Buyback costs students money

By Jeff Trull

Each semester, students spend hundreds of dollars on new books. Many new textbooks cost over $100 these days, so buying books for five classes can add up quickly. Many students already realize that textbook publishing companies are charging ridiculous costs for textbook prices and justifying doing so with unnecessary new editions and useless software. Students can’t do a whole lot to avoid this, but they can avoid being ripped off again at the UMass Dartmouth Campus Store book buyback.

The buyback at the UMass Dartmouth Campus store does not give fair returns for students who sell back their books. According to buybackbydesign.com, which is the site linked to from the UMass Dartmouth Campus store website, students can, at most, get 50 percent of the purchase price back for books they purchased new. So if you bought a book for $120, they will give you back $60. But 50 percent is not a guarantee. In order to get this, the good must be in good condition, include extras such as CD-ROMs, and be reordered by our bookstore for the next semester. If not all these conditions are met you may receive much less. If the book is no longer needed at UMass Dartmouth, the most a student can get back is 35 percent. But I have heard cases from other students where the amount given back has been much less than even that.

On top of their meager payout for books, buybackbydesign.com attempts to mislead students with falsities about selling books elsewhere. For example, the site states “third-part and online buyers claim to give students more money back for their books, but that’s not the case.” From my experiences, this statement is completely ungrounded. I have consistently sold back my textbooks online at sites such as Half.com or Amazon.com and received more then 50 percent of the value back. The site attempts to scare would-be online sellers by saying, “Know the deal up front and don’t take chances with your money… these third parties can’t beat your school’s bookstore.” But those like me who have sold books online know that it is typically safe, with 99 percent of orders going through without a problem. Finally, buybackbydesign.com states that online selling comes with “Packing and Mailing Hassle.” I don’t know about you, but I hardly call it a hassle when I’m getting $30 more than I would from selling it to the store.

Even though the UMass Dartmouth Campus Store does not run this site, it bothers me that our campus store advertises a service that’s not in the best interest of students. Many students realize that buying books from the campus store is typically the most expensive option. At the same time, selling them back to the store typically garners the smallest return. Obviously some students prefer the convenience of buying and selling books in the campus store. But shouldn’t our campus store be serving the best interests of UMass Dartmouth students? If there’s a better deal out there for students, the campus store should be obligated to tell students about it, not simply serve its own interests.

To get the best deals on both buying and selling books, always check online first. There are sites that sell used textbooks at prices that cost a fraction of what they do in the bookstore. Even if the book isn’t available used, the book may still be $20 cheaper new from Amazon.com than from our bookstore. Most websites offer free shipping or shipping for only a few dollars. As far as selling books back, these sites charge a commission for selling books, typically between 10 and 15 percent. Collecting money is easy, as the websites will wire the money directly to a bank account. Shipping is as simple as throwing the book in a box and taking a trip to the post office. Shipping the book at the “media mail” rate, which sites typical reimburse for, will only cost three to five dollars.

If you don’t want to pay any fees, you can try selling your book on Facebook.com’s Marketplace. While few students currently use this service, almost every student is on Facebook and there is no cost to use it. Hopefully the service will take off in the future, saving students even more cash.

Many students also use the Off Campus Bookstore, which is located right down the street in Dartmouth. While I have not used the service myself, I have heard positive results from many students. The Off Campus Bookstore will rent out a book for a semester. Students pay for the book at the beginning of the semester, and then this bookstore promises to pay back a certain amount on the book when it is returned. From what I hear, it is typically a good deal and students seem pleased with it.

While it appears that textbooks will still cost students a good chunk of change, students can save themselves some money if they search for the best possible deals. Often times these deals, both in buying and selling textbooks, are not in our campus store but elsewhere.

Massachusetts not healthier yet

By Gregory Gravelle

Through the adaptation of a new and critically flawed healthcare system in Massachusetts, the state has become the first in the U.S. to mandate the expensive coverage. While the system does increase pressure on the state’s citizens to gain access to healthcare, the feeble reform is comprised of little more than a mandate and a new vehicle for bureaucracy.

With the Massachusetts Health Connector plan barely in its infancy, it has already surfaced that the new system will cost taxpayers an estimated $400 million more than initially anticipated. This increase accounted for one of the largest individual increases in Governor Patrick’s $28.2 billion budget. While the Health Connector promises to increase accessibility and competition to lower costs, it is unlikely that any reductions in costs will exceed the administrative and bureaucratic costs of the foolish mandate.

Mitt Romney came into office as Governor of Massachusetts for one apparent reason: to build credibility for an inevitable presidential bid. The flawed healthcare plan that he pushed through the state legislature makes it evident that he was preparing for the national spotlight, in which he would tote his healthcare reform as a selling point for his candidacy. However, Romney neglected to pass real and substantive reform in Massachusetts because it would have likely taken longer than his gubernatorial term.

Massachusetts Health does not address the real problems with healthcare in the United States. While it is crucial that every citizen has access to inexpensive and high quality health care, a simple mandate is not sufficient in solving the most vital issues. The real reason behind Massachusetts’ rate of uninsured, which has peaked at over 13%, is that health care costs are so high. The problem with healthcare nationwide is not that people do not feel obligated to get coverage; the problem with the system is that it does not lower costs to an affordable level for many Americans. It is highly doubtful that anyone in the state or elsewhere would choose not to have care if it were affordable.

While the state’s new plan does provide a meager attempt at lowering costs by providing competition, there will still be number of citizens who cannot afford care in spite of the mandate. One vitally important problem to be addressed is how the poorest residents of the state will get care; the most realistic resolution to this inevitability would be to couple the mandate with short-term coverage similar to unemployment. Like many other critical aspects of real healthcare reform, this issue was not thoroughly resolved by the state’s inadequate reform.

The 2008 presidential election has become an excellent forum for new ideas for healthcare reform, with candidates on both sides of the aisle presenting plans superior to Massachusetts’ feeble attempt at reform. Massachusetts has provided the nation with a glance at unsuccessful reform, which will hopefully be recognized by the electorate in November. One decisive fact has emerged from the failure of Massachusetts’ health care reform – the problem is not that people choose not to buy healthcare coverage – the problem is that people cannot afford coverage, and this reality is what must be addressed.

SOUL SIGHTINGS

What is kosher food?

Kosher is the Hebrew word for “fit” as in food being fit and proper for eating. It has nothing to do with being blessed by a rabbi. The book of Genesis lists animals considered fit for eating. Land animals have to chew their cud and have cloven hooves. Sea animals have to have fins and scales. Cows and salmon are acceptable, pigs and shrimp are not. Birds are generally ok, unless they are birds of prey. Animals have to be slaughtered according to specifications. When they were written, those specifications were considered humane. The animal was supposed to experience as little pain as possible. People can not slaughter their own meat without advanced training. In addition, when the Bible says three times not to cook a baby goat in its mother’s milk, that is taken to mean that meat and milk should not be eaten together or even eaten on the same dishes, or cooked with the same pots and pans.

Jews who maintain traditionally kosher homes will maintain separate kitchen equipment for meat and milk and buy only kosher products. They know that the products are kosher because there is a symbol telling them so on the package. Food manufacturers mark their products as kosher because someone knowledgeable and qualified has gone into the factory where the food is made, checked all the ingredients, and made sure that milk products and meat products are not mixed. Many Jews around the world have found the rules of kashrut cumbersome and can find no meaning in it, so they do not do it. Others, who may feel commanded by God to keep kosher or who feel strongly about the link that kashrut has with Jewish tradition, identity and history find that kashrut brings order and meaning to their lives.

Rabbi Jacqueline Romm Satlow, Center for Jewish Culture

Party politics: College party

By Jeff Bogosian

The upcoming election leaves many students wondering how the candidates relate to them. All of this political jargon that is thrown around can leave students wondering what type of people the true front-runners are. To aid you in this process, I will describe all the current candidates in a way most students will understand: their roles at a party.

The best way to start the comparisons is to describe the current president and the role that each candidate is attempting to take over. George W. Bush is a very distinct person at the politics party and portrays a role that almost every party has: the reckless drunk. He is the drunk person who somehow got invited but nobody quite knows how. He walks in with a 30 rack on his shoulder and is always the first to do a keg stand. By the end of the night he has broken at least one expensive item and that reminds you how big of a mistake it was to invite him.

Let’s move our focus to the Republican Party. The leader in this race is John McCain. At the party he would be the guy that just returned from Iraq. He isn’t the most outgoing person, but when you talk to him he tells you the truth, no matter what it’s about or how depressing it is. Everyone wants to go talk to him because they look to him to be the wise one in the group. Inevitably the girls will flock to him, impressed by his heroisms and tales about how he rescued a whole school full of children from a suicide bomber. At least one girl will go home with him.

Mike Huckabee is the highly religious person at the party. At some point during the night he will get in an intense debate about his religion and how big of a part it plays in his life. He doesn’t drink, and on the rare occasion that he does decide to, he drinks a wine cooler. He has a girlfriend that goes to school far away whom he has been dating since his freshman year in high school.

To finish off the Republican Party we have Ron Paul. Ron is the random friend of a friend of a friend who shows up. Nobody really knows a lot about him, or why he is there, but nobody really cares since there are so many people there. Towards the end of the night, when everyone starts leaving, he still hangs around. The people left at the end of the night just look at him wondering why he doesn’t get the picture and just leave.

The Democratic Party is just as interesting. First off we have Hillary Clinton. She’s the girl whose boyfriend was originally part of the party group. He brought her a few times and now she’s accepted as one of the crew. She still has trouble shaking her boyfriend’s shadow, though. When she is introduced to new people it’s always as “Bill’s girlfriend Hillary.” She constantly tries to prove her independence from him and comes off as mean in the process. She’s the type of girl that you like to hang out with at the party but would never call up to hang out with just her.

Finally, we have Barack Obama. Obama is the classy guy at the party who is always nicely dressed. Everything he says seems very well thought out, but also natural. He could say that George Washington was the first person to fly a plane and somebody would say, “Oh yeah, we are learning about that in my history class,” just because Obama said it with such conviction. The guys envy him and the girls fall in love with him. He will end up taking a few girls home with him, but only to continue the conversation that they were having, much to the dismay of the girls.

In this political party, every candidate plays their own part. Together they make up a complex society and all you can do is hope to find the one who best fits in with your personality.

Ben Comeau’s Political Blarb

Clinton campaign quickly losing life

By Ben Comeau

Hillary Clinton is not quite dead but not exactly alive either...politically, I mean. Indeed, “Zombie Clinton” has watched as her carefully laid plans have broken into pieces. She has watched Barack Obama (the O-Bomb, as I call him) decisively thump her in all eight primaries since Super Tuesday –- a clean sweep. She has watched in dismay as Barack’s delegate count edged itself oh-so-barely above her own. Then she watched solemnly as the candidate she tried to portray as a fringe black politician ripped the white middle class demographic right from under her pressed pants suit. To me, it was at that moment– when she slapped the big black label on Barack– that she lost her credibility.

Think back only a few weeks ago to the South Carolina primary. The Army of Clinton was campaigning largely on the accomplishments of Bill, not Hillary. Bill had been titled “The First Black President,” for his contributions during his administration. To Hillary, it must have been quite logical to allow the residents of this mostly African-American state to confuse her for Bill. It worked in New York, right? Unfortunately, the loyal followers of Clinton did not go for it, and they chose Barack Obama instead. The Illinois Senator was becoming very popular. So, with her supporters drifting to a rivals camps, Hillary did what she thought was best: she decided, “Who cares about black people?”

Immediately she sent her husband to spread the word that the South Carolina primary was not worth anything because “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88. And he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama has run a good campaign here.” And the now famous fightin’ words “Give me a break.” Excuse me? Oh I get it, the black vote only counts when they vote for you, Hillary! How could I be more stupid? When they vote for you it’s a triumph over racial divides in this, our finest hour. But when they voted for Barack in South Carolina, they were just blacks voting for blacks! Before the votes were tallied, you had already left South Carolina because you said we have other states to focus on, specifically states with demographics that would vote for you (read: white women).

Since then Hillary has seen money dry up, percentage points get closer and her husband lose his voice. The latest polls have her frazzled because Barack Obama has support from white and black young voters, black men and women and white males. He has won the most Southern States and has blasted Hillary in the Midwest, where John Edward’s lost flock has found solace in Obama’s words.

I am not saying Hillary Clinton is in any way racist or prejudiced, but she has to wise up. Hillary is right, she is an established veteran of the American political system; but it is those experiences she has from being entrenched in Washington that cause her to look at people as demographics and poll numbers. If African-Americans aren’t voting for her, then she says whatever, and moves on to a different demographic. Obama is winning because even if he only sees the public as poll numbers, he still has the bravado to make speeches of hope that span all demographics and differences this country has.