With unemployment yet again set squarely above 9% and 14 million Americans still out of work, President Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress last Thursday served as a blunt reminder of the dire condition of America’s flailing economy. Obama seeks to fulfill the unanswered promises of TARP with a new recovery initiative carrying a price tag of nearly a half trillion dollars. Among the parts of his plan that he failed to elaborate on, Obama mentioned yet again the need to raise taxes on the wealthy and close tax incentives to corporations. In a joking tone, Obama observed that some in Congress had made a promise to never raise taxes.  Although the pledge signed by many in Congress to Americans for Tax Reform most certainly promised to not raise taxes, it was a pledge to citizens concerned with the growth of government spending and an unsustainable addiction to debt. Obama’s glib reference to this pledge is one of many reasons that his divisive jobs speech imbued his newest initiative with the political rancor necessary to all but guarantee its failure in congress.

The moment that Obama decided to schedule his speech one day earlier, at the same time as a significant Republican primary debate, he cast a shadow of politics over what should have been a unifying message for all Americans.  Upon House Speaker John Boehner’s refusal to host the speech at a time when many Americans would be forced to choose between watching a debate between presidential candidates and the president’s speech, President Obama backed down and rescheduled.  Despite his embarrassment over the scheduling snafu, Obama proceeded to play partisan politics by presenting a plan that would be “paid-for” by the same bipartisan super committee that the president and congress established to confront government spending.  Rather than allow the super committee to draw up its own plans and make a real dent in this nation’s debt crisis, Obama decided to pass the buck of his plan over to them. He also discussed reforming entitlements to help pay for the plan, again taking away the authority of the bipartisan super committee on an item committee members expected to confront in a bipartisan fashion. Obama used the word “taxes” 23 times, and urged Congress to “pass” his jobs bill 20 times, yet did not use the word “bipartisan” even once.  You do the math.

Got a great idea for a debate topic? Send it our way at fsuyeti@gmail.com!

Last week, after a small scheduling conflict that several pundits laughably attempted to portray as political, Pres. Obama stood before a joint session of Congress to lay out his new plan dubbed the American Jobs Act. Keeping to his current strategy of giving the opposition nearly everything they want (while hoping that they might stray from their own strategy of only uncrossing their arms to give him the finger) nearly 55% of the $447 billion cost of the plan is in tax cuts.

The cuts include two payroll taxes aimed at working Americans and small businesses (who employ a majority of jobs in the country). The employee tax cuts count for $175 billion of the plan, offering around $1,500 to families taking in $50,000 annually. The other $70 billion is for small businesses covering a 50% cut on the first $5 million in payroll taxes as well as a credit for hiring veterans. The rest of the plan includes money for many construction projects throughout the country as well as the renewal of extended unemployment benefits and aid to state governments in an effort to help them avoid laying off the people who police our streets, put out our fires, and teach our children how to read (useless fat-pensioned freeloaders that they are).

As the President repeated several times in his speech, the proposals in this plan have been supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. There is also $10 billion in the plan to create an infrastructure bank which will allow the creation of several more construction jobs over the next few years, an idea first proposed by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). Based on this pre-existing solidarity, as well as the immediate need to address the 9.1% unemployment our country is facing, the President urged Congress twenty times to pass this legislation. Already a number of ideologically divided think tanks are lobbing their roses and rat carcasses on the bill with economists on one side saying it will work well and economists on the other saying it absolutely will not; now’s a time when we have to ask ourselves just how theoretical the study of economics actually is.

With a majority of money spent being tax breaks which would add more to the deficit (that thing that became the biggest issue in Washington when the opportunity arose to make it so) his own base might be reluctant to support it, or, for that matter, pass it. But along with the tax cuts and the President’s proposal to add the $447 billion to the $1 trillion of spending cuts the new Super Committee is supposed to find by late December, finding enough votes on the other side of the aisle might be possible. The reason this should, as the President repeatedly urged, be passed by both parties immediately is that small businesses and working families have been hit almost as hard as the $14 million unemployed in this country, and encouraging them both to consume and hire new employees can turn around the current devastating direction both the middle class and the economy as a whole. It is cutting the right kind of taxes.

Got a great idea for a debate topic? Send it our way at fsuyeti@gmail.com!

Yes, the sluggish economy and high unemployment in America obviously has a lot to do with low sales (particularly in entertainment markets_, but market research company NPD Group released a study earlier this month that showed that it isn’t just money. 42% of consumers cited not wanting to wear glasses as the reason for not yet purchasing a 3DTV. The study also showed that while there has been a great increase in consumer awareness of 3DTV’s, there has been no increase in sales, or even so much as an increase in the desire to own one. When critics and purchasers of 3D alike show nothing but praise, why is it so hard to get the general public’s attention?

A fear of change to take the next technological step seems the only logical answer. However, just like all adaptions and improvements in television history, success is inevitable. James Cameron recently predicted a future engorged with 100% 3D, “3D is how all broadcast entertainment will be done. Sports, episodic drama, scripted, unscripted—everything.” Of course Cameron is only speaking of 3D’s involvement in movies and television, but the third dimension could play a heavier role in all of our technological gadgets.

But, while printers, digital cameras, videogames, and various handheld devices are just a few contraptions receiving a 3D makeover, none of these trailblazing pieces are seeing much success. A recent report by Public Knowledge vents, “Just as with the printing press, the copy machine, and the personal computer before it, people will see 3D as a disruptive threat. Others will see it as a groundbreaking tool to spread creativity and knowledge.” The report warns consumers not to be afraid, “It is critical that those who fear not stop those who are inspired.” A bit more rational, the video game industry recognizes the need for more time to adjust. Killzone 3 studio manager Herman Hulst explains Killzone 3’s 3D abilities, “3D is a great option, and it’s here to stay. But just like when we moved from mono sound to stereo sound, you have to wait for the audience to be ready. You don’t force people to adapt. After a while, they won’t want to go back.”

All the same, the day everyone decides to leave the second dimension and venture off into the third shouldn’t be far off. Apple, fresh off its success of the easy-to-use iPad, has already filed a patent on a method of 3D image projecting without the need for glasses. The brand that makes its name off of simplicity appears to be giving 3D a makeover for the stubborn consumers who still refuse to add another apparatus to their viewing technology—namely glasses.

Many consumers who sit in a room equipped with stereo sound, LCD screens, HD channels, and surround sound speakers still don’t seem to realize the changes, and challenges, they endured to enjoy their current home entertainment systems. The bottom line is that 3D televisions offer literally everything current set-ups have, and a hell of a lot more, yet they continue to collect dust at the local Best Buy. Hopefully not for long.

In fact, the PlayStation 3 is just hitting its peak, with exclusive releases this year such as Killzone 3, Twisted Metal, and Uncharted 3. Amidst this success, the PlayStation Move hit shelves in November. Readers may wonder whether Move is some new game, or a revolutionary console. Well, It’s both. And it’s neither. The Move combines the PlayStation 3 console and PS Eye to bring together a virtual reality experience, using the PS Eye’s computer vision to recognize gestures and movement. In other words, it’s a frighteningly accurate Wii 2.0. This is not a bad thing though, as every hardcore gamer that hates the Wii can attest, the sole problem with the Wii lie its inaccuracy—and Nintendo’s general reluctance to cater to the hardcore gamers who spent years with Link, Samus, and Mario. The Move insists it provides for both of these needs, with titles like Killzone 3 and SOCOM 4 for PlayStation’s faithful followers, as well as Wii style sports/adventures games which provide a much more accurate experience for younger and older gamers who want to get involved.

So, what does this mean for PlayStation’s future? While it isn’t quite fair to say PlayStation is shifting its focus to casual gamers only, it is clear that they are trying to branch out to a wider audience, as is evident in the Move’s tagline: “This Changes Everything.” Such a statement probably brings frightening flashbacks of Nintendo’s transition into a kiddy toy for gamers under the age of 12, but it seems PlayStation is focused on proving that even titles such as Sports Champions can be enjoyable and competitive titles that will do well with all ages, including hardcore gamers who may want to get their motion-sensing feet wet.

Kevin Butler, the humorous, fictional Sony Executive from the familiar PlayStation commercials addressed this at E3 last year, “We use characters that have important features (pause) like arms and necks,” taking a jab at the Wii Boxing’s lack thereof. Amidst jokes about moms and 10 year olds beating frat kids in boxing games, Butler made a powerful statement on PlayStation’s branching out to different generations, “When we said the PS3 only does everything we meant it. And the Move brings a whole lot more everything to the table. Because every gamer is a true gamer. Motion gamers, sitting gamers, we all serve one master: GAMING.” The audience erupted in applause.

Judging from Butler’s speech, it seems as though the Move and the PlayStation 3 console are two entirely separate projects, capable of working together. Dating back to a 2003 interview upon the release of Sony’s EyeToy, the man behind the Move, developer Richard Marks seemed to be satisfied with motion gaming being a simple accessory saying: “I hope EyeToy will just become part of the platform.” But even then, he seemed focused on a bigger picture down the road: “In the future, games might even be able to recognize facial movements and incorporate that into the game.” Well, the future came, and after eight years of Marks working on everything critics said the EyeToy didn’t do, he returns to the table with a product that may change the future of gaming. He explains, “EyeToy was popular for the casual, social experience—but when we tried to go deeper it was difficult—we hit a wall. We were very limited fundamentally.” He then discusses the Move’s buttons and enhanced cameras as reasons for the difference this time around. “With PlayStation Move having so much more precision and fidelity, games will be able to leverage it better than anything we have seen before.”

His response brings us back to our initial questions: are the days of new consoles every six years dead? Is motion gaming the future? The first question is an easy answer—yes. A new PlayStation console isn’t going to hit stores for many years. Sony and Microsoft are focusing on perfecting what is out now before moving onto anything else. If the Move and Microsoft’s Kinect aren’t good enough reason, the PS3 and 360 have recently been redesigned and are now faster, slimmer, and quieter. As far as the future—motion gaming is definitely going to play a huge part in the future of videogames, but my personal opinion is that there will never be a day when you have to use motion-sensing technology to play games. I bought the Move the day it came out, and I play it often, but the traditional DualShock 3 still dominates my dorm room.

Bottom Line: there will always be different preferences with different gamers, and all PlayStation has done is, first, give the casual gamer a new experience, with far superior graphics and accuracy than the Wii and Kinect, and second, give the hardcore gamer the opportunity to venture into the world of motion gaming. As Kevin Butler so boldly proclaimed, “Deep down inside we all serve one master, one king, and his name is Gaming! FOREVER MAY HE REIGN!” I couldn’t have said it any better.

One brand, Guerlain, has a make-up base with gold flakes in it. The only reason I can imagine buying this is to make all of your girlfriends jealous when they see a bottle filled with gold sitting on your vanity. The stinging sensation you get when you try to rub gold into your skin is totally worth your 71 dollars. If you’re one of those people cursed with stick straight lashes there’s an easy fix, get them permed! Because putting harsh chemicals against one of the most delicate parts of your body and leaving them there for about 20 minutes is always a good idea. Even MAC, one of the most well-respected and popular make-up brands has products that leave a lot to be desired. They recently created a cream eye shadow that has the consistency of motor oil and takes an insanely long time to dry, so that when you put it on your eyes it looks like this. By far one of the most astounding trends to come out of the beauty world is Vajazzling. Just in case the name isn’t explanation enough, vajazzling is “The act of applying glitter and jewels to a woman’s nether regions for aesthetic purposes.” I don’t think I could make this up if I tried. Twilight vampires must be pissed that they no longer have the monopoly on sparkly bits.

Some of these ideas make me question the sanity of the beauty industry because these people just go so insanely far to try to create innovative products to sucker in girls like me.

But, is it really worth it? I don’t even need to look at my vanity (pun not intended) to know that heck yes it is.

The novel takes place in Edinburgh, Scotland (which serves as the setting for most of Welsh’s work), and centers around two young health inspectors, Danny Skinner and Brian Kibby. Skinner is a hard drinker, and eater, and all-around-partier; Kibby is shy, and healthy, and has a model train hobby. For some inexplicable reason, which even Skinner can’t explain, he starts to despise Kibby, and his fixation becomes so strong that something even more inexplicable begins to happen: imagine if the titular object in Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray wasn’t a painting, but another human being?

The picture Welsh paints before his readers is one of ugliness, excess, cruelty, and the darkest of ingenious humor.

Death is always a tragedy.

As we all know by now, Osama bin Laden is dead. This means different things to all of us, but to many, this means that now is the time to celebrate. Osama was a bad man, and that’s an understatement, who ordered the deaths of thousands of people while running al Qaeda. Osama especially hated Americans and before the deaths he caused on September 11^th Osama was also responsible for the 1998 US Embassy bombings. I think we can all agree that the world is a better place with the loss of a man that caused such hatred and ruined the lives of so many people.

I understand that many people are celebrating Osama’s death and I think that’s a very human reaction. One of my idols tweeted this after hearing the news: “Like many others, I feel like celebrating. Remember this feeling. It is human, and can help us understand when others express bloodlust” -John Green. Strange to think we might have something in common with a man like Osama, that the glee some people are feeling now is the same glee that Osama felt when he successfully killed more than 2 thousand Americans on 9/11.

Those more personally affected by the War on Terror are likely finally feeling closure after the death of a loved one or for the feelings of fear and anxiety that they felt while a loved one was serving our military overseas. I don’t judge anyone for being happy to learn that another human being, albeit a deplorable one, has died. However, I can’t imagine feeling that way myself.

I empathize with those who lost family in 9/11 and overseas, I have spent my entire life living ten miles away from an Air Force base. I have seen firsthand what happens to a military base after a terrorist attack (if you’ve never  had a grown man shove a machine gun in your 11 year old face, it’s an experience I wouldn’t recommend). We were terrified for months that al Qaeda would attack us because our Air Force base is well-known and a very obvious target for terrorist attacks. My cousin and honorary father are currently serving in Afghanistan, which means that if al Qaeda strikes back at the United States for killing their leader, which they most likely will, they are in the line of fire. I understand, more than most Americans, how terrorism can affect us personally.

I am still not glad that Osama bin Laden is dead. But I do prefer him dead to planning his next move with al Qaeda. This is my opinion, and you are under no obligation to share it with me. If you disagree, tell me why. I would love the opportunity to more fully understand the other point of view on this topic.

Gender is a sociological construct designed around perceived social norms assigned by sex. In actuality, gender is a divisive set of mostly arbitrary personality traits, which in practice transcend the division of biological sex. These traits seem to be designed to create inequality among the sexes by disallowing independence and autonomy to one sex, generally women. This inequality is contributed to by our society’s prevailing view of gender through the scope of heterocentrism and hegemonic masculinity. Gender, as it is known in our society, is separated into a binary of masculinity and femininity, with masculinity most often being the desired or privileged group. The picturesque male in our society is tall, strong, burly, deep voiced, and heterosexual. The ideal woman is often thought to be the opposite: petite, needing protection, gentle, high voiced, and heterosexual. Although there is some variance allowed with sexual orientation in gender roles, it is only available to women who maintain their femininity. However, this can easily be attributed to sexual objectification of the female body by some men. What is not in most definitions of the word “gender” is that gender is something that is quantitative and is graded against the preferred or ideal constructions of what it means to be male or female in society today. Masculinity is something that men perform or express; it is not an innate truth that all men are masculine. From the beginning, however, men are socialized and trained on what is acceptable gender performance, or how to correctly express their masculinity.

Usually one of the first and most influential people to evaluate and modify the gender of a male child is the father, follow by teachers and coaches during elementary and middle school, then joined later by their peer group in high school. Men’s masculinity is graded through their walk, talk, demeanor, emotional state, sexual virility, strength, aggression, and in basically every task they perform. Heteronormativity or constrictive gender roles affect the lives of everyone. As children grow up in America, so does their knowledge of gender and sexuality. Children are taught at a young age that men and women are to pair off and marry by a certain age to avoid social stigmatization and perceived loneliness, and to maintain heterosexual privilege and fulfill religious dogma, and within that pairing women are to “respect” their men, and men are meant to “protect” their women. Later, in middle school, children go through puberty and begin to experience hormonal desires, and some are put through sex education. This sex education reinforces heterosexual gender role norms at a critically time of sexual development, when people first begin to forge a sexual identity. Teens’ and young adults’ cultural development relies on the linchpin of heterosexual masculinity.

Because of our collective views on gender and sexuality, society has grown like a plant half in the shade. These stringent views have resulted in allowing those who portray traditional gender roles to flourish in a culture of acceptance and legitimacy, while non-masculine men and non-feminine women are degraded and discriminated against. On top of that, those who arenot heterosexual are often discriminated against in cultural instances, but also face institutional discrimination here in the United States and most countries abroad. The United States does not allow same sex marriage or employment discrimination protections on the federal level. The intensity of institutional discriminations outside the United States can vary from complete equality on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender expression (like in Spain or the Netherlands) to the criminalization of homosexual acts carrying a penalty that in some cases can result in death (in countries like Iran or Jamaica).

Gender is not something to be talked about lightly, and opinions that continue to support the current oppressive set of gender roles our society has established are hurting men and women everywhere. Next time you tell a man he is acting like a girl think about what you really saying: you’re saying that men are better then women and that he is lowering himself in some way by violating his gender role.

• Girls who wear makeup. First of all, if you are attempting any type of exercise at all you will inevitably sweat. The only reason your ponytails remain perfectly perky and your cover-up evenly distributed is because you are at the gym to score buff meatheads rather than a good workout. Not only that but also there is no need to douse yourself in Dolce & Gabana perfume. Trust me; lifting 5 pound dumbbells will hardly cause you any body odor.

• The Greek life. This group can be divided into two subcategories: The Sisterhood and The Frat Pack.

- The sisterhood is most commonly seen moving in massive groups and singlehandedly obstructing entire portions of the gym behind their wall of tight leggings and Lady Gaga playlists.

- The Frat Pack also tends to move in clusters, preferably in front of the mirror where their bulging biceps can be visible to all, but mostly themselves, through their cut-armed tee shirts.

• People who do not wear proper gym attire. Bathing suits have seemed to become a popular trend amongst guys who think the gym is some type of pool party. Backward hats are also in style even though the gym is inside. It leaves me disgusted and confused. People, you go to the gym to look good when you are not at the gym; it is not a place for fashion statements.

• People who hang their towels on different machines. You do not need to claim territory like a dog that pisses on a tree. You better move your towel before I use it to wipe something other than the seat.

• People who do one machine at a time. There is no need to stay seated in between repetitions so no one else can use the machine. Also, when you’re asked to move, don’t stare for a few seconds and reply, “Oh I’m almost done, I only have two more sets” and continue for ten more minutes.

• People who read books on the treadmill. No, I am not talking about magazines but rather, FULL novels. This isn’t a damn library. If you want to expand your brain read a book, but if you want to stop expanding your body, run faster.

• People who do not bring towels. No one likes a stranger’s soaking wet ass sweat on the machines. At first you do not even notice, but as soon as you sit down you feel that nasty warm wetness seeping through your shorts. Gross.

• People who talk on their cell phones. Like I give a shit how drunk you were last night. Hang up your phone and start burning off that beer belly.

• People who yell at the weights. As if they are going to say something back. “Come on you can do it!” First of all you sound like you’re having an orgasm. Second, who the hell is “you”? Either you’re talking to a lifeless object which is weird, or you’re referring to yourself in second person, which is even weirder.

…and that’s why I hate people at the gym.

Let’s start off by saying that men and women shouldn’t go back to the Stone Age, but I like it when men are men.  I have always appreciated traditional gender roles; maybe that’s because I’m five feet tall and can’t open a jar of pickles by myself. That means men should not be crying when watching The Notebook and not accepting morning sex when it’s offered. If you want to play Black Ops and spew obscenities for hours on end, that’s okay, because I know that’s who’s paying for dinner tomorrow. Also, ladies, there are always going to be things that men do better than us. Deal with it. We can cry our way out of a ticket and flirt with men to get free drinks, so it’s a pretty fair trade.

Lately I’ve been wondering what is going on with the men in our lives. It seems like there is a new trend where men start acting like girls, and it’s driving me crazy. For example, no man says “no” to sex with his girlfriend unless it’s “meaningful” sex. Women are taught that men only care about sex and that they don’t cry or put much stock in emotions. Now they’re switching the game on us and are starting to bitch out and act like emotional girls. If I wanted to date a girl, I would. I want a manly man. He doesn’t have to know how to re-build an engine or build a bookshelf but having a boyfriend that cried less than I do would be ideal.

Women generally attribute more meaning to sex because when we orgasm our bodies release a larger dose of oxytocin, also known as the bonding hormone, while men have more testosterone, which is the hormone of sexual desire. Testosterone drives men to compete for women and to mate with them. Society has this idea that the male sex drives peaks between 17-20 while the female sex drive peaks during the early 30’s but there is no scientific evidence to support this theory. It’s an excuse I’ve heard my friends use multiple times to explain their boyfriend’s low sex drives. It’s easier to blame biology than to think about the numerous other reasons that a man wouldn’t want to sleep with his girlfriend. However I doubt it would cross a woman’s mind that her lustful desires weren’t fulfilling her boyfriend emotionally.

In my last relationship, it was a well-known fact among our friends that my metaphorical penis was bigger than my boyfriend’s. Not because I’m a raging bitch but because once we started dating he stopped acting like a man. Men like this start complaining that you “don’t spend enough time together” even when you live together. He either cries after sex because he messed up and you didn’t get your orgasm (thank you for caring but tears are just unnecessary) or he would rather cuddle than have sex. He might also want to talk about feelings all the time. Contrary to popular belief, women don’t want to talk with their men about feelings 24/7. That’s weird. Let it go.

Maybe our society is going through a shift in gender roles because men are realizing that modern women are intelligent and capable and acting more like men themselves so their traditional male behavior is taking the back burner. I’m not sure what’s causing it, but it makes dating hell.

I understand that all relationships are different and that what’s normal for one couple isn’t going to be normal for every couple; but considering men are biologically disposed to be horn-dogs… well let’s just put it this way: it’s weird when they aren’t.

Editor’s Note:

As a newspaper focusing on alternative viewpoints, we sometimes run into the difficulty of having people disagree with those viewpoints. We hope this disagreement will not result in anger or frustration, but intelligent discourse on the disagreed-upon subject. This discussion is the goal of our organization. For that reason, we are always open to article submissions with contradictory views and consistently offer those with dissenting views opportunity to express them in our publication. Please e-mail us at fsuyeti@gmail.com if you’d like to write a counterpoint article. This article should be somewhere around 750 words and address your opinions on gender roles. One counterpoint will be edited and published online.

We’d also like to address the nature of some of the comments below. Personal insults, discrimination and threats will not be tolerated. Comments including them will be removed per our new comment policy, which can be viewed on the “About Us” page.