|
|
| Jan. 25, 2005 | ||||||
|
|
Our Perspective... With a howl, bitter cold and ice, winter came blasting into Appalachian State with full force this past weekend. Though not a significant snowstorm by Boone winter standards, the combination of low temperatures and high winds turned a mediocre snowfall into blizzard-like conditions. Anyone doubting the storm’s power has only to look at the roof of Walker Hall. Walker, housing the departments of communication and mathematical sciences, had approximately 60 percent of its roof damaged or destroyed by the winter weather. Many of us here at The Appalachian have classes in Walker. It has been a pretty shocking sight to see the building where we spend so much time have its roof re-arranged and dispersed across campus. Fortunately, the incident occurred around 1 a.m. Sunday. It could have happened at 1 p.m. the next day, during an exchange between classes. Students, faculty or staff could have been injured, and the university would have been liable. But wait? Wasn’t the roof to Walker Hall just renovated in 1997? Yes, it was. Walker underwent renovations as recently as last year. While the weather, especially in the mountains, will always be a force beyond human control, it can be anticipated. In fact, Dr. C. Ray Russell, who runs www.booneweather.com, confirmed that as bad as the winds were, it was not unusual to have them a few times a year. Russell said the highest wind speed he recorded at his downtown Boone office during the storm was 65 mph. The Appalachian, in speaking to students around campus, heard some version of “I was expecting a storm like this” more than once. Boone usually gets at least one nasty winter storm a year, if not more. While the storms may vary in power and intensity, they are a fact of life here. Most of them did. So did the various construction sites around campus. How can we keep it from happening in the future? Was it some unpredictable, freak occurrence of weather? Was it a construction flaw? If so, why wasn’t it detected during Walker’s earlier renovation? The Appalachian community needs to know. Right now, a thin vapor barrier is all that is keeping water from going into Walker Hall. This barrier isn’t made to be “the last line of defense,” as Physical Plant Director Larry Bordeaux termed its current status. Engineering specialist Walter L. Lewis said that if rain comes, the Walker Hall de-roofing could go from being only an inconvenience to being a major problem. So, once again, Appalachian students are at the mercy of the weather.
Everyone needs a little humor in life
Doubtless you’ve heard someone advise “laughter is the best medicine.” This is not an empty statement. I would change it only slightly through a bit of generalization. Humor is not literally a cure for medical ailments, but rather for social, political and cultural problems. I mean that laughter is the best medicine for when we are taking ourselves too seriously (which, we must admit, is most of the time). Humor is universal and yet uniquely personal. Collectively we might be the only species on this planet that is sentient enough to comprehend the essence of humor. And yet no two senses of humor are alike, just as no two sounds of laughter are exactly alike. All humor, in some way or another, must come from human experience, because it is the only experience that we know. This returns us to the statement above: we take ourselves too seriously too often. It is curious that we simultaneously hate to laugh at ourselves and yet I think we must do so in order to ensure our mental well being. When we watch television or movies, we are encouraged to laugh at ourselves by laughing at other people like us onscreen. However, television and movies are not real. In the real world, there are some things that just should not be laughed at, right? Supposedly, there are lines that must never be crossed. Still, how many jokes have been made that concern some aspect of the tragedy of 9-11? Years later, can we laugh at that event without feeling guilty or ashamed? Should we be able to laugh at it? Not one person would dare to make a joke today about the devastation recently wrought by the earthquakes and tsunamis. What about several years from now? When, if ever, are we allowed to laugh at our own sorrow and grief? We all know from personal experience that laughter is an effective way to counter melancholy feelings. We also know that laughter is used to mask conflict, pain and embarrassment. This is all very human. That’s part of what makes us who we are at the end of the day. However, there is such a thing as comedic taste. “Good taste” and “bad taste” must exist somewhere and in some form, but no one seems able to identify them completely. That doesn’t stop those people who feel they are the final arbiters of taste. These people criticize anything they feel is improper or indiscreet in the name of righteous indignation. Turning to a few popular examples, what about the comedy featured in “South Park” on Comedy Central or “Family Guy” on Cartoon Network? Both animated programs have been relentlessly attacked for their caustic, brazen approach to humor. However, both programs are scrupulously earmarked for mature audiences. The viewer alone has every right to say whether they think the shows are funny and whether they want to watch them. It is exhausting to think of those people who seem bound and determined to make decisions for everyone else about what should or should not be funny. If someone has a sense of humor that differs from the accepted norm, whatever that may be, it’s all too easy to dismiss them with, “He/She has a sick sense of humor.” How can anyone keep themselves from laughing at something they personally find amusing? Everyone has been in that situation where you just can’t stop laughing at something that you know you probably shouldn’t be laughing at. If we can’t stop ourselves from doing it, why should someone else try to stop us? I say let people find funny whatever they will find funny. Gray areas notwithstanding, I repeat: we take ourselves too seriously too often. That reminds me of a great joke I heard the other day ... Television, movies too mature for children
I have noticed a strange trend among the recent children’s movies and cartoons: they have the ability to amuse a much more mature audience. I remember the Disney movies and Nickelodeon cartoons that I used to watch as cheesy humor that only a young kid could appreciate. Now the humor I am finding should be going over children’s heads. I’m beginning to worry that our society is more worried about pleasing the parents taking their kids to these movies than they are worried about exposing kids to mature elements, such as sex, death and other disturbing things in life. These disturbing things should wait for a one-on-one talk with mom and dad, instead of hearing it from “Shrek” or “Spongebob.” Take a look at the blockbuster hits that have come out recently, like “Shrek 2” or “Lemony Snicket’s A Series Of Unfortunate Events.” Both of these have brought in a lot of money to the box office and have gotten great reviews from both critics and viewers. They also have jokes and points in them, some that I would consider too much. Consider “Lemony Snicket’s.” This movie is based on a series of books. Critics and viewers have praised it because of how well it stuck to the book. Upon talking to friends who baby-sit and took kids to see this movie, they all seem to be in agreement that it scared the kids. My friends said they found the plot somewhat disturbing. “Shrek 2” also has questionable material in it. Several references to sex, sexuality and even a comment about drug use happen to sneak into the dialogue. They still manage to stand out, despite the quick manner in which they spit it out. I also notice the fact that in the past, kids’ movies helped to give examples of morals and values. The characters were put into situations in which they were forced to make decisions between right and wrong and they learned something in the end about life and themselves. Today’s movies seem to just provide a lot of action, leaving viewers in a whirlwind of fart jokes and snappy one-line cut downs that hardly provide any kind of enrichment. These are also the cartoons that have become the center of most kids’ universe in today’s society. The more mature themes leave parents and family with awkward questions. Just think of all the adult themes that the once popular “Ren and Stimpy Show” used to convey in basically every episode. This show aired on Nickelodeon and was viewed alongside shows such as “Doug” and “Rugrats.” Let’s also not forget “The Simpsons” which, as we all know, is a far cry from a kid’s cartoon. Both the language and subject material are much too vulgar for young kids, yet it has a large base of young fans. Today our movies and television are focused on the sole purpose of entertaining. What’s worse is that instead of sitting down with our kids, we are sitting them in front of the TV and handing them a remote control, laying out a whole world of media for them to choose at their discretion. Faculty Senate forgetting less affluent students So it seems that the Faculty Senate, in a blatant slap in the face to ASU students, succeeded in getting a motion passed to abolish the textbook rental system. The textbook rental system has been a great help to me as well as countless other students. It lifts financial burden off of our backs by adding the cost of books into our tuition costs rather than forcing us to pay out of pocket. I can only imagine the strain this is going to put on students and their families. Contrary to what the Faculty Senate may believe, not everyone who attends Appalachian State is a trust fund baby. Many of us work part time or full time jobs (sometimes two or three) so that we can afford to pay our bills. Others have such a heavy workload that we don't have time for a job. We have to rely on loans or scholarships to cover our expenses. Abolishing the textbook rental system will only add to our hardship. I question the reasoning behind this decision. I keep hearing that the textbook system is being abolished so that professors have a better choice of what books they could use in class, when they could easily (and usually do) have us buy supplementary material or post information on the web. I must conclude that there are ulterior motives behind the decision. I am very thankful that WASU and the SGA did their best to inform students about this meeting before it was actually going to occur, otherwise I never would have known about it. Which brings me to another point, it seems as if the Faculty Senate wanted to be sneaky about this decision by holding the meeting on a Monday afternoon at 3 p.m., a time when many ASU students were in class. I would have gone myself had I not had a final critique in my drawing class. They should have met at a time that was more convenient for students, seeing as how it affects us more than anyone else. But I guess we're just not all that important anymore. I hope that the administration does the right thing and rejects the motion, but quite frankly, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Chris Engler Religious values not reason for lawmaking Justin Boulmay's article in the Jan. 20 edition of The Appalachian was as amusing as it was absurd. He spent more than enough print space dwelling on atheist Michael Newdow for being "hypocritical." In doing so, Boulmay bypassed the true hypocrisy that has be prevalent throughout American history. Boulmay stated that "our country's" laws echo religious values. Sure, murder and theft have been illegal and need to stay that way. But these are values held by the majority of humanity and not simply those in the Christian circle of belief. Furthermore, religious values have had fluctuating significance throughout the course of history. These values range from everything such as restricting the natural human emotion of jealousy to never protecting oneself from sexually transmitted diseases. Fortunately our laws have yet to include those two, for it would instigate more damage than benefit to our society. Perhaps this is due to our great nation's history of basing laws on religious values, and the harm it entails. A patriarchal system, slavery, racism and homophobia: these are all elements in the history of our wonderful country and they all arrived from religious values. Conceivably, it is time for our country's laws to shift away from religious values and toward embracing the rights of the entire human race. Josh Kleinstreuer |
© 2004 ASU Student Publications
