opinions

Political opinions just out of reach

By:
Published Oct 10, in Opinions

As opinions editor, I fully realize that this section has not really addressed many political issues this year — an election year.
A couple of people, that I know of, have complained about the lack of political pieces in the opinions section this year.
There have been a few political opinions spread out over a couple of issues, but I agree that there has not been a strong enough political presence in this section.
I sincerely apologize for the lack of political pieces, but I did not feel comfortable writing the political pieces myself.
Without writing the pieces myself, I had no way of remedying the situation without berating my politically-minded friends. They have lives, too.
Just as a general comment, if there is something you want to see in the opinions section, write about it! You don’t have to be a staff writer for the cluster in order to submit something. If you send a piece to opinions@mercercluster.com, chances are you will end up printed in the paper.
So far, I have avoided doing a political opinions piece. I had originally planned on avoiding doing one all together, but I think it’s necessary for me to give reasons why I didn’t want to write one.
You see, I have been living under a rock since our last presidential election. In high school, I was very well informed about what was going on in the political sphere because my teachers were required to keep us informed.
I knew who was running, I knew what each candidate was running for, I even had an opinion about who I would vote for if I had been old enough to cast a ballot.
Fast forward four years, I have no idea what is going on in the political world. Maybe I’m being an irresponsible American, but I doubt I’m alone when I say that I’m lost.
I kind of equate this scenario to falling asleep in class or completely zoning out towards the beginning of class and then, near the end, your professor calls on you to answer a question. She expects an answer, and you have no idea what is going on.
I feel this way towards the upcoming election. I zoned out near the beginning, four years ago, and all of a sudden I’m expected to come up with a response. I have to answer the ultimate question, “Who do I want to be America’s next top candidate?”
Ok, I kid about the whole next top model reference, but in all seriousness, I have no idea who is running. I could give you my best guess from having read various facebook statuses or random news articles, but I wouldn’t be very confident in my answer.
I know Obama is running again. No surprise there. However, I have no idea what ideals and plans he is campaigning this go around. That ignorance, my friend, is a problem.
The upcoming election is making me feel panicked. Kind of like when I haven’t even started studying for a test, and the test date is quickly approaching. This late in the game, how do I choose who I want to vote for?
I don’t really watch tv, but I’m assuming those ads are starting to pop up where celebrities and the like are asking us to get out there and vote.
Well, sure, I can show up on election day, submit a ballot, and be on my way. But, an uninformed vote is a vote that does not necessarily aid the country in becoming better. Ideally, we should have a president that best represents our personal values. In turn, the country will then reflect our personal values.
Of course, everyone doesn’t have the same personal values. So, how do we have productive conversations with each other about who we want to represent us for the next four years?
Do we all gather in groups where we all share the same ideals and decide which candidate lines up with those ideals the best? Sure, that could work, but at the same time the idea seems preposterous.
To make an informed decision, we should keep other people’s values that are different from our own in mind. Their opinion counts, too. Plus, we should have discussions about how our values line up with values that may disagree with ours.
This scenario, however, brings about an interesting issue. What are our values? We’re adults now. Do we blindly adopt our parents’ values? Do we latch onto our friends’ values because they seem nice?
Personally, I’m still trying to decide what I value and how to define those values in a nice, neat way. I don’t think I will ever be able to, but my struggle is a real one.
Our president, who ever we, as a nation, choose, will not represent each of our values in a nice, neat way. We may love him in some ways, and strongly dislike him in others. But before he even enters the role of president, we should already know what to expect — generally.
I missed the political debate the other night on account of I’m a tired college student and fell asleep, but even my friends who managed to watch the political debate didn’t really watch it. Many paid rapt attention, but mostly for completing a game of Bingo or to one up each other in another type of drinking game.
As college students, we are at the prime of our lives and can make a definitive impact on how our country runs. Many of us, myself included, throw this opportunity away just because we are uninformed.
For those of you who are informed, I applaud you. You are a better citizen than I am. It’s not too incredibly late to become informed. The election season is upon us, embrace it. Become informed and vote!

Comments on this opinion
can be sent to
opinions@mercercluster.com

This or That: Jittery Joe’s or Starbucks

By:
Published Sep 26, in Columns, Opinions

If you’re like me, you have established your series of ideal study places and know exactly which places works for what type of studying you’re doing.
If one of your study places is an establishment where you can order food or drinks, you may have even become one of the regulars — those loyal customers that everyone recognizes. If you’re lucky, the establishment of your choice may have your drink or meal ready for you as soon as you walk through the door.
I’m not that lucky — I keep changing my mind. The baristas never know what to expect from me.
When it’s time for me to hit the books, coffee shops are usually my first stop before I consider anywhere else. Coffee shops, in general, usually have long hours that accommodate the average college student’s sleep/study habits and they have caffeine right there waiting for you.
There used to be three main varieties of coffee shops around macon, but sadly Joshua Cup is no longer a thing. That coffee shop, in my opinion, is what the quintessential college town coffee shop was supposed to look like. It’s a shame they closed down.
However, I digress. This article isn’t about Joshua Cup. As the title states, this article is This or That, implying the comparison of two different things, the things in the subhead.
This is a battle between Starbucks and our neighborhood Jittery Joe’s.
Plus, the argument for this article would have been a lot more complicated if I had three boxers trying to duke it out and only two spots in the boxing ring.
Just to be fair, I go to Jittery Joe’s and Starbucks frequently, but I will definitely drive the fifteen or so minutes across town to Starbucks when I really need to get some homework done. I prefer Starbucks for a multitude of reasons.
When I study, I try to make myself as anonymous as possible. That means going to a place where I will run into the least amount of people that I know or know me as possible.
Best case scenario, I don’t recognize a single person where I am. Of course, the longer I stay in Macon, the harder this task becomes, but I manage.
Starbucks is perfect for becoming anonymous. Not many of my friends or Mercer brethren take the trek to Starbucks, so I’m able to get a lot done.
At Jittery Joe’s, I usually end up running into at the very least two people I know and we always start up conversations. I’m usually doing homework so I’m much more likely to take advantage of the opportunity to procrastinate and chat it up with the people I know.
To go along the same lines as making myself anonymous is the issue of environment. I love the environment of Starbucks. Jittery Joe’s is almost always packed. There are way too many people in there and just not enough space to fit them all in. Plus, the decor is too dark that it feels like walking into a cave.
Now caves are great, I love the cave like atmosphere to do reading and relaxing with a cup of coffee, but for my study needs I need a bright, airy space. Starbucks does that for me.
The coffee is much better at Starbucks, or at least it’s more tolerable. Nothing against Jittery Joe’s coffee, but it is so strong that it’s a turn off.
The strength of this coffee is enough to turn me into a shaky mess only after a few sips. I can’t focus. I’m all over the place — it’s dangerous. Plus, Starbucks has that new rewards program. I’m half way to gold membership. Need. More. Coffee.
I would choose Starbucks over Jittery Joe’s any day. I do love that Jittery Joe’s is so close to campus and it’s a nice place to relax, have class, or class meetings. But for the hardcore studying and/or coffee drinking ventures, Starbucks is my coffee shop of choice.

 

Comments on this opinion can be sent to cecilia.villagomez@live.mercer.edu

We vote, government officials receive employment

We give them a job, what do they give us in return?

By:
Published Sep 26, in Opinions

The United States and most western states are some form of democracy with the U.S being a representative democracy also known as a Republic. What this means is that sovereignty is in the hand of its citizens and the government acquires its legitimacy from those citizens.
In a republic, a government must aim to meet the interests of the citizens whether they be economic, militaristic or social. It seems like a simple relationship. I vote for someone to represent my interests and he will go to congress and do exactly that but the reality is that it’s a very complicated system.
What happens when my perceptions about what would be in my best interests are wrong? On a micro-level I alone would bear the consequences of the choices I make but a government operates on a macro-level and the consequences of bad policies can wreak an entire nation. Case in point: the Soviet Union. Communism worked wonderfully for them didn’t it?
A Republic owes to its people a responsibility to meet the long-term interests of its citizens while maintaining some form of protection from bad interests that could damage the whole.
Representatives have a responsibility to shield the nation from the consequences of potentially devastating policies that, at the moment of voting, citizens may not realize are bad.This means that representatives in a government must be farsighted. But there lies the potential for representatives who know nothing about the issues they are supposed to make decisions about.
The representatives should place decision-making powers in the hands of those who are more knowledgeable and lack the need to pander for votes by not having to be elected.
Now the government would still be a republic with power rested firmly with the citizens, but the actual law and decision makers would be experts within the field that they are dealing with.
The government already kind of works this way with its various departments having some autonomy but the difference with a Technocracy is where the ultimate decision-making power lies.
In a Technocracy a council of generals would make all military decisions, a council of teachers would make all decisions related to education and a panel of scientists would make all decisions relating to financing of science projects and so on.
Cooperation would be necessary in deciding the budget of each council but for the most part nearly complete autonomy for each council.
A good example would be the Federal Reserve. It is a part of the government but it operates independently and its mandate comes from the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A relationship of citizens electing representatives who in turn appoint experts to oversee the nation’s monetary policy.
This system in all area’s of life would be preferable because it ensures that politicians would not be using the military for their own agendas, it ensures that someone who never studied medicine is not making decisions about what is right or wrong for the female body and it ensures that someone who has never studied the environment can not pass a law denouncing climate change as a hoax.
Will all technocrats be right? Probably not, but I suspect that they would make relatively more right decisions. If you are wondering, these technocrats would be similar to the way the Federal Reserve operates in that the president appoints people to the board and they are confirmed by the Senate.
Eventually the president would become a figurehead and congress would become similar in function to the general assembly of the United Nations and the government, overall, would become much more efficient, in my opinion.

 

Comments on this opinion can be sent to salim.y.ali@live.mercer.edu

Don’t trust yourself

By:
Published Sep 26, in Opinions

Is it odd that one of the first things adults tell you to do as you grow up is to trust yourself?
Trust yourself, they say. Have self-confidence, conviction. Now I believe as much as anyone thatyou should not flip-flop in your decisions or opinions, that makes a weak person. However, I fail to see the logic in trusting yourself.
For example, it’s often shown in sitcoms (and I would hope in most people’s lives, certainly in mine) that, as a teenager, when you screw up, your parents comfort you.
When you over-schedule and can’t keep commitments or do something stupid and get in an accident, it’s okay because that’s something everyone does and, as my mother said, “it’s all a part of life.”
So we’re expected to trust ourselves, but also to expect to screw things up and be okay with it. We should trust ourselves to fail. That almost seems to defeat the point if you ask me.
Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” He was a genius, a great boon to humanity, and yet that is all humans do, is try and try and try, expecting not to fail when we do it frequently.
So, I believe Einstein was a brilliant scientist and a horrible philosopher.
All we do, because we’ve all been raised in the same way in this aspect, is try our hardest and expect not to fail the next go-round. Why? Because to us living with hard possibility—no, probability—of failure kills our drive and our passion. Which I believe is utterly stupid.
That is what many people, optimists, call pessimism. Realizing our faults and how they handicap us, rather than assuming we can overcome them, seems so negative as to be defeatist. I don’t see any other way of seeing things.
How can you look past human failure? Trusting yourself is what leads to failed relationships because you thought you could balance work and social life.
That is what leads to failing to pass tests or complete assignments, because you think you can get it done in the morning, or that you’re smart enough to figure something out in time.
If we lacked faith in ourselves, you may ask, how would we get anything done? Easy. We would turn to the only thing we had left. If not ourselves, we have to put our faith in others.
It sounds so stupid, because other people fail just as much as us, and even more if you’re smart and they’re stupid.
But who gets anywhere alone? Going back to Einstein, or maybe the great Benjamin Franklin, they were sure able to do things by themselves. But what country is founded with one person, how many trips to space have only been put together and enacted by a single man?
Humans need leaders, a person everyone else can trust and a person who can trust himself to take care of others. But what do you call a person whom everyone trusts and that person trusts only himself? A dictator. That or a religious leader.
Our great president isn’t trusted wholly, that’s why we have a Congress, as much as people hate it. Hitler, well, whatever he said went, no matter what his generls thought.
Every CEO has a Board of Directors who can overrule him. Jesus answered to no one, nor Gandhi.
Whatever they did was truly holy, without anyone’s doubt.

 

Comments on this opinion can be sent to ian.g.brooks@live.mercer.edu

Technological age makes instant gratification a necessity

By:
Published Sep 26, in Opinions

It seems to me that social networking sites and fast Internet connection have taken over our lives. I recently got an iPad for my birthday and I haven’t been able to be away from it for more than an hour…if that much. It’s my new favorite toy, so it makes sense that I have been guarding it with my life. However, I don’t have it hooked up to a cellular network so without Internet, the device is rendered almost useless.
Once I got out of range of a free wi-fi service, I started to think about how dependent I have become on the need for instant a gratification by way of the Internet.
Most of what I use the Internet for when I need that instant gratification fix is silly stuff like a YouTube video that my friend mentioned or seeing a familiar face in a new movie that I have to look up on imdb.com to see where I know the actor is from.
What worries me the most about the instant gratification phenomenon the Internet and social networking sites have created is the significant decrease in my capacity to remember things.
I remember the time before  being attached to an electronic devise that had Internet capabilities, I was able to remember the addresses of all of my friends, their phone numbers, and I actually did well in spelling bees because I could actually remember the spelling of things without the reliance on spell check.
Now, I can’t spell anything and the only numbers I really remember are my parents’ cell phones, the house phone, and my own cell number. Beyond that, I have to refer to my cell phone’s address book.
I know that isn’t entirely Internet connected, but most of the phone numbers I have in my cell phone are because Facebook automatically connected to my address book and downloaded all of the available phone numbers. How nifty, right? Wrong.
I would much rather ask someone for their phone number and give them mine in person rather than have them automatically have my number and I automatically have theirs. While I’m on this tangent, this personal disconnection we have with other human beings is becoming more and more of an issue.
Sure the world is getting smaller and we are able to talk to people on the other side of the world within seconds, but what about the people in the same room with us, or the people walking along the sidewalk next to you on the way to class.
If you just sit on the quad and watch people walk by between classes, you will see at least 70% of the people that pass you with headphones in, texting, or talking on the phone even though they are walking with a group of other people. I know I’m guilty of this same gesture, but that doesn’t mean I’m happy about it.
At one point last year, I made it a point to not look at my phone directly after class. I even started wearing a watch.
Of course, neither of those things lasted very long, but that was mostly because peer pressure is often the strongest when actions instead of words are used.
People can ask me to do something I don’t want to do until I’m blue in the face, and I won’t budge, but if you expect me to walk alongside you and not talk to me for the duration of our walk, of course I’m going to whip out my phone and busy myself.
This could be a radical suggestion, but what if we all just put away our phones for an hour. What if the entire campus went without a phone or a device that sends any type of messages for an hour.
Could you imagine what campus would be like? I’d venture to guess that people would actually talk to other people.
I’m well aware that people talk to each other on campus and in other environments, but most of our conversations are now spent on taking about Internet related things. I can be in the same room as my friends, no words are being said out loud, but an entire conversation is being had online amongst the people in the room. Houston, we have a problem.
By no means am I suggesting we should get rid of Internet all together. I can’t seem to work up enough gumption to delete my Facebook account, let alone the entire Internet.
I realize that the Internet has become such a large part of the way our daily lives function, but there comes a time when you just need to take a break for a few minutes of every day.
Play a game of cards, using actual cards instead of electronic cars. Open up a board game, talk to your friends, play with play-doh or Legos. Go outside and read a book, play a pick up game.
In many ways the Internet and the type of tools it has created have hindered healthy lifestyles of the past.
Now that I’m getting older, I’m beginning to realize the importance of  true connections with other human beings. And by true connections I mean face to face conversations.
Nothing beats seeing the emotions flash across a person’s face during a conversation. Those emotions can’t be recreated over the Internet, even though we try with emoticons.
After a while, those emoticons just get ridiculous. But the Internet had changed us.
Facebook and twitter have significantly changed the way we interact with each other, and other Internet related activities have altered the way we approach education or everyday activities.
I’m excited about the level of technology that we have reached and the direction it’s heading. However, I’m not excited about the prospect of losing our humanity in the process.

 

Comments on this opinion can be sent to opinions@mercercluster.com

‘I feel like’ doesn’t mean what you think it means

Introductory phrases change the intellectual merit of statements

By:
Published Sep 26, in Opinions

As an English major, I’ve always found it fascinating to watch the rise and fall of popular phrases in our everyday vocabulary.
Do you remember when “legit” was a thing? For that matter, does anyone remember when the question “Is that a thing?” became a thing?
Most phrases that worm their way into our meme-saturated culture are inane but humorous. Others are incredibly annoying but mostly harmless (“YOLO,” anyone?).
But there are certain phrases that insert themselves more insidiously into our speech and change the nuances of our language—phrases that, while they may be applicable in certain casual scenarios, have no place in our academic environment.
I’m thinking of one in particular: a seemingly innocent little linguistic chimera that has gotten out of control. You might think I’m crazy for suggesting this, but the phrase “I feel like” has got to go.
In your next conversation, pay attention to how many times you hear someone use the phrase “I feel like” to introduce a claim. Then compare it to how many times you hear it used in class—particularly if your class is seminar-based.
I can almost guarantee that the average in each situation will be pretty similar. In my own classes I’ve noticed that most of our comments—if not all—are prefaced with “I feel like.” And I can’t claim to be immune to the influence; several times I’ve literally had to stop the words from coming out of my mouth.
Somehow, we have made them a very natural part of conversation.
Which is unfortunate, because it’s kind of a stupid phrase. (Along with “kind of”. Count that one up in your next conversation, too. I dare you.)
When we preface what we say with the phrase “I feel like,” we are suddenly reducing our mental processes to something much more basic.
With this language, we say that the opinions we choose regarding religion, politics, human interaction and the way we view the world—all vitally important topics that deserve careful contemplation—are more like emotional whims than critically explored ideas.
And that is a big problem. Do we really want people making decisions based purely on feeling and impulse?
The underlying assumption of this seemingly innocent phrase is: Yes, we are perfectly fine with letting emotions trump reason. Whether we believe the sentiment or not, this is what the meaning of the phrase boils down to.
It’s also an apologetic way to introduce what we think. We know how fallible “feeling” is; that’s the point of logical thinking. But by introducing our thoughts as feelings, we hide behind that fallibility by default.
On the one hand, we can easily blame feelings we already know are illogical when someone challenges an argument we prefaced with “I feel like.”
On the other hand, we can assume that because our thoughts are feelings, they are placed beyond the realm of logic. As a culture we don’t often say to each other “Your feelings are wrong” for fear of stepping on toes.
Whenever an idea or argument is presented as a feeling, the unspoken assumption is “If what I’m saying is wrong, I can’t really help it; it’s just what I feel.”
We came to college to learn how to think. In a liberal arts education and in a science- and math-based education, we are taught to rely on logic and critical thinking.
The philosophers on whom our education is based argued for methodical, step-by-step processes by which we come to informed beliefs and decisions.
If they could hear us trampling all over that groundwork with our emphasis on “feelings,” they would probably be rolling in their graves.
Don’t get me wrong: it would be ridiculous to assume that this thought process runs through our heads every time we use the phrase “I feel like,” or that we consciously choose the words because we are trying to avoid having other people reproach or critique our ideas.
However, words carry with them nuances that affect the way we perceive them. Even if we mean “I think”—even if our entire class knows we mean “I think” when we say this in a Great Books discussion—the words “I feel” carry a very different nuance that our brains recognize, even if only subconsciously.
Let me also be clear that I don’t think that listening to one’s heart—one’s feelings—is always a bad thing.
Certain philosophers that I’ve quite agreed with have argued that some feelings are fundamental in human nature and help direct us toward truth.
Sometimes our sentiments have a better idea of what is going on in a situation—particularly a relational one—than our cluttered brains can comprehend.
However, when it comes to beliefs and especially when it comes to academics, a feeling just isn’t going to cut it in an argument.
If we truly regarded beliefs as ideas that sprang from our feelings and emotions, we would never challenge them and would never come to better understanding.
We would hinder our own growth. The heart and the mind aren’t mutually exclusive, and the best understanding is going to come from a marriage of the two.
I propose that we exorcise this linguistic from our vocabulary. At the very least, let us take responsibility for our mental processes.
Honestly, we are smarter than we think we are and should not try to hide our brains behind our emotions. As students of academia and of the world, we’re a lot better than that.

 

Comments on this opinion
can be sent to
entertainment@mercercluster.com

College student lifestyle is often an uninformed one

By:
Published Sep 26, in Opinions

With barely a month left until the presidential election in November, I am incredibly surprised by how little political rhetoric is circulating in my life. I have yet to see a political ad for either party ad on TV, radio, internet or print.
This is in stark contrast to my high school experience during the 2008 election. At the time, I considered myself an informed citizen. I listened to the news on the radio while driving to and from both school and work. I watched the evening news on ABC while doing my homework. Robots called our house phone almost non-stop telling us to vote for one candidate or another. Of course, Facebook was awash with debates.
Had I been able to vote, I feel that I could’ve made an informed decision based on the non-stop bombardment. I was passionate enough about the political battle to work twelve straight hours at the polling centers during the 2008 election.
This election, I live off campus but live close enough (1.7 miles) to opt for bicycling over driving.
This eliminates radio news. My house does not have cable partially because we don’t even have a TV, eliminating my former evening tradition. We don’t have a house phone, so nix the robo-dialers.
I do pay for a commercial-less Netflix account. On my internet browser, my ad blocker keeps even the most pervasive political ads out of sight.
My reliance on the convenience of technology to only show me what what I want to see, when I want to see it has led me to enter my most ignorant period in my life.
Recently I’ve gotten most of my news from from Stumble Upon and Facebook solely for their convenience. I’m narrowing my exposure to the nation and world for the sake of convenience.
Facebook discussion of political happenings are absent from my wall as well. Political talk has been reduced to small quips about either candidate rather than produce debate. I honestly believe my generation is jaded to politics when midterms are so much more pressing.
What disturbs me is how little I want to leave my internet rituals in favor of seeking out information on the internet.
Comments on this opinion
can be sent to
design@mercercluster.com

U.S. Women’s Soccer: Gold and a bust

By:
Published Aug 15, in Opinions

I became enamored with the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) when they won over the hearts of many during a miraculous win over Brazil in the 2011 Women’s World Cup. Unfortunately the USWNT lost in the finals against Japan in penalty kicks. Despite the loss, the USWNT was greeted with a warm welcome and a spike in nationwide interest in women’s soccer. I have always been upset with the way people view women’s soccer. Many times women soccer players are seen as weaker and slower and unable to keep up with male soccer players. I disagree to a degree. I don’t really enjoy watching some of the men’s professionl soccer games because they can become so melodramatic. Half the time they throw themselves on the ground asking for a non-call. If you see a female player doing that on the field they get chastised. It’s almost expected that women have the “male” mentality when they get hurt on the field. A common phrase among my teammates when we get knocked around or cut up is, “Be a man. Rub some dirt in it!” And we get back up running. Men are allowed to take their time getting up without being seen as weak to onlookers. The expectations for behavior create an unequal playing field that demeans the quality of women’s professional soccer. I do admit that women’s soccer is slower pace, but that does not take away from the drama that ensues when the USWNT steps on the field — buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Before the 2012 Summer olympics came olympic qualifying games. The U.S. Men’s team fell short and was unable to qualify, but the U.S. Women’s team came out undefeated. I watched every single game that I could get my hands on and I was never disappointed by what I watched. Once the olympics started I planned my schedule around every single women’s soccer match, especially the USWNT’s games. The USWNT won a gut wrenching, emotional, yet exhilarating semi-final match against Canada that secured the U.S. a spot in the finals, a rematch against Japan – the reigning world champions. We defeated Japan 2-1 and received gold, the third consecutive olympic gold in women’s soccer. However, back in May, the Women’s Professional Soccer league announced a permanent suspension of operation for the upcoming season. According to the WPS press release, the league had put too much money into legal issues. The highly unprofessional team manager of MagicJack filed suit against the league and the WPS did not have the funds to support a counterattack and run the league at the same time. They also didn’t want to run the risk of working with him during the season and regretfully saw no other way out of their situation.
I hate that some team managers feel the need to power play even when they are in a position of power. Not only does it hurt the image of U.S. Women’s soccer, but it also hurts the players. A comment was made in an ESPN article that the suspension of the professional league was positive because it provides the USWNT more time to play together, but I think that’s a poor response to this inherent problem. The USWNT made a name for Women’s soccer and I find the fact that they doesn’t have a professional league to come home to insulting. Our national team is doing something wonderful for the sport of soccer and they have no way of keeping the interest alive outside of national games. Fortunately, there is talk of the formation of a new league in the Spring of 2013. For now I will grumble about not being able to watch Atlanta Beat games, the local WPS team, and be content with watching the USWNT whenever I can.

A case of kidney compensation, potential monetary rewards for organ donations

By:
Published Aug 15, in Opinions

While paying the tab during my most recent visit to Francar’s, I happened to notice a small stack of business cards that proclaimed, “Clarence Walker Needs a Kidney.”  I picked one up as I left and read more.  Says Mr. Walker, “I am a married father of 3 beautiful young ladies.  Also, I have 2 grandkids that I would like to see grow up, graduate, and get married someday.  I pray that someone will step forward and help me.”  He desperately holds on to hope that he will get the kidney he needs.   But the cards are stacked against him.
Though we might like to believe that the charity in our society is sufficient to save Mr. Walker’s life, the sobering reality is that he is one of thousands of Americans on the growing waiting list for kidneys who don’t stand a chance without a miracle.
According to recent data available online from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the rate of kidney failure has roughly quadrupled over the past three decades, and the shortage of donated organs has become more pronounced as the need for kidneys has exploded.
In 2010, more than 34,000 people joined the waiting list (which exceeds 100,000), and fewer than 17,000 received a kidney.  Because of the shortage, an average of 17 Americans die each day while waiting for an organ – and several more become too sick to receive a transplant, even if it were available.  All the while, quality of life for those who remain on the list is seriously impaired. Clarence Walker himself has waited on the list for 3 years and must live with the burden of dialysis 3 times each week.
But wait.  How can this be?  Millions of Americans have two good kidneys, and only one is necessary for the body to adequately filter blood.  In our “civil” society, how can we sit back and watch as people die for no good reason at all?  Why, you ask, aren’t enough people giving out of the goodness of their hearts?  The answer is obvious:  People aren’t willing to bear the costs of donation without compensation.  And, since 1984, compensation for organ donation has been against the law in the U.S.
While you and I might feel compelled to do a good deed and donate a kidney to a stranger, it would almost certainly be irrational for us to do so in the absence of compensation.  We simply can’t afford to take weeks to a month away from our studies or work, much less bear the burden of the health risks associated with surgery and a future with only one kidney.
It is clear that altruism alone is not enough.  Something must be done.  In my opinion, we should move to legalize compensation.  If we harness aspects of the market mechanism, certainly the kidney shortage will be history.  We should learn from Iran (yes, Iran!) – the only nation in the world where kidneys can be bought and sold legally; there, waiting lists are a problem of the past.
Immediately, though, rows of well-meaning but misguided critics line up in outrage to voice their concerns and shout “ethics violation” at the top of their lungs.
Many claim that legalization will result in the “commodification” of human life or that it will undermine the altruism present in our current system.  Maybe those claims have some truth to them, but isn’t it a far worse crime to let people die when we could easily save them?
Still other opponents will make the common claim that legalizing would exploit the poorest members of our society – that those who need the money most would be “forced” to sell a kidney.
My response to this objection is two-pronged.  First, by criminalizing compensation in the U.S. as we currently do, we are already fueling the exploitation of people …just not in America.  The age-old economic truth is that black markets will emerge where the government attempts to stamp out trade.
It really shouldn’t come as a surprise that more and more people are traveling to developing countries to receive organ transplants from the poor through what has been termed “medical tourism.”
If anything deserves to be called exploitation this is it.  Secondly, I would suggest that those who advocate restricting the abilities of the poor to sell their kidneys are actually insulting them by inherently claiming that financial need would prevent them from balancing the costs and benefits to make a rational decision on their own (assuming informed consent).
Yes.  There are many unanswered questions, and I readily admit that I don’t know exactly what an America with legalized compensation for kidneys would look like.
Of course I realize that many people don’t view completely free markets as a feasible solution.  To be more realistic, maybe our society can find compromise and develop a creative solution.
One potential idea is to have a government-run system in which donors are compensated with tax credits, tuition vouchers for children, or contributions to retirement accounts (not immediately accessible cash) and transplants are provided to all people equally on the basis of need.
If it could be shown that the costs associated with this form of government intervention would be less than or equal to the amount that taxpayers already contribute for Medicare to cover the dialysis costs of those remaining on the waiting list, even I might view this as an improvement.
The unequivocal bottom line is that donor compensation of some sort is necessary to fix the problem that we face. If we begin to consider that donors are really not much different than the policemen and firemen whom we praise for taking on risks for the benefit of our communities, then we might start viewing compensation as beneficial.
Maybe just maybe, instead of blaming God for the suffering and pain that persist in the world, we can take some responsibility for the injustice before us and use the brains that God gave us to find a workable solution.  The lives of countless Americans like Clarence Walker depend on it.

Comments on this opinion can be sent to david.a.lockwood@live.mercer.edu

Christmas focus should be family

By:
Published Dec 7, in Opinions

The holiday season is now upon us. Meaning, as if life was not stressful enough already, you have presents to buy, food to consume, traffic to contend with and potential News Year’s resolutions to make.
While winter is not exactly my favorite time of year, I like being warm rather than freezing certain body parts off when I walk to class. Christmas is also one of my favorite holidays.
Yes, it might have a lot to do with presents, but that is not the only factor that makes Christmas number one on my holiday countdown chart.
When I was younger, I admit, it was hard to look past the mountains of presents under the tree and the hankering to know exactly how Santa got down the chimney. I was jaded. Christmas was not about family to me, it was about how many cool new toys I got to play with or show off to my friends, and how many toys in the Toys R Us Big Book that my parents did not buy me.
It was not until my freshman year at Mercer that I realized what Christmas should, and now does, mean to me.
I realized that all the time I lived at home I took my family for granted. We have arguments like every family; my siblings get on my every last nerve, and sometimes I just wanted to scream because I was so annoyed. Life was truly awful.
After moving away from that and going back home I started to notice that the fighting did not matter all that much anymore, and that my siblings magically seemed to be okay. I figured it was just because I had not seen them in so long, that those feelings would come back.
Alas, they did not and it took me a little while to figure out why but during that time I realized that my family is my family and I need to not take them for granted.
Yes I still cared about getting what I asked for on Christmas, but then I looked at my parents who were sitting there watching us. I realized something in that moment.
My parents did not care if I got them a present.
They did not care at all if they got anything from any of us, they cared most that they had their entire family back together again for Christmas.
They were smiling not because they liked watching us open our presents, but because they were grateful we were all there.
I realized coming home that Christmas is not about presents, it is about so much more than that.
I do not care if my parents cannot get me exactly what I want anymore, because I know that I am lucky enough to have a family that loves me and who is grateful just to have me come back home every year for Christmas.
That is truly what Christmas is all about. Not the gifts, but the togetherness and the love that flows throughout the holiday.
So this year, and I know it will be hard, do not pick fights with your brothers or sisters.
Know that your family’s main priority is not to drive you crazy with their bickering.
Know that your parents are not trying to make your life miserable, and realize that what you have many others would give anything to have.
Your friends and romantic interests can come and go.
Presents can shrink, break or get lost, but your family is bonded to you for life.
So try to look past the material things this Christmas and focus on the things that truly matter.

« Older Entries