitely is the right thing for Chicago.”
Sarah Murray is the multimedia editor. She can be reached at semurray3@gmail.com.
Photo Courtesy of Creative Commons, flickr.com/photos/kkendall. Columnist Gene Marks fails to put himself in the position of an underprivileged American citizen in his Forbes Magazine article.
He starts off with a positive review of President Obama’s recent speech about inequality in Kansas. He begins by concurring with the President, citing the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
He even references the 99 percent, giving me the idea that I was about to read an article about the lowest classes struggle, the 99 percenters, fair tax codes, and etc.
He continues by noting that his children, in a well-to-do suburb of Philadelphia, have it much better than the children of the inner city.
He says, “The world is not fair to those kids mainly because they had the misfortune of being born two miles away into a more difficult part of the world with a skin color that makes realizing the opportunities that the President spoke about that much harder.”
He openly admits that he is a “middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for [him].”
I was very encouraged by the prospects of this article at this point, until the end of that same paragraph. He continues by saying, “I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed. Still. In 2011.”
BOOM. You lost me. It was then I looked to see what magazine this article was from, and noted, “Oh, yes. Forbes. Of course.”
He continued by saying, “It takes brains. It takes hard work. It takes a little luck.” He just lost his debate.
The admittance that it does take a little luck, any luck at all, concedes me to opposition. Forget the implication that poor black kids use their brains and don’t work hard. He openly admits that to succeed in this country, for millions of inner city kids, it takes luck.
If everyone in this country has the ability to succeed, it shouldn’t take any luck. It should be a proven, accomplishable track from rags to riches. That road, sorry to say, does not exist. Like Marks says, it takes luck.
Marks continued by saying, “If I was a poor black kid, I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible.”
Following this statement should be, “I would make sure I wasn’t born into a family that requires me to work at a job in order for there to be food on the table,” or “I would make sure I was born into a family that isn’t stricken with drug addiction and alcoholism.” If these precautions could actually be taken, then yes, I would say it was reasonable to ask students to make grades their first priority. But to think this way would be naïve, which doesn’t seem to be a concern of Mr. Marks.
He continues by grossly displaying his “work ethic,” saying that if he were someone he is not, he would become an “expert at Google Scholar,” he would use “SparkNotes and CliffsNotes,” he would watch “Academic Earth, TED and the Khan Academy,” and he would (get this) “Skype to study with other students who also want to do well in school.”
Come on. Seriously? My mom always used to tell me, “Easier said than done.”
Besides his false assumption that most of these families can afford working computers and televisions, the whole idea of a rich white Forbes writer giving life advice to poor inner city kids like he knows the struggles they face astounds me, and it astounded many as seen by the massive internet outcry against this article.
At least he admits, “It’s hard. It takes a special kind of kid to succeed.” Well then, Mr. Marks, the title of your article should have been “If I were a special kind of poor black kid.”
What if you’re not so special, Mr. Marks? What if I don’t have the natural capacity to get a 34 on my ACT?
What if, Mr. Marks (and this is actually true for many people—probably not in your neighborhood, though), I can’t afford a computer or Internet access? What if all I can afford is the books my school provides and the instruction of my teachers, which are often lacking so much that top colleges wouldn’t even think of looking at students from these schools?
There’s a sense of naivety in Mr. Marks’ philosophy, along with the entire right-wing attitude toward disadvantaged individuals in society, which exudes an astonishing sense of arrogance and elitism.
If I were a poor black kid…wait, I’m not. So, I’m not going to speak like I am one. There’s one thing I can say for certain: If I were a middle class white suburban kid from Milwaukee, I would not, under any circumstances, pretend to be someone I’m not.
I would not use my bully pulpit to mock those that are less fortunate than me. I would not make assumptions about people who I’ve never even met, whose circumstances are completely foreign to me or my worldview.
I would show some much needed respect for those who aren’t as fortunate as me. I wouldn’t complain about paying my fair share of taxes and justify not doing so by deprecating the lives and work ethics of millions of poor Americans.
Andrew Kletzien is a copy editor. He can be reached at akletzien@luc.edu.
Photo Courtesy of Creative Commons, flickr.com/photos/huffstutterrobertl. Many people view Mitt Romney's involvement with Bain Capital as an unsuccessful venture.
By Erika Vigen Chameleon Staff Writer
Attending my first Iowa caucus on January 4th was nothing like I expected. What I was told in AP government in high school was completely different from what I was seeing and experiencing.
Most noticeably was the fact that I was maybe one of ten college students in attendance out of about 300 voters who were crammed into my old high school’s cafeteria.
The night started with speeches delivered by a representative from each of the candidate’s campaigns. I was shocked that neither Michelle Bachmann nor Rick Santorum had a representative at our precinct, considering the huge amount of time that both Bachmann and Santorum spent campaigning in Iowa.
Apparently they just skipped over the Quad Cities. This did not impress me, or apparently any of the other the people at the caucus, considering the results from our precinct, which were reported at the end of the night.
After the voting ceased, anyone in attendance was given the opportunity to stand up and present a platform or issue that he or she felt the Republican Party should support. (Yes, trust me, I groaned too.)
It actually turned out to be incredibly amusing because a few people got into heated debates over a platform about reforming our judicial system and the way Supreme Court Officials are elected and voted from office (I didn’t really understand). I shouldn’t have been surprised that all the lawyers started attacking us “common” folk. As for the other platform discussed, no one really had any idea what the representative was trying to suggest, most likely due to his complete lack of clarity. So, after asking him numerous questions in order to obtain more information but with no success, we voted to not vote on the issue.
The results of the votes from our precinct were soon reported: Mitt Romney won by a huge margin, followed by Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Santorum, all in a close second, third, and fourth, respectively.
This thrilled me because I am a huge supporter of Romney (and his five gorgeous sons). Unfortunately, it was recently discovered that he actually lost Iowa to Santorum by 34 votes, instead of winning by eight, as originally reported.
But, all joking aside, Romney is the best candidate for the presidency. Being a CEO of Bain Capital and having experience as a governor is the perfect combination: he knows how the economy functions and how to be a good leader, which are two traits in a president that America really needs right now.
However, Romney has received the most backlash for his role at Bain Capital. The investment firm’s “unsuccessfulness” stemmed from the fact that the firm invested in “troubled” businesses in order to help them turn around, instead of investing in larger, stable businesses.
Let me point out that this really isn’t a “failure” at all. Romney states that Bain’s approach was to try to build businesses, but they were not always successful. His response to attacks from Gingrich, as recorded in the Wall Street Journal, is all that needs to be said. Gingrich criticizes Romney for his claim that “job losses and bankruptcies are an inevitable byproduct of the capitalist system.”
Romney replied, questioning whether Gingrich understands how the economy works, saying, “In the real economy, some businesses succeed and some fail.”
These attitudes and opinions are exactly the reasons why I support Romney: he is very realistic and pro-American Dream in his goals and won’t promise anything that he cannot achieve.
I believe this was one of Obama’s faults: he hurried to carry out his campaign promises without thinking much about the consequences beforehand. The most preeminent example of this is pulling troops out of Iraq. Even major military leaders and advisors thought that this action came much too early.
A Romney-Santorum ticket can easily defeat Obama with a combination of their conservative goals, ideas, and platforms to restore the economy, jobs, small government, and the American Dream.
Santorum as a vice president will also give Romney that “Washington Insider” experience that he lacks, without the baggage that Gingrich possesses with his flip-flopping on many controversial issues (like global warming).
Of course, this defeat can only happen if Ron Paul doesn’t decide to run as Independent, thinking he can win that way, which will pull the needed votes away from the Republican Party.
To contact Erika Vigen, email her at evigen@luc.edu.
Photo Courtesy of Creative Commons, flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore. Dr. Ron Paul promotes peace through cultural understanding.
By Sarah Murray Multimedia Editor
Following an outstanding second-place at the New Hampshire primaries, Republican nomination candidate Ron Paul’s supporters played “The Imperial March”—also known as Darth Vader’s theme song—as he walked onstage to give his speech, a mischievous nod to his ominous threat to politics as usual.
“I sort of have to chuckle when they describe you and me as being ‘dangerous,’” Paul said while John Williams’ ode to the Dark Side played.
“That’s one thing they are telling the truth, because we are dangerous—to the status quo!”
In a word, Dr. Paul is, in fact, dangerous. He is dangerous to the established two-party structure of government that our fractured political system is locked into. He also happens to be the opposite of dangerous; some call his pacifist foreign policy views isolationist or nonexistent.
However, if you take a closer look at his views on international relations, they make a lot more sense (both morally and fiscally) than our current policy of extortion and colonization of other countries.
Dr. Paul advocates peace and friendly relationships fostered by mutual trust and cultural understanding.
He warns the American politicians and citizens against “blowback,” a term used by the CIA to describe violent reactions of nations in response to aggressive U.S. actions abroad.
Dr. Paul’s explanation of this phenomenon is two-fold. First, he cites examples from history, such as the U.S. installation of the Shah in Iran, bases installed in Saudi Arabia, and bombings in Iraq.
Then he uses the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The problem with this explanation is that most American voters either 1) do not possess an understanding of even basic history, nor do they care, or 2) are under the misguided impression that Islamic people are violent and aggressive by nature, so the basic moral concepts must not apply to them. The kind of people Dr. Paul has to appeal to are ones that believe the actions of their government are always right—or at least guided by “Christian values”—and who do not have an understanding of Islamic culture.
But one does not have to be Christian or Muslim to understand that bullying, provoking, coercing, or otherwise meddling with another person (or country) is going to cause a negative reaction.
The problem is that most the American people are woefully misinformed about government actions abroad throughout the last twenty years.
In fact, I would wager that the average citizen is not even aware that the United States was engaged in constant air strikes against and enforced naval sanctions on Iraq which starved over half a million children alone throughout the 1990s.
In fact, during the Cold War, our government supported and collaborated with both Saddam Hussein and the same terrorist organizations that are now attacking our troops; U.S. tax dollars built many of the underground bunkers these extremists are now using.
So, is it really any wonder that the Iraqi people are doing everything they can to make us leave them alone? America is behaving like the bully on the school playground who taunts another kid about his religion and constantly picks on him and his friends. When the kid finally punches the bully in the face, there is no question that the second boy started the fight, but the bully could have easily prevented it by not being such an aggressive jerk.
While some might revile this metaphor as being un-American, the fact is that some of our government’s policies are responsible for atrocities. In an age of globalization and increased communication, we cannot afford to treat smaller, weaker nations disrespectfully. We must treat other nations how we would like to be treated in order foster openness and mutual respect. This kind of common sense logic seems to elude most Republican candidates, and, unfortunately, most of the culturally uninformed American populace.
Ron Paul is a beacon of clarity, common sense, and concern for mankind. These interests however, conflict with the upheld tenants of our whole political system. Paul simply cannot be nominated; there are too many negative forces in effect that preclude him from gaining any real measure of support from persons in power.
But his message can still permeate society if citizens are willing to engage in the message of free love and modify our collective consciousness to be more receptive to this message. Only then will someone like Dr. Ron Paul truly be “dangerous” enough to consider a bid for the presidency.
Sarah Murray is the multimedia editor. She can be reached at semurray3@gmail.com.
Photo Courtesy of Creative Commons, flickr.com/photos/art_es_anna. President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone Pipeline.
By Brittney Rooney Copy Editor
It is that wonderful time that comes once every four years: the time when everyone grows a political opinion overnight and screams it from the rooftops.
The Keystone Pipeline was a potential 1,700-mile pipeline that would have transferred the oil in Alberta to refineries near the Gulf Coast, costing seven billion dollars.
President Obama claims that the construction of this pipeline would increase domestic production, creating more jobs for Americans.
It will also decrease our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, which is something many people would like to see.
However, there were many who were excited that President Obama rejected the pipeline.
The pipeline would have had enormous environmental implications. Aquifers and grasslands would have been destroyed, impacting the thousands of people who depend on them.
Especially in a time when global climate change is a real threat, humans should not be doing anything else that could lead to an ecological disaster.
Not to mention, I believe the United States should be investing in renewable energy sources instead of nonrenewable ones. The United States currently has a 15 trillion dollar national debt. Increasing the debt for the Keystone Pipeline would solve a temporary problem now, that is, the scarcity of oil.
However, when the oil runs out or prices are so high that the United States can no longer use it to fuel the entire country, the government will have to develop new technologies for energy anyway. I think if we plan to increase that debt, it should be for decreasing its dependency on dirty energy instead of increasing it.
Therefore, on the surface, I was ecstatic that he rejected the pipeline. However, I think it was a reelection stunt.
Congress gave President Obama a very short, 60-day deadline, and Obama could have easily rejected it, making liberals happy and having a good excuse (that the plan could not be adequately reviewed in that short time) for those who criticized his decision.
In his 2012 State of the Union address, President Obama mentioned, “I’m directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes,” implying a commitment to renewable energy. Still, I predict that he will allow for the building of the Keystone Pipeline. He will simply put the decision off until after he is reelected.
I think if he is reelected, or if a Republican candidate wins the election, the pipeline will be approved in late 2012 or early 2013, which is not cool, Obama, not cool.
Brittney Rooney is a copy editor. She can be reached at brooney@luc.edu.
From running track for the Aurora Sundowners to lecturing about American Politics, Professor Blackmond-Larnell has transitioned from a suburbanite to a full-fledged Chicagoan. With a focus on racial and ethnic politics, as well as community and urban development, Blackmond Larnell strives to look at politics from a different perspective.
Aurora, Illinois is home to two very important things in Blackmond-Larnell’s life: the Aurora Sundowners, a track club, and the Illinois Math and Science Academy (IMSA).
“I would say that [the Aurora Sundowners] is where my interest in community issues started,” says Blackmond-Larnell. She credits her track coach as the person responsible for setting off her education on national affairs.
After a short stint at West Aurora High school, Blackmond-Larnell transferred to the IMSA. During this time, her interest in social sciences intensified thanks to an engaging teacher.
After IMSA, she traveled on to Lake Forest College to receive an undergraduate degree in Political Science and Economics. While there, Blackmond-Larnell had an opportunity to meet one of her role models, Melissa Harris-Perry.
“She talked to me about what it is like to be a political scientist,” she explains. “It was really encouraging for me to meet her.”
After her undergraduate years, Blackmond-Larnell headed straight to Michigan State University for graduate school. Her interests range from American politics and public policy to racial politics and community building.
“To me, all those interests go hand-in-hand,” she explains.
Blackmond-Larnell wonders why issues of racial and economic inequality aren’t usually addressed.
She says that a possible solution to some of these problems could be to “put those individuals who represent [lower class] communities in power.”
While teaching for her first year at Loyola, Blackmond-Larnell has continued her research in these areas. But that doesn’t mean she slacks in the classroom.
Her theory? “If you have an engaged professor, you have an engaged class. I don’t want to just lecture.”
She uses current events, such as references to Kanye West, to relate politics to students. She often discusses teaching tactics with her husband, who is a fellow professor teaching at UIC; Blackmond-Larnell also says that even their four-year-old daughter will chip in.
Since it is presidential election season, Blackmond-Larnell offers her opinion about the GOP candidate race: “The GOP has a problem. They have a lot of nominees and each one has won a primary. What does it mean when each state is selecting a different nominee? The American Republicans don’t know what they want.”
As the Republicans revel in their nominee dilemma, Blackmond-Larnell will continue striving for what she wants.
Whatever happens with the presidential race, Blackmond-Larnell will continue running her own race.
To contact Elizabeth Greiwe, email her at egreiwe@luc.edu.
These are Republican candidates who have been excluded from all or most of the Republican Presidential debates so far.
Now a preview of these three men so you get a better idea of who is running for president.
The night was May 5, 2011. Five Republican Presidential candidates step onto a stage for the first debate of the season.
These candidates were Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson (the former governor of New Mexico).
As governor, Johnson vetoed 750 bills (more than the other 49 governors combined), cut 1,2000 government jobs but didn’t fire anyone, cut taxes 14 times while never raising taxes and he still managed to leave the state with a budget surplus.
If you ask me, the Republican Party should love this guy on these merits alone. However, his Ron Paul style libertarianism made it hard for him to gain traction and get into more than two Republican debates.
Some predict he will soon declare to run for president under the Libertarian Party.
Former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer is taking a hard stance against corruption in our government and fully embraced the Occupy movement.
Not only does he talk the talk, but he walks the walk. Roemer has pledged not to take PAC (Political Action Committee) money or money from corporations. He only wants donations from individuals and has set the limit to $100 per person (the legal limit is $2,500).
His battle against government greed and corruption made it hard for Roemer to get noticed and get into debates. After all, it takes a lot of money to get your name out there and build popularity, the kind of money $100 per donor can’t provide.
However, Roemer keeps on traveling across New Hampshire hoping to get into at least one debate to spread his message and gain traction. If he doesn’t, he has suggested a few times, that he will run as an independent and fight against the corruption that exists in both parties.
While the previous two candidates have at least some recognition from their positions as governors, this last candidate isn’t well known at all. In fact, his campaign slogan is “Fred Who?”
Fred Karger is not your typical Republican Presidential candidate. He’s never held elected office. He’s served as a political advisor to Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush.
What makes Karger really different from all the other candidates is one thing: he is gay.
That’s right, Fred Karger, a gay man, is running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Karger is the first gay man to run for president in a major party.
Before you start saying that he is self-loathing, Karger supports gay rights and believes that Republicans, as the limited government party, should support gay rights. In fact, the 1964 GOP nominee, Senator Barry Goldwater, supported gay rights.
Karger believes that just because you’re gay you don’t have to be a Democrat. You can be gay and support limited government as well.
While he may not win the nomination, he stays in the fight for one reason: to show homosexual youth that just because they may be gay, it doesn’t mean you can’t run for president.
These are the three Republican underdogs, who are all are facing an uphill battle to not only win the nomination, but to get into the debates.
Within the first three weeks of next semester, you’ll be learning a bit about each and see where they stand on the issues.
Who knows, you may just find your perfect candidate.
To contact Andy Gonzalez, email him at andypgonzalez@gmail.com.
Photo Courtesy of Julia Esposito, Loyola student. The Occupy Movement has spread from New York to several major cities, including Chicago.
By Ted Ballantine Chameleon Staff Writer
It’s taken only a few months for Occupy Wall Streeters to expand from their humble beginnings in New York and spread to major cities both domestic and overseas.
But now the movement’s ideas are taking hold in new, unprecedented territory: The United States Constitution.
Directly inspired by the Occupy movement, U.S. Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL) recently introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution to ban the use of corporate money in elections.
The amendment, titled Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED), would also establish committees to publicly disclose the sources of any candidate’s political donations and strip corporations of their legal ‘personhood.’
“Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people,” said Deutch, explaining the purpose behind the legislation.
“I introduced the OCCUPIED Amendment because the days of corporate control of our democracy must end. It is time to return the nation’s capital and our democracy to the people.”
OCCUPIED is divided into several sections, each with its own purpose. In the first, it establishes that the rights found in the Constitution “are the rights of natural persons, and do not extend to for-profit corporations” (i.e., corporations are not people).
The second section contains the meat of the amendment, stating that not only are corporations “subject to regulation by the people,” but also that such entities “shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate.” Lastly, the amendment loosely outlines the power it gives Congress to regulate, limit, and disclose these contributions.
The current debate over the role of businesses in politics has its roots in the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that corporations have the same rights to political speech under the 1st Amendment that people do.
The difference Deutch pointed out in a press release is that people talk with their mouths and their votes. Corporations talk with their money.
Although it’s illegal for corporations to directly contribute to candidates, they can still bankroll a campaign indirectly by giving money to a political action committee (PAC).
As a result of the Citizens United ruling, there are no limits on the amount of money a corporation can contribute to these PACs.
It didn’t take long for the floodgates to open. Best Buy and Target sparked controversy in 2010 when, just months after Citizens United, they gave over $250,000 collectively to a PAC associated with Minnesota’s Republican candidate for governor, Tom Emmer.
Countless other companies followed suit all over the country. According to an analysis by The Huffington Post, PACs have raised $16.8 million in corporate cash since the 2010 elections.
So OCCUPIED’s cause is a noble one. But does it offer a real solution? As always, the devil is in the details.
“Amendments like these would become a logistical nightmare in nanoseconds and open up the political environment to all sorts of abuses,” explained Kevin Fullam, a political science instructor at Loyola.
He pointed to the tricky language of OCCUPIED, which would ban political contributions from any “for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests.”
“Who would decide whether or not a business was formed to promote business interests?” Fullam asked.
In fact, Congress would get to make that decision. But critics say that may only exacerbate the problem. PACs, for example, are non-profits and wouldn’t fall under the scope of OCCUPIED unless Congress decided otherwise.
But since most Congressman and women have benefited from PACs, it’s unclear whether there would be a strong incentive to ban them.
“Folks who propose this sort of legislation aren’t really considering the ‘slippery slope’ nature of the argument,” said Fullam. “We need more transparency, not more restrictions on speech and lobbying.”
After all, not all lobbying is inherently evil. OCCUPIED would hinder many organizations from advancing good causes. Sure, the Amendment would eliminate the influence of tobacco companies, Big Oil, and Wall Street lobbyists.
But what about the American Cancer Society, which lobbies for more research funding? The Girl Scouts of America, which recently secured government money to help girls with incarcerated mothers?
Even the Human Rights Watch puts pressure on politicians, which resulted in a ban of anti-personnel land mines in 40 countries.
The Girl Scouts may not have to worry too much; history says that OCCUPIED has very little chance of getting through Congress in the first place.
The DISCLOSE Act, a 2010 bill that would have made the political contributions of corporate and interest groups public record, was much more limited in scope than OCCUPIED.
It stalled in the Senate with a party-lines vote of 59-39, failing to reach the 60 votes needed to break the Republican filibuster.
That was when Democrats had a larger majority than they do now, and they will have an even tougher time trying to get the 2/3 majority needed from both houses simply to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Still, OCCUPIED proves there are at least some in Congress who are concerned about the state of politics…or, at the very least, the state of their dismal approval rating.
To contact Ted Ballantine, email him at eballantine@luc.edu.
Photo Courtesy of Julia Esposito, Loyola student. Chicago citizens protest at Jackson and LaSalle to inform "the 99%" about the goals of the Occupy Movement.
By Audrey Kelly Chameleon Staff Writer
September 17th was day one of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, the first of many days that airwaves, news stations, and social networking sites would be buzzing about the movement that has now traveled throughout the United States and the world.
For the past two months, a cornucopia of stories following the movement have filled our computer screens as the hub of information sharing has been done online, especially utilizing social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook (Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Chicago can be found on twitter at “OccupyWallSt” and “OccupyChicago” respectively).
As a major means of communication, Twitter has served as a medium for Occupy movements all over the country to communicate.
It’s also a vital tool for people who are interested in the movement to get minute by minute updates on the movement in their respective part of the country.
Occupy Chicago’s website, occupychi.org, is another forum for up-to-date information on the movement and source of understanding of the occupation.
Their mission statement reads, “Occupy Chicago is here to fight corporate abuse of American democracy in solidarity with our brothers and sisters around the world.”
Many people are aware of the movement but unaware of what it stands for and what goals it is trying to accomplish. The driving force of this movement is the movement of information, getting “the 99%” informed.
Knowing what the movement is about and what it stands for will be the motivation for more people to join the occupation.
Loyola is making its own place in the movement, as found at facebook.com/occupyloyola. The Occupy Chicago branch of this movement has organized a Student Outreach Committee (an organization founded in the Occupy Chicago general assemblies).
The Loyola sector is represented by freshman Maximilian Kwiatkowski-Kanofsky, who found his inspiration to get involved in the movement from, of course, an internet humor site (as opinions of the movement have spread through many different web-mediums).
He says his involvement in the movement came from the thought that “it was worthy to spread [information on the movement] as I believe the ultra-wealthy’s power over government and our culture is appalling.”
He feels that it is “time we fought against pointless wealth, poverty, and corruption.”
Maximilian hopes to see the Loyola Occupation sponsor some teach-ins and inspire students to “head out there not only as a group, but as individuals and bring their own brilliance to this movement.”
Getting people involved is very important for the success of the movement, and the Loyola group alike.
As a part of “the 99%,” many college students are turning out to the protests and finding ways to get involved in the occupation.
Freshman Heather Borgman has found an interest in the movement as well after hearing about it and then going to a rally sponsored by Occupy Roger’s Park (a sub group from the larger Occupy Chicago).
She discovered that “there is always something going on with occupy,” and “it’s incredibly easy to get involved.”
As Heather said, “Occupy really is all about the masses. There are leaders, but anyone can be a leader. Everyone is free to give their input and ideas.”
As a part of the majority in this movement, this time in our history affords opportunity to make some change that can benefit our society as a whole.
To contact Audrey Kelly, email her at akelly11@luc.edu.
Photo Courtesy of Creative Commons, flickr.com by Mike Licht/notionscaptial.com. Herman Cain has nothing to bring to the table other than pizza.
By Brittney Rooney Copy Editor
As the 2012 presidential elections approach, the question many people are asking is, “Who will be the Republican nomination?” Recently, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty formally announced that they will not be running, leaving choices Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Herman Cain.
Herman Cain is one such politician that has been in the headlines more recently than his opponents. Although he was gaining speed in the polls, in October, four separate women formally accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment.
Whether this was a clever ploy by Democrats, a racial hit by anti-business voters, or the truth, it [the allegations] will undoubtedly affect his campaign for the Republican nomination for president in 2012.
However, Cain swears that his withdrawal “ain’t gonna happen.” What Herman Cain does not realize is that he does not have a chance at getting the nomination with or without the sexual harassment allegations.
Many people argue that Barack Obama was elected in 2008 because of the immense support of the African American community and the creditability acquired by the title of “first black president.” Because of those reasons, Herman Cain may seem an equally plausible candidate for president as well.
However, Herman Cain does not have the qualities that made Obama so popular in the black community. Although he claims to have been through the same rags to riches journey that Obama did, nobody really cares. He was a business executive and does not have that same “soft side” that Obama does. He does not wear the memories of his past on his sleeve the same way Obama does.
Instead Cain pushes the black community to vote for him, only because he’s black. Why he found it necessary to point out obvious physical similarities is unknown, but because of the accusations, he should probably avoid telling all men to vote for him because of their genital similarities.
Whether it was his southern Baptist side or his general disregard for facts, in another attempt to urge African Americans to vote Republican, he demanded that pro-choice Democrats were racist. They are racist because they are allowing for the “killing of African American fetuses.” He failed to mention all other races are allowed to get abortions as well, mostly because it would invalidate his entire argument.
Even though lies, exploitation, and fraud are nothing new to the Republican Party, it is hard to believe that Cain’s experience as a pizza business owner will do him much good in this race.
Realistically, other than some pizza (with four different crust options), Herman Cain has nothing to bring to the table.
Brittney Rooney is a copy editor. She can be reached at brooney@luc.edu.
We’re on Social Media!