‘I want to take philosophy, but I hear the teacher makes you read’

Challenging yourself is more important than having more leisure time

By Eric Rollins

Choosing classes for an upcoming semester may seem like a whimsical operation, but remember that every click you make on COIN in the next few weeks has long-lasting consequences; not only through your next few years here, but beyond that as well. Now is the time of the semester where most of you are asking friends what classes are easy and require as little participation as possible to get a good grade. Some of you are looking at the list and you can’t find your favorite teacher. Time, day of the week, and location are also important aspects to a chosen class; can I possibly take everything I need and get Fridays off?

Assuming you are in a major, there are certain classes you need to take, I understand that. Don’t be overly ambitious to knock everything out in one semester. Your junior year will probably be the hardest, so in those two semesters take three classes maximum in your major; take more than that and you’ll get burnt out. I know the temptation is to get everything done early so you can slack off senior year and party all week. For one reason or another that won’t happen, so don’t add to your frustrations now by overloading on upper-level classes.

Balance is key when it comes to taking classes, especially when you’re up to five a semester. I am not going to rain criticism like I usually do on this school’s general apathy -for picking classes it somewhat applies. Do some research and find out what teachers and their classes are like. Find out who gives tests every fourth week and who assigns papers. If you end up with five classes that requires intensive writing you’ll end up having a seizure before Halloween; the same goes for five classes that require intensive studying. If you need to take three 300s, or want to, then make sure the last two are 200 or below; more than three 300-level classes in a semester is like having twelve kids under the age of twenty, don’t shortchange yourself.

In your major I’m sure you know what you need and want, but what about all of these electives and graduation requirements? The first thing to know is that finding a class through a friend or ratemyprofessor.com that requires little to no work, but fills a requirement, if that is your prerogative, is only a good idea if you have at least some interest. Taking a lower-level politics class when you absolutely hate learning about government will cause you to skip classes, miss assignments, get on your teacher’s bad side and get a bad grade. Since you rarely have to take anything above 200 in these required areas, like humanities, social sciences, science, and math, getting below a B should never happen; if you did, then you chose your class poorly.

This is the last time in your life that you will have the opportunity to formally study most of your interests. Take some chances. If you take a class in a topic that interests you, you’ll do well even if it’s harder than you expected. If you’re interested in how the brain works, take a psychology class, even if you’re a fine arts or engineering major. Do you think you have latent writing skills? Take creative writing. Are you a huge Indiana Jones fan and you want to see if you fall in love with archaeology? Try taking the introductory methods class; I’m guilty —I didn’t give up everything but I fully enjoyed it and did well, and it was a lot harder than I expected.

Now some majors aren’t so widely accessible. Nursing, engineering, and fine arts need a steady amount of requirements that start when those majoring in them are freshmen. This goes to show that not every door is open. In liberal arts, higher-level psychology and political science usually require a 100-level class that you might not want to take. Economics is especially hard; interesting upper level classes require principles of micro and macroeconomics, which, for non-majors is too tall a ladder to climb just to dabble. Introductory philosophy, political science and psychology classes are surprisingly difficult at times, but are very interesting, if not informative.

I know no one likes to read more than the bare minimum, so 200 or 300 level English classes may be off limits for some people. This is where the true passions come into play; if you’ve read a medieval author and fell in love with him or her and are looking for more, try taking a literature class in it. Does journalism, or writing reviews of movies and concerts interest you? There are classes for these in the English department, and they fill up fast.

Looking to really outdo yourself and expand your conscience? Try a philosophy class. I’m serious. Always heard the names Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, and Rousseau and never knew what any of them said, never mind been able to tell them apart? Try taking political or introductory philosophy. I took philosophy of art (formally known as aesthetics) as a freshman and I haven’t stopped reading philosophy since. The one disclaimer I’ll place here are that many theoretical humanities and social sciences can be hard to solve. If you’re a business major and you like things cut and dry, and then you get “what is your opinion on rationalism?” on a philosophy test, you might find yourself too far out of your element to focus.

When choosing classes the goal is to find a neat little package of five classes or so that will keep you interested enough and with a workable amount of assignments. Nothing is worse than checking your watch or cell phone every five minutes hoping the class is over; this applies for the student and the teacher.

Do both of you a favor and click on a class you’ll be somewhat excited to show up to everyday. I look around my class once in a while and I drown in painfully bored faces, checking cell phones and staring off into space. Why are you even in this class? Well, it’s most likely because they put the lack of a workload above genuine interest when they chose their class. Don’t make the same mistake!

The Democrats aren’t really left-wing

By Lance Gagnon

If you’ve ever watched Fox News, you know that they have a running theme that seems to never go away: Democrats are the spawn of Satan, and only Republicans can be trusted. Democratic voters have returned such insults, pushing Fox News as the media branch of the Republican Party. As the two lock horns with one another, few Democratic voters notice the times that the party that supposedly stands for what they believe in actually works with Fox News. Even less notice that Fox isn’t really fighting the Democrats, but the real left-wing.

Early last month, left-wing bloggers and news websites complained about a Democratic debate that was going to be hosted by Fox News. They were shocked that the supposed left-wing party was so willing to work with “the enemy.” Yet rather than show any serious analysis of their party’s actions, these writers simply lamented it as a dumb move. Had they actually researched why the two supposed enemies were working together, they might realize that the Democrats are not on their side.

Despite their on-air personality, Fox News is not really opposed to the Democrats. Records of their parent company News Corp’s political donations show that they have spent about $455,510 on both major parties, 48% of which has gone to the Democrats. While they are still spending more money on the Republican Party, the numbers are still very close. This may come as a shock to those who have never looked into corporate political donations, but for those of us who have, this is unsurprising. What News Corp is doing is what the majority of corporations do: use their money to keep politics in this country bipartisan.

If there is any aspect of our political system that works to the advantage of the private sector, it is the fact that so few political opinions get heard during elections. The mainstream media, which is owned by the same corporations who want to keep the bipartisan system going, focuses only on the two major parties. While this is partially because of bias in favor of both parties, it is also because the parties and politicians who are least favored by the private sector are unable to acquire the funds necessary to compete with the massive amount of money given to the major parties. As a result, we are told by corporate media that, despite having a supposedly democratic system, we are a nation doomed to vote for the lesser of two evils.

And while most Americans realize that neither major party is worthy of their vote, they still continue to support some fool that they know won’t do this country any good. While I can understand this happening with the right-wing, where the Republicans are considered to be at least good enough for their purposes, it boggles my mind to see self-proclaimed left-wingers voting Democrat. Those of us on the left who have followed the Democratic Party’s actions know that they are just as willing to bend to corporate power at the cost of hurting the people as the Republicans are. Yet when it comes time to vote, most of us still throw away our vote to them without considering our alternatives.

Admittedly, I am on record as saying that I would vote for Dennis Kucinich if the Democratic Party lets him run for president. But Kucinich is an exception to the rule, as he is one of the few politicians from either major party who puts the people’s interests first. Other candidates, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, keep their platforms within the centrist range, avoiding true left-wing stances in favor of those that the mainstream media can trick the public into thinking are left-wing. By doing this, both Clinton and Obama have a better chance of getting the real vote that matters within the two major parties: corporate funding.

It is not surprising then that the two major parties have been nickname the “Republicrats” by their detractors. By taking orders from the same corporations, the two have made themselves look so similar that they make voter apathy actually look perfectly logical. After all, who looks more intelligent: someone who doesn’t want to participate in a one-party election that would make Saddam Hussein proud, or someone who holds on to the delusion that voting for your opponent’s clone will accomplish something? It would make more sense to write in “none of the above” than to do our part in keeping the illusion of a democratic voting system in place.

But as interesting as that option sounds, I think there are more productive ways that scorned left-wing Americans can fight back against the Democratic Party’s abuse of their trust. For one, we could stop registering as Democrats and start registering as Greens. When Al Gore noticed large numbers of Americans doing this back in 2000, he quickly shifted his policies towards the Green Party in order to secure more voters. As with past third parties, the Greens’ effort in the election made at least one major party more receptive to the public’s opinion, shifting them away from their corporate funders enough to change their platform.

But merely registering for a different party won’t be enough to change things. The Democrats know that they can convince most Americans that they are the only “left-wing” party that can win. They know that they can trick people into thinking that third parties are spoilers, even when the vast majority of their votes come from people who usually avoid voting altogether. They will continue to make these assumptions so long as they receive corporate funding, and will switch back to their usual centrist stance once they see an opportunity to do so, as they have done in the past.

So if we are to get a real left-wing candidate into the White House, we can’t rely on the Democratic Party to help us. They may be able to if they nominate Kucinich, but as the party seems more interested in pushing a centrist candidate this may not happen. Thus, the party is likely to only change if voters abandon it. By voting for third parties such as the Green Party, we can convince them to nominate candidates that don’t put profits before people. And if enough people vote Green, eventually we may not even need to vote for the lesser of two evils anymore.

The ethics of Robin Hood

By Ben Tansey

The story of Robin Hood is a good one. Robin of Locksley, a disenfranchised noble, “steals” wealth from those who have, themselves, robbed it (the government) from the productive elements of society (private individuals pursuing their own self-interest), and returns it to those who actually created that wealth through their labor. Rare is it to find a more libertarian, or pro-capitalist hero than the original Robin Hood. He recognizes not just that taxation is undesirable from a utilitarian standpoint, but that it is profoundly immoral, and is in no particular way different from common robbery. As such, he takes proper action in attacking the aggressors of the state, taking from them their stolen property, and returning it to its proper owners.

However, in recent years, the story has changed. Instead of taking wealth from thieves and returning it to its owners, Robin Hood “robbed the rich” and “gave to the poor” as if this was somehow an acceptable thing to do. The fact of the matter is, the original Robin Hood did not actually steal. That was the entire point of the story; he was simply taking what had been stolen and returning it to those who produced it. It is not thievery to take what has been unjustly acquired. However, the moral implications of the idea that “Stealing from the rich to give to the poor” is an acceptable, even an admirable action, are deeply disturbing.

The first notion it introduces is that the rights of man are tied to his financial standing. If this is the case, than the villains of the story of Robin Hood, Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, are fundamentally no different from its heroes. Both believe, simply in reverse orders, that the level of wealth that a person has acquired affects the amount of legal and moral rights that they are to be afforded. In order to justify these actions on the part of our “hero”, we must also believe, fundamentally, that the suffering, or the “need’ of some men is, as Ayn Rand would say, “a mortgage on the lives of others.”

This ethic of slavery, for that is what it is when the fruits of some men’s labor are taken from them by force, to be attributed to the ends of others, if truly and fully accepted, will sound the death knell of the west. What has always made the west great, what has given it cause to rise above the huddled masses of the impoverished east, is the belief that man belongs to himself, and that, as such, his dreams are his to achieve, if he may find the means.

This belief gave birth to capitalism, which is the greatest social achievement of western civilization (not democracy, which is, taken on its own and without a capitalist, individualistic ethic, no less tyrannical than despotism) or, indeed, of any human society. This ideal, of man as an end in himself, free to pursue his own self-interest and his own happiness without being ruled by others, found its zenith in the founding of the United States of America. It is now at its greatest nadir since the Dark Ages, which immediately followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The shifting ethic of Robin Hood betrays a larger, and far more worrying trend. If we continue to follow the moral monstrosity of collectivized ethics, we will find ourselves just as impoverished as those in the third world, in spirit first, and, eventually, in body.

If I’m going to pay to park, I want my own spot

By Thomas Ellis

As we all know there will be parking fees next year. I am over this fact and even accepting of it. It is true that most other schools do have parking fees. Rather than fighting the issue of parking fees, which we already lost, why not take this opportunity to make the parking situation better overall?

After reading about the current plan for parking next year, there are a few key problems that instantly come to mind. First of all if students will be paying for parking and lots will be designated specifically for student (on and off campus), faculty, staff, and visitor parking will there actually be enough parking for each car to have its own spot? This means if all the cars registered with UMass Dartmouth stickers were all on campus at the same time would there be enough spots? The answer to this question needs to be yes if we will be paying for our parking. If there are not enough designated spots to accommodate each group then this creates an obvious problem.

The second problem is the idea of a visitor policy. Let’s be realistic, the idea of all visitors checking in somewhere to receive a visitor pass, then parking in the appropriate areas is highly unrealistic. For each sporting game, collegiate and local level, parents, friends and family will not stop to get a guest pass. They will continue to park wherever they want. The problem with this is obvious to any student who lives in the Woodland Commons and tries to find a parking spot during a basketball game. Good Luck. The same goes for someone coming down to visit on a Thursday or Friday night. Yet in the defense of the guests why follow the parking rules, they are not 100% enforced. I would rather take my chances than wait in some long line at public safety before a basketball game to get a parking ticket. The distribution of parking tickets is far from perfect. You have just as much of a chance of getting towed when parking your car in the circle for 3 minutes to run up and grab your notebook as you do of getting a ticket if you leave it in a staff spot for 4 days.

So unless the UMD Police plans to dedicate 90% of their time to enforcing parking violations, the students living on campus paying for parking will be the ones to suffer. They will be ticketed and towed while other people not paying a cent fill their spots. Why not try something different for the fall? When students complain that there are not enough spots they’re told that there are. The next complaint is that the spots are too far away; they are then told to call the Dart Van for a ride. I am going to look past those complaints, accepting them as reality, and propose a new idea.

Why not institute a parking lottery? The lottery would be for the students who live on campus and would occur twice a year: Once at the beginning of the school year, and at the beginning of spring semester. All of the spots that are designated to on-campus residents would be numbered and then the specific lots could be broken down in relationships to the dorms they are near. For example, the lottery would not pair an Evergreen resident with a spot behind Pine Dale. Yes, some people would not get the best spots and some people would. But some people get the best housing and some don’t. At least everyone would have his or her own spot. This would not cost the university very much (easily could be paid for by the parking fees) and would provide a handful of benefits. It would reduce the traffic on campus and reduce stress for every student who has ever spent an hour finding a parking spot. It would also save the police and public safety staff time. If someone was illegally parked in your spot you would simply call a designated number and cars would be ticketed and towed at first violation and the problem would end quickly. Now students would at least have something to show for their parking fees and a spot to call their own.

I personally will not be here on campus next year so I will not be paying to park, but I still felt the same resentment when I heard about paying to park on campus. My idea may not be perfect but hey it’s an idea. I mean let’s be honest: the only thing worse than this year’s current parking situation would be having to pay for it next year.

Force conflict, confrontation, controversy with public opinion

By Eric Rollins

I write with only true concerns in mind. I hope you never see this newspaper or any of the articles in it as public relations for anyone; we push no agenda. I would like to keep it that way, especially this opinion section. Our elections concluded before spring break and the only position left to fill is mine. If you are interested in organizing the collective thoughts of this campus and taking the responsibility to make sure objective articles, with sound rhetoric and journalistic integrity, make it to these pages, please contact me.

It is not that hard of a job; all you have to do is have a passion for ruffling feathers and questioning the obvious. Writing one or two articles a week is very easy when you walk around campus with your ears and eyes open to the concerns of students and administrators. If you are interested, e-mail torch@umassd.edu for a formal meeting or e-mail me at ericmrollins@gmail.com if you merely wish to inquire about the responsibilities, the pay, the hours, whatever.

In national newspapers the opinion sections are usually a one or two-page spread, nothing more than we print in The Torch. That might seem insignificant compared to the sports or arts and entertainment section, but that’s only true in size. Covering events or experiences allows the audience to get a taste of what is going on in the physical around them; the one that they didn’t have enough time or energy to go to, but are happy to see its coverage in a newspaper so they can vicariously observe. The same goes for opinions, except they showcase the intellectual and emotional world that exists among the usually voiceless.

I must warn you, it’s kind of a thankless job. Most people would rather live without intellectual or political conflict; however, for those who realize it, conflict must not be smothered because of fear. The most confrontational subjects like economics, politics, or social status are usually met with indifference from friends. Most people, of all age groups not just UMD students, only think about what affects them most. For me it’s the overall health of the world, for most it’s the overall health of one person inside that world. If you feel the same way, then you should contact me and get involved.

More and more our actions are strictly conditional. What will this get me? How do I benefit from doing this? Working makes money, which then buys things I can either consume for my own benefit or buy things that increase my attractiveness to the right mate who then gives me more satisfaction. This is a utilitarian philosophy, and it’s been taking over for a long time. What suffers then is the intrinsic value of anything. Words once used to be ends in and of themselves, reading used to something you did for pleasure in it’s own right. It’s becoming harder and harder to get people to write because it does them little veritable good in their opinion; they get very little out of it, especially the opinion section.

So yes, it is somewhat thankless. Administrative decisions usually don’t differ because of an article written in the opinion section and most of your friends will ask you, “Why do you care so much about that?” I’m not in the business in taking everything that’s given to me, and neither should you. If you don’t like the supply, then demand a change. Even if it doesn’t change, at least the future is less likely to follow the same pattern if the suppliers know there is some dissent among the masses. On all scales this applies, the country, the world, this campus, or your apartment. The respect you’ll get from being a writer or editor of this section will rarely get to your desk. It exists somewhere, though, and that should be enough.

Opinions are important for a society to run correctly. Right now our manipulators only guide us through our spending habits. Do you really want your materialistic desires to determine your life? GDP, willingness to pay, gross revenues, net incomes; these are what tell our manipulators what to supply us. Without expressing an abstract opinion on how television, the media, oversized automobiles, all-in-one cell phones, or anything like that affects our society negatively, then we’re destined to be slaves to them, and we’d deserve it.

Having an opinion is one thing, fighting for it is another. To me, being willing enough to have it published in a newspaper proves you’re willing to fight. Not enough people do it, but the opportunity to do so is as free as taking a walk around Ring Road or shooting hoops at the basketball courts near the Woodland Commons. Even if it ruins society, if there’s money in it, someone will produce it. You, the consumer needs to express why their success causes us harm, or vice versa. This is why Marx thought capitalism sowed its own seeds of destruction, because the nature of the “success” in capitalism is too far from balancing ethics, morals, and production to live past one generation. It works because the lower class is willing to accept their positions, because at least it’s better than being dead.

It’s stuff like this that has given the “opinions” of supposed “experts” such a bad name, and it makes it harder for anyone with true objective intentions to make a difference. No one listens to anyone who isn’t presenting straight facts anymore. And for the most part there’s no need to because it’s almost always some sort of PR push that stretched the truth. If you are interested in trying to bring respectability to “opinions” everywhere then you should contact me before it’s too late.

I wrote an article about how uninspired my life as a landscape laborer was and how it turned me into a “summertime alcoholic” as I put it. My mother was truly offended, not only at the insinuation but because it made our family look kind of bad. I love my mother and I’d never consciously hurt her, but I don’t regret it because it was an important truth to be told that I knew a lot of people that could relate to it.

Not being sorry for the truth is an important step for someone interested in writing social commentary, and that starts with being honest with yourself. Only then can you then credibly comment on society. There’s only a certain amount of hypocrisy a writer or editor can contain before people stop reading you. I wish this were true enough to the point where people stopped watching the talking heads on television but I suppose that’s wishful thinking.

Don’t lie to yourself about being happy, come out with the truth and see if it hits enough nerves to accelerate some change. As a smarter man (John Stuart Mill) than me once said, “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied.” Are you this school’s next Socrates, do you want to watch over the true well being of your classmates like a guardian angel?

There are a lot of barriers to get over. Like I said, the job is rather thankless. People would rather avoid conflict and confrontation when necessary, especially when their jobs or lives are on the line. Another thing is that people don’t ever truly listen. The main reason why television personalities are annoying is because they never get into good discussions; they merely wait for the other to finish so they can get in their side of the story. People on TV are trying to make a career out of their short window of opportunity, and that constitutes making outrageous, original statements and not focusing on balanced rhetoric or any true beneficial commentary.

If this newspaper phases out the opinion section after I’m gone it will only be because of a lack of interest in the general population, not because of a conscious decision to curb opinions on campus. When I say, “give a voice to the voiceless,” I don’t mean straight news coverage of things that happen. Stories like that only give a physical insight into the world. The true voice of the nation lives inside the people who are suffering from unjust policies and misplaced prejudice.

On a college campus the voice is not from student organizations trying to get more recruits or artists trying to sell their design, it’s from people who are overpaying for undersized apartments and conforming to the lack of freedom that exists everywhere. “Man is born free, but everywhere he is chains.” Rousseau said. Exposing and limiting those chains are my goal as they should be yours. I didn’t want to write this article, I had to. I’m desperate and I need your help.

Recent film industry faux pas that I wish would die already

By Brian Kaminske

There are a skatrillion bamillion things about the movie industry that I absolutely hate: Obnoxious ad campaigns, lame catchphrases, and straight up stupid movie concepts. Even movies I like are guilty of some of these heinous crimes, and I wish they would knock it off. I don’t know if you knew this or not, but the film industry is yanking your chain, the same chain that is attached to your wallet, in fact. My first piece of advice to you would be to eliminate that chain, so that it can no longer be yanked. Also, you’re not twelve years old anymore.

Before we even get to theatrical releases, lets start with the DVD market. This is where the industry is pretty much straight up lying to you. Often times they’re twisting words to be, technically speaking, true. Starting with the tag “Unrated.”

When you see a DVD on the shelf that says “Unrated,” your first thought is probably something like “Oh wow, unrated! It’s THAT offensive! I can’t believe it! I must buy this before I faint with anticipation!” This is wrong; the term becomes misleading. “Unrated,” means exactly that. It means that it contains material that was never rated. Scenes are added to a movie that were excluded from the original cut, and then the NEW version of the movie is NOT submitted to the MPAA for content review, so therefore, the movie is “unrated.” They could have added a scene to “Toy Story” of Buzz and Woody giving each other an enthusiastic high five, re-released it, charge $30 and called it the “UNRATED DIRECTOR’S CUT” and they’d be right on the money. Your money...naked; don’t buy into this bullshit.

There’s another (inbred) member of the “unrated” family that you may have heard as well: “Too gruesome for theaters.” This is a bold faced lie and I urge you all to hold a class action lawsuit against anyone who uses it for false advertising. There is no such thing as a film TOO gruesome for theaters. You can put whatever the hell you want in your movie. What they really mean when they say this, is “We didn’t put those horrific scenes of a guy getting his spine torn out and played like an accordion because that would give the film an NC-17 rating and we’re little withering pansies and don’t want to do that because NC-17 rated movies rarely pull in enough revenue to break even, never mind make a profit.”

I’m also sick of these moronic names for special edition DVDs that make me feel like an utter simp for even saying aloud. I think the worst offender I’ve come across is the “Bueller...Bueller...Edition” of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. This is annoying. Taking a quote from the movie and adding “edition” isn’t clever or funny, it’s just lazy. You couldn’t even call it the “Hooky Edition” or something? Come on. And that’s a quote where the quote itself means absolutely nothing; it’s Ben Stein’s stoic delivery of the line that makes it memorable. At least Tommy Boy’s “Holy Shnikes edition” makes sense in that it’s an exclamation that could potentially be interpreted as “Oh Wow, There’s a Lot of Extras on This Disc Edition!” and it doesn’t look ridiculous in print. I can’t wait until we have our “’..............’ Edition” of Charlie Chaplain’s Modern Times or our “What We Are Dealing With Here is a Perfect Engine, an Eating Machine. It’s Really a Miracle of Evolution. All This Machine Does is Swim and Eat and Make Little Sharks and That’s All Edition” of Jaws.

How about the titles of movies themselves? Eh? The title of the upcoming Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie is enough to make me dry heave for hours: Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters. Not only is it redundant, but it’s obnoxious. The title screams, “WE’RE DIFFERENT, THEREFORE FUNNY” and contributes to the already overflowing, urine dominant, kiddy pool of “wink wink nudge nudge” comedy. Get it? It’s the Aqua Teen movie, but we didn’t want to call it that because we’re nonconformist pigs so we spelled out the punctuation marks and didn’t just call it a plain old movie! Get it? Get it? It’s so out there! I can’t believe I came up with it all on my own! Hahaha, we’re so freaking FUNNY I CAN’T STAND IT! Most of Adult Swim’s line up is guilty of this kind of crap, but that’s another story for another day. The poster for the movie, however, is amazing - but I’m not here to talk positive...about anything.

Hey, you know what else I hate? Sports movies. Sick of em. Get rid of that shit. Have you ever seen a sports movie that you’ve absolutely loved? No. You haven’t. That’s because they all suck. All of them. What’s that? Caddyshack? Doesn’t count. Golf isn’t a sport. It’s a game. Golf isn’t any more of a sport that darts is. Don’t give me that “physical exertion” crap either. You hit a ball with a metal rod, and the rod does most of the work. You then DRIVE to wherever your ball is. No wonder golf players are old goofy looking fat wheezing guys.

You see a trailer for a sports movie and within 7 seconds you can tell whether its either about the hard-ass coach of football-baseball-basketball-bocceball team that everyone hates but proves that he’s really doing it for the love of the game and genuinely wants the kids to succeed when he leads the way to victory and brings the teammates so close to one another that I’m surprised they don’t start to make out. OR. It’s a movie about a little scrawny snot of a kid (usually a boy, but sometimes a girl, which guarantees at least a nod from the Academy) who is shunned by the coaches and his peers, but there’s one person (usually a teacher) who convinces them to give it their all and they do and they prove everyone wrong and end up being the hero of the football-baseball-basketball-bocceball team. What makes matters worse is that these crappy sports romps are taking all the good movie titles. “Invincible” with Marky Mark? Invincible? Seriously? Didn’t see the movie, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if someone shot him in the chest, he would die. Lame.

So fellow moviegoers, keep an ever-vigilant eye on these so-called promises of bloodier kills, prolonged breast exposure, and a cacophony of exotic dirty words. Avoid horrible sports movies whose stories you’ve heard more than grandpa’s bowel movements. You do not think Adult Swim is funny. You just think you do because you’ve never seen anything like it before. Adult swim thinking that you think they are funny only fuels their horribly unfunny fire. Douse it.

SOUL SIGHTINGS

Remember the spirit of Passover

The month of April is here, and with its welcome arrival, spring has finally come to New England. It is the time for spring-cleaning, a time to put away heavy winter coats and a time to get out in the nice, cool, sunny weather to take daily walks. Jewish families clean their homes every year, especially at this time, to prepare for an important holiday which we are celebrating this week, the holiday of Pesach or Passover. On the 14th of Nisan, which was this past Monday evening, Jews all over the world gathered in their homes to celebrate the first Seder of the Passover season.

Passover, known also as the Festival of Freedom, is a holiday that Jews observe for eight days. On the first night of Passover, there is a Seder, which means order, when Jews read from a book called ‘Haggadah’ which follows a certain order to tell the story of the ancient Jews’ flight from Egypt and their enslavement under Pharaoh. This story from the Book of Exodus is a familiar one for Jewish children and adults who often sit for hours in their homes on the first two nights of the holiday reenacting the Biblical story each year.

There are special foods eaten at the Passover Seder table in order that we remember the harsh times the ancient Jews endured during that ancient period. For example, because the Jews had to flee from their homes so quickly in Egypt, there wasn’t time for the bread to rise; hence, we eat matzoh, or unleavened bread instead of bread. At the Seder, too, other foods remind us of this cruel period under Pharaoh, and we eat a dish called charoset, a mixture of apples, nuts, cinnamon, wine, and sometimes made with dates and figs, symbolizing the mortar and bricks; and to remember this bitter and sad period, we eat bitter herbs with the charoset. There are lots of greens that we eat at our Seder too, to remind us of the spring season, along with a roasted egg, and we dip these greens twice in salt water for the tears that were shed by the Jews who were forced to do hard labor.

Even though the Seder is probably longer than regular holiday meals, the meal is quite festive and fun for families with children. Everyone participates by reading different parts of the story, and the children are excited to try to find the “afikomen” or the middle matzoh during the meal. The one that finds it gets a prize at the end. The youngest child even plays a major role at the Seder, for he/she gets to ask the four questions about “why this night is different from other nights,” and why we eat certain foods.

Besides the traditional blessings over the four cups of wine and matzoh, there are also songs we sing and stories we tell at the table, and of course, we get to eat many delicious foods made especially for this first Seder. Our doors are open for the prophet Elijah to come in, or for guests and friends to share this festive, holiday meal with us. To mark the importance of the woman’s role, in many homes, women put an orange on their Seder plates.

At our recent multicultural women’s Seder on campus, the orange was prominent on the Seder plates and women’s struggles around the world were read along with the traditional story of the Exodus. During the week of the holiday until April 10, Jews continue to eat matzoh and avoid products made of flour. I am happy to say, that the Residence Halls on campus will serve matzoh and other Passover foods all this week for the Jewish students on campus and others too.

After the second Seder, the Torah tells us in Leviticus 23:14, that Jews must count the Omer, a unit of measure. In the days of the ancient Temple, a measure of barley was brought to the Temple as an offering. From Passover to Shavuot, for 7 weeks or 49 days, we Jews count the Omer in order to remind us of the link between Passover, which commemorates the Exodus, and Shavu’ot, which commemorates the giving of the Torah. It reminds us that redemption from slavery was not complete until we received the Torah, on the 50th day, the holiday of Shavu’ot.

The second day of Passover is also the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (April 19, 1943), and so, after Passover is over, on the 27th of Nisan, we remember the six million Jews who were murdered during the Holocaust. On the 27th day of Nisan, corresponding to April 15 this year, Jews around the world will observe Yom HaShoah, or Holocaust Remembrance Day. On Tuesday, April 17 at 2:30 pm, in the viewing room on the first floor of the Claire T. Carney Library Browsing Area, UMD HIllel invites all students and faculty to view the film “The Power of Good,” to show how one person can make a difference. It is the remarkable story of Nicholas Winton and how he saved children at the beginning of World War II. It is important that we all remember and never forget the horrors of the past. Even as I write these words, there is still genocide going on which must be stopped, and we must be aware of these evils to end the violence in Darfur. We can all make a difference.

B’shalom,
Cindy Yoken, Hillel Director