The Forum

Commentary

Hatchet File Photo

Fans watch a GW men’s basketball game. Hatchet File Photo

GW men’s basketball is back. Two opinions writers were in the stands last Friday as the Colonials took on Grambling State.

At last, energy in the stands

Sarah Blugis, a junior majoring in political communication, is The Hatchet’s contributing opinions editor.

Suddenly, GW basketball feels real.

At the home opener last weekend, I almost couldn’t believe my eyes: The Smith Center was packed, and people were excited. Students wore their free Colonial Army shirts, waved pom-poms and even sang the fight song. The Smith Center felt different, too. New event staff had been hired, everything had shiny new labels and the entire experience felt legitimate – like a real college basketball franchise.

My freshman year, I went to my fair share of basketball games and vividly remember near-empty stands each time. I would drag my friends along, hoping for a big crowd and a competitive game, only to find that not many people cared much about our basketball team.

Even last year, I sat in nearly vacant stands once or twice at the beginning of the season. The Colonial Army cheered and the dance team performed, but that was it. The rest of the campus was indifferent until about halfway through the season, when it started to look like the team had a chance of heading to the NCAA tournament.

This year, everything feels different – and we should all be enthusiastic about the possibilities of success and postseason play that this season brings.

Since the team made its March Madness run last year, campus interest in GW basketball has seemingly exploded. I’ve gone from being one of the team’s few fans to one of many – and that’s a great feeling.

In my small hometown, supporting athletics – mostly football – is second nature. No one makes Friday night plans during the fall because it’s assumed students will be at the game, bundled up and sporting our high school’s blue and gold colors.

I didn’t initially find the same community here at GW, and though I knew that would happen when I put down my deposit, a small part of me hoped it would change – and it has.

The feeling in the Smith Center last Friday might be difficult to understand if you weren’t there, or if you didn’t go to past men’s basketball games when there were more players than fans. But when the updated NCAA tournament banner was revealed and the players took the court, there was an unexplainable electricity in the student section. People genuinely cared, and I could feel it.

At games last year and the year before, the entire experience sometimes felt like a performance – almost as if the University had thrown some players on the court just to say, “Look! We do sports!”

But now, the players and the fans own the season. It’s ours to brag about and enjoy. Having basketball games is no longer just a box for GW or its students to check off – it’s something to which we can look forward.

Our student body isn’t one that’s known for caring about sports. And yet, as our relatively unknown program gets ready to make a name for itself, it feels like students are standing behind it. More games will be broadcast nationally, people finally know the fight song and everyone has their fingers crossed for a spot on the March Madness bracket.

So before the conference season gets underway, take a look at the schedule. Come to a game, and see what I mean when I talk about the crowd’s electricity. You’ll feel it, and then you’ll be excited about GW basketball, too.

The negatives of home-court hostility

Elinoam Abramov, a junior majoring in political science, is a Hatchet opinions writer.

Last Friday, I went to my first basketball game. It was actually my first-ever college sporting event.

I absolutely loved it.

The constant cheering, shouting and singing for our school’s team made me feel like a true member of the GW community for the first time. Being an indifferent, verging on painfully apathetic Brit, this school spirit was not something I was used to, but it turned out to be something I enjoyed.

Yet something tainted a seemingly great game, ultimately leaving me with a bad taste in my mouth: I was shocked by the way our crowd treated the opposing team.

I felt truly uncomfortable when fans turned their backs and booed as the players from Grambling State were introduced. I felt even more uneasy when the game started and the men behind me started yelling at the players, “No one cares about the South,” and “Go back where you came from.”

One student who went to the game with me later said she thought those comments were racially charged, and that she was irritated and embarrassed by the way some GW students behaved.

Some might argue that students’ negative comments strengthen feelings of unity and belonging: Facing a common “enemy” would, in theory, bring us together. But the other players aren’t our enemies – they’re just the other team. And they have to play the game, just like our players.

In reality, these comments and the constant booing simply add a dimension of hostility to an otherwise great atmosphere. We should be cheering on our team, not cutting down others.

This kind of behavior not only seemed disrespectful, it also turned out to be unnecessary: GW defeated Grambling State by the team’s largest margin of victory since 1999.

Since these comments had no instrumental value in helping our team – which didn’t need a home-court advantage to pull through and win – they can only be described as needlessly offensive. It’s poor sportsmanship to kick the other team when it’s already down.

I’m sure some people will probably think I’m taking all this too seriously: After, all it’s just a college basketball game. But decency and respect for others is important in all contexts.

Negative comments are insulting to the other players, annoying to those trying to concentrate on the game and ultimately reflect poorly on GW.

  • Permalink
  • Comments

Nicole Alanko, a senior majoring in international affairs, has studied abroad through the GW Madrid program and is a Study Abroad Peer Advisor.

I’m writing in response to the column, “Don’t give in to the pressure to study abroad,” by Kirby Dzurny (p. 4, Nov. 17).

The author’s comments about study abroad were extremely short-sighted to all of the benefits that study abroad can offer.

Studying abroad is not just about the classes you take. Some of the institutions that students attend while abroad are ranked higher than GW internationally, like the University of Hong Kong, Seoul National University and University of Edinburgh. Additionally, many programs offer internships or research opportunities.

But even if you go abroad and don’t attend one of those institutions, it isn’t true that you’ll have to “catch up.” Language and cross-cultural experiences aren’t overlooked in the current job market.

Aside from the technicalities, the whole purpose of study abroad is to leave your comfort zone and become part of another culture. Study abroad is not a vacation, a trip or an Alternative Break. Study abroad is not leaving the Foggy Bottom bubble to explore an already familiar city, speak American English and live according to your usual cultural norms.

Study abroad is a leap of faith – a chance to really live differently, a chance to have your most basic assumptions challenged.

Anyone can take “Cinema of Spain and Latin America” at GW, but it meant so much more to me to take it in Madrid. I could go home and talk about the films with my host mom, who gave me better historical and cultural insight.

Anyone can see a Flamenco show at Lisner Auditorium or the Gala Theater in Columbia Heights, but it is completely different to watch your flamenco professor perform in the heart of the Malasaña district, surrounded by “¡Qué toma!” and “¡Guapa!”

Admittedly, reverse culture shock is very real, but it did not define my abroad experience. I’ve only found myself shocked at how much I’ve changed – my personality, my perspectives on family, politics and culture. All change takes some adjustment.

Studying abroad, like many other decisions in college, is a personal one. It is also a time when students experience a significant amount of growth. That’s the purpose of college – to grow, and to learn to live in a world that is bigger than what we initially imagined.

  • Permalink
  • Comments
Monday, Nov. 17, 2014 2:59 p.m.

How GW can help ease my fear of rats

Elinoam Abramov, a junior majoring in political science, is a Hatchet opinions writer.

I’ve had a fear of rodents for as long as I can remember.

But apart from the occasional sighting of a mouse scurrying across the Underground lines in London, this fear has never caused me any major distress. Then I moved to D.C.

I was shocked to discover that rodents, particularly rats, are everywhere in this city and seem to congregate around the Foggy Bottom Metro area, where I live. Not only are these pests omnipresent, D.C. rats seems to be a rare breed: they are unbelievably fat, with extraordinarily long tails, and seemingly unbothered by humans.

Instead of becoming accustomed to the presence of these creatures, as one would expect, my phobia only worsened. Walking home at night became an exercise in awareness: My eyes would scan the ground for any small, quick-moving objects, and my ears were alert, anticipating that horrible high-pitched squeak.

My fear of rats became so detrimental that friends started calling me neurotic, so I turned to my mother, a psychologist, for advice. She reassured me that musophobia – the clinical term for the fear of rats and mice – like all phobias, is irrational, for the most part. It normally arises from a combination of traumatic events from one’s past and internal predispositions.

She encouraged me to take a “rat’s perspective,” the classic method of reminding myself that they are more afraid of me than I am of them.

I felt better after my conversation with my mother, and my fear seemed to subside a little, too, after watching the Disney animated film “Ratatouille,” recommended by my 8-year-old brother. That showed me that not only can rats be extremely talented chefs, they can actually be quite cute.

As time passed, I made significant progress. If a rat ran past me, I no longer screamed and grabbed the arm of the first person I saw. Instead, I held my breath and repeated, “This fear is irrational.”

In fact, I had nearly forgotten about the rat problem in D.C. until The Hatchet wrote about Foggy Bottom Association President Marina Streznewski, whose 13-week-old dog died from a disease transmitted by rodent urine.

And after all the work I had done. This story tainted my newfound thinking that a fear of rats was irrational – clearly, they posed a serious health risk.

I started Googling: I was distraught to read about an incident over the summer at D.C.’s Providence Hospital, where a rat infestation was so out of control that rodents were feasting on corpses and attacking hospital workers, prompting several employees to sue for emotional distress. And that wasn’t all: In October, D.C. was named the third “rattiest” city in the country, which meant my fears weren’t too far-fetched.

The District’s health department claims to have “one of the most comprehensive rodent-control programs in the city,” but I’d sleep better at night if we were able to take steps on campus to help contain the problem as well (especially since the University has had infestations in the past).

Pest control action on a city-wide level is normally severe – methods in other cities have included rat poison or even sterilization of female rats so they are no longer able to procreate.

But effective action against rats need not be so reactive or morally questionable: For instance, New York City officials recently launched an initiative called The Rat Academy. It aims to educate New Yorkers about rat behavior and teach business owners and landlords how to make their buildings less attractive to rodents – all in a free, two-hour course.

A similar model could easily be employed by GW wherein students learn how to best keep their campus unattractive to rats. Think MyStudentBody or the workshops for how to be a good neighbor. It wouldn’t have to be mandatory, of course, but students like me with an interest in the matter could opt in to help ease some of our own concerns.

Albert Camus once warned “that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and enlightenment of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city.”

It’s about time we make that happen in this happy city.

  • Permalink
  • Comments
Thursday, Nov. 13, 2014 12:40 p.m.

Op-ed: Ending rape culture on campus

Shannon Quinn, a junior majoring in international affairs and Middle Eastern studies, is the education center director and co-chair of the GW Roosevelt Institute’s Rape Culture Awareness Committee.

You’ve probably heard the term “rape culture” before. Recently, with the national push to end sexual assault on college campuses coming from places like the White House, the phrase seems to be cropping up more and more often.

But what exactly is rape culture? What’s actually the big deal behind this abstract concept, and what can we do to counteract this pervasive way of thinking?

There is a very real phenomenon that the term rape culture represents. It’s everywhere – in the media, on campuses and coming from the mouths of politicians who some people respect.

It takes the ugly form of rape jokes, the negative portrayal of women in advertising and street harassment. It’s concentrating on a victim’s clothes rather than the crime when a sexual assault or rape happens. Rape culture embodies the idea that violence against women is normalized and accepted in our society when it should really be anything but normal.

You don’t need to look far to find the narrative that exists within rape culture, especially on a college campus. We can start here: Last year on spring break, I was raped.

The first thought that I had after it happened was, “It was my fault. I was drinking too much.” Although I’ve come to realize and accept that it absolutely wasn’t my fault, psychologically grappling with this was a direct result of the victim-blaming propagated in the media and even by notable academics.

And it doesn’t stop with my story. When I first came to GW, I was told that there was a “rape dungeon” at one of the fraternities on campus – and people talked about this as if it were normal. I’ve heard stories about people dismissing a rape because “she was asking for it.” I even know women who have been given date rape drugs. Unfortunately, these stories are not few and far between, even on a more stereotypically liberal campus like GW’s.

The GW Roosevelt Institute’s Rape Culture Awareness campaign, which launched Nov. 5, is one way we can work toward eradicating the epidemic of sexual assault on campus. As a student body, we can start a conversation about these cultural norms and begin to counter them.

We can start to push for initiatives such as requiring professors to include sexual assault information on syllabi. Though it may not be easy to combat rape culture, it’s far past time to start this dialogue on GW’s campus and challenge ourselves to be better.

  • Permalink
  • Comments

Michael J. Sodaro is a professor of political science and international affairs.

“Did you hear about the Berlin Wall? It’s open!”

I couldn’t believe my ears when several students burst into my office with the news in 1989. The East German government’s decision to open the Wall on Nov. 9 was the latest in a series of extraordinary developments that shook the foundations of communism in Eastern and Central Europe, ultimately leading to the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

It also marked a personal culmination for myself, since I had been studying East Germany and its role in East-West relations for 15 years.

As a graduate student researching my dissertation, I had lived in West Berlin for two years in the 1970s, crossing the checkpoint into East Berlin countless times. Then, while teaching courses on Soviet and European affairs at GW, I led an academic organization concerned with the German Democratic Republic, East Germany’s dubious formal name. By 1989, I was completing a book on Soviet-German relations. Early that summer I visited Berlin, interviewing scholars and diplomats on both sides of the Wall.

And yet despite my experience, I did not see it coming. In fact, none of my fellow specialists on German affairs foresaw the opening of the Berlin Wall, let alone the collapse of communism that followed. Our academic theories had no predictive value whatsoever: At best, they could only explain what happened after the fact.

The Wall’s unanticipated opening provides an instructive reminder that political events can sometimes take us completely by surprise, confounding even the most well-informed experts. They can also surprise the most powerful leaders who think they have things under control.

East Germany was an unlikely terrain for democratic change. Once the Wall was built in 1961, it became practically impossible for East German citizens to travel outside the communist bloc until they were pensioners.

Hence it came as a shock when thousands of East Germans escaped to the West while visiting Eastern Europe in the spring and summer of 1989. Some got out by hiking across the recently opened border between Hungary and Austria. Others crammed into the West German embassy compound in Prague, demanding safe passage to West Germany. After negotiations, the East German government allowed 17,000 people to board sealed trains to West Germany without hindrance. Unprecedented pro-democracy demonstrations followed in the weeks leading up to Nov. 9.

These breathtaking events are worth studying after 25 years because they demonstrate that democratic revolutions are possible, even in countries governed by highly repressive dictatorships. When the people have had enough and demand change, unexpected things can happen.

Of course, the conditions for such uprisings will vary from one country to the next. Studying the domestic and international contexts of democratization processes in a systematic manner is imperative – especially in schools like at the Elliott School of International Affairs.

Another lesson of the Berlin Wall is that freedom is indeed precious, and the longing for it runs deeper than what may appear on the surface. Among the many personal reminders of this truth that I have experienced, one in particular stands out.

During a visit to Berlin in the spring of 1990, I interviewed Egon Krenz – the GDR’s last communist leader – at his home.

“As soon as we built the Wall, we should have started taking measures to make it unnecessary,” he mused. He was not clear about what those measures might have been. After the interview, his 16-year-old son, a guitar strapped around his shoulder, walked me to the bus stop.

“I can’t wait to go to America,” he told me. “I want to join a rock band.”

  • Permalink
  • Comments

Karolina Ramos is a senior majoring in political science and The Hatchet’s former culture editor.

I’m writing in response to the blog, “Why I didn’t vote in the midterm elections,” by Robin Jones Kerr (Nov. 6, online).

You’ve heard it all before: Millennials are lazy, self-absorbed and prone to political inaction.

And if you were absent from the polls Tuesday or neglected to submit an absentee ballot, you’re part of the reason why people criticize our generation.

During election season, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by the myriad issues on the nation’s plate, and it’s a hefty task to fully understand and consider the nuances of policies addressing everything from minimum wage hikes to marijuana legalization. But as students, we’re privileged to have access to a wealth of resources come election time, from seasoned political science professors to that handy thing called the Internet.

No one is demanding that you feign enthusiasm for, or worse, knowledge of, specific candidates, referenda or initiatives on the ballot. If you don’t feel compelled to cast a vote on a specific issue, you can leave that portion blank and move on to the initiatives you feel equipped to address, crafting a ballot that truly reflects your voice and the issues you prioritize during election season.

Yet voting is not exclusively an act of self-interest. Ballot initiatives that don’t directly affect your day-to-day experiences may be significant to other populations and community members, and voting presents an opportunity to invest in their well-being.

In D.C., the passage of Initiative 71, which would allow people 21 or older to possess up to two ounces of marijuana for personal use, may appear an irrelevant victory to non-smokers, but it also represents critical (if small) progress for social justice efforts: Though black people and white people use marijuana at largely the same rates, incarceration rates for marijuana possession are much higher for black people.

Abstaining from voting isn’t indicative of rebellion against the system – more typically, it represents a degree of laziness.

Millennials are maligned for our political disinterest and penchant for slacktivism. As students, we should show the critics that not only are we invested in issues that substantively affect our communities, but we’re committed to acting on them, too.

  • Permalink
  • Comments
Thursday, Nov. 6, 2014 3:49 p.m.

Why I didn’t vote in the midterm elections

Hatchet File Photo

Hatchet File Photo

Updated: Nov. 7, 2014 at 4:56 p.m.

Robin Jones Kerr, a senior majoring in journalism, is The Hatchet’s opinions editor.

For most of the day Tuesday, I felt like there was a big test that I hadn’t studied for. And what’s worse – it seemed everyone else had been preparing for weeks.

The whole day and into the night, I dreaded the inevitable question from friends, family, coworkers and professors – did I vote?

(No.)

(I didn’t.)

I hadn’t voted in the midterms and, actually, had barely followed the congressional and gubernatorial campaigns. When my friends got outraged at the closeness of the Virginia congressional race – “538 said Warner would win it in a landslide!” – I nodded along and feigned dismay, and pretended to know which candidates were Democrats and which were Republicans.

It’s great so many students on this campus care about politics, and it’s especially great that so many of us millennials – a demographic often maligned for its low voter turnout rates – headed to the polls or ensured we got our absentee ballots nice and early.

But in the end, I’m glad social pressure didn’t get me to vote.

Now, I would never tell a well-educated, politically active citizen to stay home on Election Day. But personally, just for myself, I felt OK about it. This year, nothing in particular compelled me to head to the polls – not a dynamic candidate nor compelling issue. And if I had voted just for the sake of being able to brag about it, that would have felt insincere.

In 2012, I made sure to vote because I was jazzed to help guarantee President Barack Obama a second term in office. Truth be told, I mailed my absentee ballot the morning of Election Day and I’m not even sure it counted, in the end. But I didn’t care, because to me, it was largely symbolic, and I was satisfied.

I’m registered to vote in Michigan, but only because that’s where my family lives. I grew up overseas, so I’m not really invested in Michigan politics and can’t even name our senators. (But I do know my mom curses at Terri Lynn Land every time she sees a lawn sign with her name on it, so I know we’re happy about that particular race, I guess?)

Sure, maybe I should have registered in D.C. I’ve at least followed the mayoral election here, though mostly because I’m a Hatchet staffer. But when I saw Muriel Bowser, the Democratic nominee for mayor and eventual victor, speak on campus last semester, I found myself not really liking her as a person. (Sorry, Muriel.) So a desire to vote for her didn’t drive me to the polls, either.

So shame me all you want, but I stand by my decision. When you talk about getting out the vote, it’s not me you’re talking about.

This post was updated to reflect the following correction:
The Hatchet incorrectly referred to the close race between Mark Warner and Ed Gillespie as a governor’s race. It was a race to represent Virginia in the Senate. We regret this error.

  • Permalink
  • Comments

Jonah Lewis, a junior majoring in political science and sociology, is a Hatchet columnist.

It’s that time of year again: Moustaches and beards will be back in full force among men at GW and across the country.

No-Shave November is often just an excuse to avoid shaving for a month. But this seemingly trivial phenomenon has been co-opted by a much more influential social movement, called Movember, dedicated to growing moustaches as a fundraising effort for men’s health issues.

Men sign up with the organization, and then ask friends and family to donate money to their efforts as they grow out their mustaches during November. Plus, their facial hair becomes an advertisement for the movement. The Movember Foundation has raised $559 million for over 800 men’s health programs, ranging from prostate cancer research to mental health care since 2003.

This is an incredibly impressive sum for a charity based almost solely on getting men to grow out facial hair for a month, and I would encourage any interested men at GW to participate. But this movement leaves open an important question: Where do women fit in?

Sure, they can fundraise and advertise. But they aren’t officially encouraged to stop shaving or gather donations for women’s health issues.

If women at GW decided not to shave for the entirety of this month to raise money for women’s health issues and promote body positivity, the initiative could grow into a movement matching Movember. It would open up conversations about how our culture expects women to treat their bodies and their body hair.

While there is little stigma attached to moustaches, many people view women’s body hair as unseemly. It isn’t an enormous sacrifice for men to grow beards, since many men and women find them attractive, but for women, growing out hair is an unexpected and daring risk. That makes not shaving an exercise in body positivity and self love for most women.

Not only would a no-shave movement be good for body image, but it would also shed light on important female-specific health issues that don’t receive enough attention.

Breast cancer is arguably the most prominent women’s health issue in the country: 1 in 8 women will develop invasive breast cancer in their lifetimes. But there are many other conditions that affect women – like osteoarthritis, reproductive health, cervical cancer and menopause. Those causes deserve funding, too, and with a movement that addresses women’s health more broadly, they would fall under an umbrella and receive more support.

So far, there only seem to be unofficial movements that encourage women to stop shaving, like the Hairy Legs Club that has become popular on Tumblr – and pages like this don’t raise any money.

But with active feminist groups on campus – like the Alliance of Queer Women and Allies, or Students Against Sexual Assault – our school is the perfect place to start. If even just one of these student organizations took on the project, it could be our chance to start a campaign that one day could rival what men raise during Movember.

So women of GW, grow out your body hair, for yourselves and for health research.

  • Permalink
  • Comments

Kinjo Kiema, a sophomore majoring in political communication, is a Hatchet columnist.

You may have seen the series of “It’s On Us” campaign videos that GW recently released. There is one piece focused on the GW community at large, along with others featuring members of the Greek, multicultural, LGBT and multireligious communities. In the videos, top Student Association leaders, members of student groups and well-known campus faces stare into a camera and pledge to intervene and help prevent sexual assault from occurring.

Although I’m glad to see conversations about sexual assault happening on our campus, this sort of message, which is focused on bystander intervention, is missing the mark.

“It’s On Us” doesn’t target the perpetrators, but any and every anti-sexual assault campaign should. It’s the responsibility of everyone to respect boundaries, and it’s on the University and the justice system to hold people accountable if they commit a crime.

Telling women to drink less so they can avoid assault, for example, does not stop rapists from targeting people. The person will often just target someone else.

Encouraging students to watch out for their peers is a good first step, but this initiative alone cannot end widespread sexual violence on campus.

The videos follow the lead of the White House, which originally released a PSA of its own featuring a host of celebrities. They urge those who see sexual violence, or escalation toward that type of situation, to step in and say something. The campaign assumes that if more people are aware of the problem, they will be encouraged to stop potentially dangerous situations.

But even if people want to step in, they may lack the skills to do it effectively and safely. We have to ensure we’re actively training bystanders and giving them the tools to intervene before we can expect this effort to be successful.

At this moment, when sexual violence is being discussed so widely, “It’s On Us” does not aim to accomplish any tangible goals. As students, we should be advocating for the University to create and release the results of in-depth surveys about the issue, make presentations about consent mandatory for all fraternities, provide better resources for survivors or work toward any number of real solutions.

It’s certainly beneficial for students to step in if they think a fellow student is in danger. However, the actions of bystanders alone will not end the problem of sexual assault on college campuses.

And it’s all well and good to pledge to do an honorable thing, but that doesn’t mean much if it isn’t followed by concrete action that might actually make a difference on a campus-wide level.

Maybe it’s time to question why we are so hesitant to directly target the perpetrators, when in reality, it’s on them.

  • Permalink
  • Comments

Georgia Lawson, a freshman majoring in political communication, is a Hatchet opinions writer.

Our parents shape us in profound ways as we grow up. We often keep their morals, convictions and prejudices with us long after we leave home.

As much as we’d all like to believe our decisions are completely and wholly our own, the truth is environmental factors are powerful in shaping our beliefs and assumptions. This is important to keep in mind during the next few weeks – so crucial, in fact, that our democracy depends on it.

Nov. 4 marks an important milestone in the lives of many Colonials: Election Day. While a politically active reputation is a key point of pride for GW, the upcoming election will be the first opportunity for many younger students to actually take to the polls.

With all the excitement this entails, it’s easy to cling to the party or set of political ideals on which we’ve been raised. But this natural tendency adds to mounting frustration toward the government. If we don’t understand why we vote for certain politicians, we won’t understand why they make their choices and we’ll likely grow dissatisfied with their actions.

Voters should recognize the vulnerability of their own beliefs to powerful environmental factors, primarily our families, who have pruned our conceptions of the world since birth. This process of political socialization is a leading predictor of how one will vote or adhere to a specific party, which means independent thought is being eclipsed by a years of influence. While aligning to a party is not a bad thing, doing so blindly is dangerous.

Maybe if we all took a step back to reconsider our country’s political options on our own, we wouldn’t be stuck with a Congress of such high reelection rates and low popularity. We can blame the government all we want for not getting things done, but in the end, we’re the ones who continue to vote them in – or, worse yet, don’t vote at all.

It’s about time we start reexamining our choices before we hit the polls, rather than two years later. As Election Day approaches, be sure to exercise caution and keep in mind the critical balance between beliefs and knowledge, or rather what our biases lead us to believe and what the reality of the situation actually is. Don’t rely on inherited beliefs.

Society is constantly changing, so educate yourself and be judicious. Then maybe we can start to clean up the mess in politics for good.

  • Permalink
  • Comments