The Oldest College Weekly in America. Founded 1868.

The Colgate Maroon-News

The Oldest College Weekly in America. Founded 1868.

The Colgate Maroon-News

The Oldest College Weekly in America. Founded 1868.

The Colgate Maroon-News

Queer Corner: To Infinity…and Identity?

Kris Pfister, Maroon-News Staff March 5, 2015

Here in the cozy little column of Queer Corner, we do our best to represent a diverse group of people with various experiences and plenty of their own opinions. However, Queer Corner is subject to human...

#ColgateProblems: Jug Jackets: Gone But Not Forgotten

#ColgateProblems: Jug Jackets: Gone But Not Forgotten

Amy Balmuth, Commentary Editor March 5, 2015

While I know nobody is stealing my jacket out of cold-blooded spite, sometimes it feels that way. Even though it’s been over a year since I lost my first jacket, I still get the urge to confront people wearing the navy blue North Face “Summit Series” and conduct an inspection for my name written on the inside. It was a crushing blow, since it had been repaired by the North Face factory just a week before. Suddenly, it was gone – alone in the world, without my arms in the sleeves for guidance.

First, I felt denial. Surely, no one would do this – it was February, it was negative degrees outside. What heinous party crimes had I committed to deserve this? This was followed by anger; I tore through the couch cushions with reckless abandon, caring little for the boy on top partaking in what seemed to be a very effective power nap.

I tried bargaining, thinking if only I had carried my jacket with me at all times this awful accident would not have occurred. Perhaps if I tied it around my waist in a style evocative of the simple days of middle school, disaster could have been averted and I would be braving the cold with a protective layer of polyester by my side. Then came sadness. I held back the tears as I remembered all the insulated, carefree times I had shared with my jacket. I felt like all I needed was a hug – partly to assuage the loss, but also because I required the body heat. Suddenly, I reached acceptance, soothed by the feeling that whomever had my jacket must be very warm and (hopefully) very sorry. My acceptance was characterized by constant refreshing of the Jug Jackets Returns Facebook page, unfortunately to no avail.

Though I was disappointed that my strongly-worded message (“If you are reading this, PLEASE return my coat, it belongs to Amy Balmuth and she is VERY cold”) did not have the desired effect, I understood that some things are simply out of my control. It is unfortunate that one of the most uncontrollable elements of my life is my outerwear but, like the song of the same name, you can’t always get what you want. However, in this case I tried and failed to get what I needed, instead leaving with a really cold, seemingly interminable, walk home.

The idea of a “jug jacket” is a phenomenon relatively unique to Colgate. When I visited University of Wisconsin, my host bluntly informed me “Yeah, you can’t wear a coat.” I scoffed at the idea considering the sub-zero temperatures and attempted a middle ground by wearing a wool sweater. Subsequently, I felt extremely out of place bouncing from party to party in a wool sweater. As I stood there, hot in the temperature way and unable to move for fear of heatstroke, I yearned for the disposable comfort of my jug jacket.

This is part of what makes the jug jacket phenomenon so remarkable and apt for sociological study – through their worthlessness, the jug jacket has great value. While the goal may be to have a jacket crappy enough that its disappearance is tolerable, a jacket that fits this definition is precious by consequence. It is a game that absolutely no one can win, and that’s why the Jug Jackets Returns page has enough posts to fill a small paperback.

Ultimately thinking (or even writing) about jackets does not protect you from bitter wind-chill. Nor does it console you from the loss of yet another puffy North Face with a ’Gate card and chapstick in the pocket. My sentiments go out towards all who have paid this ultimate sacrifice, and also if you find a blue quilted jacket with corduroy trim, please message me on Facebook.

The Unknown Threat: Cyberspace

Abe Benghiat, Class of 2018 March 5, 2015

What is the biggest threat to our national security?  Many will say Iran, North Korea, ISIS or other terror organizations.  These are all valid answers, but I believe that the largest threats are attacks...

Whats Left, Being Right: How to Handle Russia

What’s Left, Being Right: How to Handle Russia

Sid Wadhera & Brian Challenger, Maroon-News Staff March 5, 2015

What's Left: Not The “Evil Empire” 

Sid Wadhera

It should come as no surprise that Netflix’s House of Cards – a politically-current show – has Russia as the main foreign policy obstacle to the United States in its third season. Of course, the show’s writers are very astute; today, across the world from North Korea to Iran to Ukraine, American foreign policy is intricately connected to the actions of the Russian state. Naturally, the Republicans deride President Obama for his foreign policy with Russia, deeming it inconsistent and weak. This is not a fair assessment. Indeed, it has not been particularly consistent, but instead has adapted to change as needed when dealing with the unpredictable Russian state and the shifting concerns of the United States and its allies. 

President Obama and Frank Underwood understand one thing very clearly: the Russian government is an important partner when it comes to foreign policy dealings across the world, especially with countries that the United States deems antagonistic, like Iran and North Korea. In fact, Russia continues to play a key role in the P5+1 negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. Russia’s continued cooperation in the negotiations is imperative for a successful nuclear disarmament in the Middle East. The abrasive policy measures that Republican policy makers suggest will only serve to antagonize Russia, thereby removing any possibility of success. These negotiations are also vitally important when it comes to Russian participation regarding the crises in Syria and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. All of this is to say that an effective American policy in the Middle East is contingent on good faith and participation by the Russian government. President Obama – with his reset in 2009 and reluctance to antagonize President Putin – has a deep understanding of these complexities. 

At this point, every Republican is thinking of one word: Ukraine. Of course the Ukrainian crisis is a real issue that deserves attention, and Russia’s role in destabilizing the country deserves more than just derision and condemnation. It would, however, be very unwise to look at the Ukraine crisis outside of the broader global dynamic. Ukraine is now almost a metonymy for Russia’s regional ambitions, yet there are players in the Ukraine crisis that prevent the United States from taking rash actions, namely its NATO Allies. 

Many of the western European nations are dependent on Russia for energy; furthermore, Russia constitutes one of the largest markets for exports outside of the European Union. For countries with economies still struggling from the economic crisis of 2008, it would be extremely unwise to antagonize a major trading partner and energy provider. Rather than taking brash actions, President Obama understands the needs of America’s allies, which is why you see the more involved players, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, taking leading roles in negotiations. It shows President Obama’s high capacity to treat Russia as it ought to be treated: as a state with varied and dynamic interests that have a lot of intersections with the United States’. 

So while Republicans continue to deride President Obama and his administration for their handling of Russia, they fail to grasp the political realities. They are stuck in a 1980s mindset, believing that Russia is the “evil empire” of Reagan’s day. Russia today is a vast and complicated nation, much like the Soviet Union was, that has shifting interests. As of now, the strategic interests of the United States dictate that it is best to work with Russia in some areas while refusing to indulge them in expansionist fancies. While this policy may be deemed “inconsistent,” it is what serves the best interests of the United States. And for that, we should be thankful that President Obama is no Putin or Frank Underwood. 

 

Being Right: A Familiar Story

Brian Challenger

On February 27, Russian activist Boris Nemtsov was murdered. Boris was an outspoken critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin and one of Russia’s strongest advocates for democracy. Coincidentally, his murder falls two days before a rally he was planning against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This could be a coincidence but in a country where Putin’s enemies consistently find themselves dead or imprisoned, it seems unlikely. Ironically, Mr. Nemtsov told a Russian blog two weeks earlier that “I’m afraid Putin will kill me.” 

The shooting took place right outside the Kremlin, one of the most secure and videotaped areas in all of Moscow. Pretty much any other place in Moscow would have been a safer place to kill someone. Not to mention that opposition leaders are constantly under surveillance by Russian intelligence agencies. But these highly trained intelligence operatives somehow failed to notice that someone else was following him. The shooters were sending a message to other opposition leaders. They are sending them a message that any opposition leader can be killed anywhere, and there will be no consequences. 

There is no need for concern; Putin has generously agreed to take charge of the investigation himself and to personally determine whether or not he or his government killed Nemtsov. The initial findings have already begun to shed light on the case. Putin has determined that he definitely is not responsible – deeming the murder a “contract killing.”  But the question of whether or not Putin actually gave the order is irrelevant. He has started a massive propaganda campaign, branding anyone who disagrees with him as fifth columnists – national traitors who are working to undermine Russia from within. Putin has created a culture of fear and death inside Russia in which the most bellicose and bloodthirsty elements of the government have been pushed to prominence. Last week the chief prosecutor in Russia declared that the Russian constitution was “standing in the way of protecting the state’s interests.” Chilling words from a man tasked with carrying out the law of the land. 

Unfortunately, this story has become a familiar one. All around the world governments are acting in a more authoritative manner by shutting down opposition voices. Putin’s government has just been a shining star in that regard. He has repeatedly tested the West’s commitment to freedom and a liberal rule of law and found it lacking. Even in the United States, the government has been seizing more power and restricting freedoms. New York Times reporter James Risen has named President Obama the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation. In 2005, Risen tried to publish an article about a failed CIA operation in Iran. The government acted quickly, squashing the article and subpoenaing Risen, demanding he reveal his source. For six years, Risen fought the Justice Department, risking jail time to protect the leaker. The government sentenced former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling for the leaks and sent him to prison anyway – and this is only one case. By standing by and watching crackdowns happen, enacting them at home, President Obama and the U.S. are telling dictators that it is okay to crack down on journalists and others who question the government. If the U.S. doesn’t take a stand against our own crackdowns on freedom and across the world, dictators will only get more brazen and activists for freedom will keep getting murdered.

More Smiles, Less Stress

Holly Mascolo, News Editor March 5, 2015

I have found – and I’m sure that many others would agree – that Colgate is intense, for lack of a better word. I don’t mean to complain or be ungrateful about being a student here, but it can definitely...

Minus the City: The Overwhelmed Overthinkers

Minus the City: The Overwhelmed Overthinkers

Danielle Dillon, Maroon-News Staff February 26, 2015

When I found myself desperately searching my trash on my computer at 2:00 a.m. last

 

Saturday, I knew my nostalgia had hit a low point. The trash-turned-treasure that I was trying to find was not an important document, a resume I had accidentally deleted or even a lost photo. Instead, I was stuck pathetically searching for old text messages. Cursing my previously stronger, independent self who managed to outsmart her future weaker self by deleting the messages off the apparent face of the earth, I realized just how pathetic I was being. 

I am a notorious over-thinker. If there’s anything to be thought about, odds are I’ve thought about it – twice over. This gets me in trouble more often than not, managing to drive myself – and those around me – crazy at a rather constant rate. Questions are constantly running through my head about what happened, what went wrong, what I did, what was said; I’m always stuck over-analyzing everything. Add social media and old text messages to the mix, and you’ve found yourself one overwhelmed over-thinker. 

Our online history does nothing but perpetuate over-thinking, allowing for parts of our past to remain preserved – even the parts we wish to forget. Beyond the history of messages, we’re always being reminded of things we would rather not be reminded of on our social media. Social media has become the bane of an over-thinker’s existence, adding a whole other layer to what we can over-think. We’re stuck being reminded of the people we aren’t, having to unknowingly compete with people in our feed, or being reminded of the people we would rather forget. It places importance on things that shouldn’t matter, especially in romantic relationships, and when it’s time to move on, our social media past is sometimes all that we have left.

The perfect solution for an over-thinker is to shut everything off. Shut off the phone, silence those loud thoughts and realize that the past is in the past and there comes a point of over-thinking to a fault, which is what far too many of us so often get caught up in. An over-thinker’s least favorite, but probably most necessary step is the recognition that everything happens for a reason. It’s cliché, but it’s been proved far too many times not to be taken seriously. 

As for my Saturday night dilemma, I never did find those messages. Along with my realization of how pathetic I was being, I realized that I don’t need old messages to figure out my past. I actually did myself a favor in deleting those messages, allowing myself one less thing to think about. After all, you have to find the delete button at some point, so why not now?

QUANTITY OVER QUALITY:  Where do we draw the line that decides what is too much?

A Shift Towards Simplicity

Breanna Giovanniello, Class of 2016 & Grace Dennis February 26, 2015

QUANTITY OVER QUALITY:  Where do we draw the line that decides what is too much?

The Healthy Acceptance Movement

Zachary Silver, Class of 2015 February 26, 2015

Moderation and consistency are the keys to a physically and mentally healthy lifestyle. The media tends to set a terrible example of the ideal body image. Women who are rib-revealingly slim, men with deep-ridged...

Queer Corner: 50 Shades Of Kink: An Exploratory Interview

Queer Corner: 50 Shades Of Kink: An Exploratory Interview

Kris Pfister, Maroon-News Staff February 26, 2015

With the recent release of the movie Fifty Shades of Grey, Christian Grey’s sexually dominating behavior is on a lot of people’s minds. You don’t have to like the movie to appreciate its place in popular culture and the stir of opinions it has caused. So, what does this film have to do with queerness? I’ve invited someone with above-average knowledge of BDSM/kink culture, sophomore Bennie Guzman, to give us some greater insight. 

Kris Pfister: Alright, let’s start with the basics. What is BDSM?

Bennie Guzman: So the full definition is bondage/discipline, domination/submission, sadism/masochism. It encompasses a whole bunch of different things. There’s tickle torture all the way to extreme.

KP: There is debate about whether or not BDSM culture should be associated with the LGBTQ community. What do you think? Should it be, should it not be?

BG: I definitely think it should be. Especially if we’re including the queer aspect of it – yes, it should be included. It’s something that is queering sex. BDSM culture is all about sexual freedom; it is kind of a counterculture. One of the biggest critiques is that being LGBTQ is more than just sex, but at the same time, sex is the only thing that makes us different from everyone else. I think it is something that should be talked about. 

KP: Getting more into the specifics of BDSM, why is there such a stigma against the Domination/submission (D/s) community in particular?

BG: I think it’s primarily media and what we’ve been taught to think about sex. BDSM is a spectrum of different things. I think people have been taught to assume that BDSM is whips/chains/leather, but it encompasses so much more than that. People leave out tickle play and light touches – both are forms of BDSM. I think D/s in particular has such a stigma around it because we see a problem with it. In BDSM relationships, it is agreed upon that someone will dominate and someone will submit; whereas in society, there’s this assumption that someone will dominate and someone will submit. And that’s where we get into some of these ideas of domestic violence, abuse and power struggles in relationships. We assume BDSM perpetuates those things when in actuality it asks for something more. 

KP: As you know, the popular film adaptation of E.L. James’s Fifty Shades of Grey recently debuted. How well do you think this film represents the D/s community?

BG: It doesn’t. It just doesn’t. I felt it did two things: it romanticizes abuse, but at the same time it demonizes BDSM. There’s a lot of Christian Grey pressuring Anastasia Steele. In that sense, it’s more abuse. We assume that the abuse is because of the BDSM play, but in actuality those two are mutually exclusive things. There are some moments in which they are having fun, but later on she’s trying to get into a deeper point in the relationship and he’s not budging until he gets what he wants. I think at that point she feels like she has to be submissive in order to get his attention. If you take out the BDSM, you would see that there’s just abuse. He manipulates her into doing things that he wants to do. A good thing I saw from it is that the film does bring light to BDSM, but it makes it appear that the problem with the relationship is BDSM; it places the blame on BDSM. It doesn’t put it on him, it puts it on the culture. I think the ramifications of the film are more harmful than beneficial.

KP: Going back to the abusive standpoint, would you say that it is the film’s portrayal of emotional intimacy, or lack thereof, that is unhealthy rather than the D/s relationship specifically?

BG: I definitely think so. If you were to separate the movie into just the BDSM scenes and the “romantic” things, you would see two different films. In the emotional aspect, they’re both very manipulating towards each other and it makes it seem as though they can control each other all the time. That’s one of the biggest assumptions made about BDSM culture: if you’re a Dominant, you are always dominant, an abuser, a sadist. That’s not how it is. Fifty Shades of Grey demonizes BDSM because it puts the play with unhealthy relationships. If you’re going to have a BDSM relationship, you need to have a healthy relationship first. BDSM relationships are probably healthier because there is constant communication. That’s how healthy relationships should be; it should be a conversation. The film takes out aspects such as aftercare and communication – the good things that come from BDSM relationships.

International Relations Column: Steps For European Jews In The Wake Of Political Tension

International Relations Column: Steps For European Jews In The Wake Of Political Tension

Jacob Wasserman, Maroon-News Staff & Stephanie Lipper February 26, 2015

Standing Their Ground: Not The Time For Emigration

By Jacob Wasserman

Amid the recent rise of anti-Semitic violence in Europe, it is my opinion that European Jews should stay put and not immigrate to Israel. While it is comforting to know that Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcome Europe’s Jews with open arms, fleeing in the midst of violence would be accepting a forced exodus, which Jews cannot afford to do.

Moving to Israel itself would not be a defeat, as many Jews feel strong ties to the country. The defeat would be fleeing their current residences because they were kicked out, and not because they chose to go. Most European Jews, ones who feel content in their current homes, should only consider moving to Israel if they are in dire straits; if violence in their home country is so severe, similar to conditions before World War II, then they should not remain. For this reason, I believe Israel is a necessity for Jews. It need not be the primary home of all Jews, but a safe haven for them in case anything catastrophic were to happen. Right now, it is shameful to see violent acts occurring not only against Jews, but also against western values in general. It is unfortunate, but the violence is not strong enough to force a population into leaving. 

If Jews were to accept what is happening and leave Europe, it would show signs of weakness and vulnerability. It would prove a victory for anti-Semites and encourage violence where it has not been as prevalent, such as in the United States. Anti-Semitic and anti-western acts would likely gain traction after seeing its effects on Europe’s Jewish population.  

Anti-Semitism puts small Jewish populations all around the world at risk. If they become significantly more concentrated, as they would if all of Europe’s Jews emigrated to Israel, the level of risk in various regions would likely change. Isolated violent attacks, such as the recent murders at a Jewish deli and a Bat-Mitzvah in Europe, could become less prevalent. If all of Europe’s Jews left, a majority of the Jewish population would be in Israel, which could strengthen the leverage of Israel’s anti-Zionist neighbors in the future. A mass emigration out of Europe would be dangerous for Jews around the world, and even western values in general; Jews should fight anti-Semitism at home and stand their ground.  

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Campaign Strategy

By Stephanie Lipper

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for the immigration of European Jews to Israel earlier this month, following a shooting at a synagogue in Copenhagen. While there is much logistical impracticality of European Jews migrating en masse to Israel, the real area of interest lies in Netanyahu’s intention behind this statement. Although it may appear that he is simply acting as a symbol of unity for the Jewish community of the world, his underlying message is much less altruistic. The timing of this statement is in no way an accident as March 17, the date of the Knesset election, quickly approaches. It seems Netanyahu has taken this opportunity to politicize these tragedies for his campaign’s benefit.

Through his career and especially during this

campaign, he has portrayed himself as a strong leader who is especially competent with national security issues. He has a history of extensive military experience to strengthen this claim. After a series of attacks targeting Jews in Europe, the most recent of which was the shooting in Copenhagen, Netanyahu had an opportunity to assert this image one more time before the election.

By offering Israel as a safe haven for Jews who feel persecuted or endangered elsewhere, he implies that Israel is safer than Western Europe. This shows his confidence in the nation’s security despite its location in such a tumultuous region. If this claim is accepted as true, then this means that Israel has reached this level of safety under his leadership, and perhaps because of his leadership. By emphasizing the idea of Israel as a safe haven, Netanyahu is, in effect, praising his own leadership. He is taking a series of tragedies and transforming them into a source of political capital to fuel the final weeks of his campaign.

Alumni Column: Colgate Around The World And Through Time

Kit Smith, Class of 1963 February 26, 2015

Graduation from Colgate ends one phase of a student’s life but opens up a whole new vista. The Colgate experience doesn’t end when the diploma is handed out, and in many ways it is just beginning....

What’s Left, Being Right: National Security In Crisis

Erica Borsack, Class of 2016 & Orion Schelz February 26, 2015

What's Left: Allow A Clean Bill To PassBy Erica BorsackWhen you hear the date February 27, what do you think of? Do you think of House of Cards returning to Netflix, or funding for the Department of Homeland...

Load More Stories

Comments (0)

All The Colgate Maroon-News Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest