Election 2012 Faceoff: Whose domestic policy leads the country in a better direction?

Adam Wage, College Republican Representative

Social issues have not received much attention during the largely economic-oriented 2012 presidential election. Questions regarding issues such as Social Security and education, however, remain at the front of Americans’ minds. Regardless of promises made during the campaign season, whoever wins the election in November will face harsh realities in implementing plans for these important social issues.

According to the U.S. Social Security Administration’s current projections, the country will have exhausted trust fund reserves for Social Security by 2033. According to the administration’s August 2012 report, over 53 million Americans are on Social Security. This number will greatly increase, especially as the baby boomer generation grows older. Although it may be politically safe, ignoring Social Security in the short-term will not solve the problem. Unlike so many other politicians, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has not shied away from addressing this issue.

As president, Romney would modernize Social Security so that today’s seniors keep their benefits, while the program remains solvent for tomorrow. For Romney, this involves slowing the growth of benefits for people of higher income who depend on the program less. Social Security keeps many seniors out of poverty, and Romney’s plan ensures that the government will continue meeting these people’s needs.

The other step in Romney’s plan for Social Security gradually increases the retirement age to account for increased longevity; the retirement age was initially set at 65 when the program started under former President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935; in other words, the first 65-year-olds to collect Social Security were children of Civil War veterans.

Romney’s changes will affect only future generations of seniors, so seniors today can continue to count on their benefits. The alternative to adapting Social Security with the times is to let it go bankrupt.

For America’s younger generation, few issues have been as turbulent as education. Romney credits much of his success to his education and wants to ensure that quality education is available to all youths in the U.S.

It is Romney’s belief that all parents should have the ability to send their children to a quality school; this is currently a privilege that many parents cannot afford. To achieve this goal, Romney would devote more funds to eligible students so that their parents could choose to send them to any public or charter school they wish. Where permitted by state law, this program would also send low-income students to private schools.

Of course, Romney would also like to reform “No Child Left Behind” so that parents may better examine individual school performance.

Higher education affordability is an issue everyone in our generation faces. Romney plans to simplify the financial aid system by consolidating duplicate programs. More information will become available to students and parents about the available options regarding debt, repayments and future earnings, allowing students and parents to make well-informed decisions about higher education.

Romney would also deregulate higher education to allow for more innovation and competition, as well as the chance for institutions to enter the market, which refers to both loans and education.

Romney offers more than good oratory when it comes to social issues; he has a plan to set America back on track in the long term. Throwing money at problems including Social Security and education only makes everyone feel better for about five minutes. The past four years are evidence that real reforms must be made to underlying issues if America hopes to experience real change. President Romney will bring real reforms.

Brittany Terzakos, College Democrat Representative

Throughout the election cycle, there has been such laser-like focus on the economy from both sides that it’s easy to forget the other issues impacting society that millions of Americans hold dear. In fact, one of the starkest differences between President Barack Obama and his Republican counterpart, former Gov. Mitt Romney, is on one of the issues most important to our community here at Geneseo: education.

The first step toward a strong economy and long-term debt reduction is a reliable and educated workforce that can best its foreign competitors. The premise behind this is simple: A country without an educated citizenry quickly loses jobs in fields like scientific research, green technology and even so-called back-office jobs like paralegal services.

This results in fewer people earning income, less tax money to fund future government programs as well as pay off the debt and a vicious cycle that leads to more cuts where funding is needed most. That’s why it’s so shocking that former President George W. Bush’s administration left education policy on the back burner and allowed the U.S. to fall to an international ranking of 25th in math and 17th in science, according to a recent Harvard University study.

This is where the Obama Administration made the politically difficult – but correct – choice. In order to make this clear, it’s necessary to contrast its plan to that of Romney’s. Instead of joining the “end the deficit” spending mantra that Romney and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan repeat constantly, Obama has focused on a plan that seeks long-term benefits over short-term gains.

Romney plans to tighten Pell Grant access, ending a number of programs essential to those reliant on financial aid and making it a challenge for students like myself to attend college in the first place.

Romney’s education cuts would devastate schools like Geneseo. In order to fill the gap, students would either have to pay at least double or triple their current tuition, or universities would have to cut their programs by a third. Imagine what would happen to the costs of books, the student-to-professor ratios in classes, the diversity of classes and other such facets of university operation – not to mention the additional layoffs in an already weakened economy.

The president, on the other hand, has spent the last four years strengthening educational institutions in our country. He has doubled the size of Pell Grants, allowing people to continue to be the first in their families to go to school. He’s taken student loans out of the hands of private banks and created a loan program that enables graduates to cap their payment at 10 percent of their monthly income, allowing students to go to school without worrying about debt.

Obama battled republican opposition and prevented the student loan interest rate from doubling this summer from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. He’s even worked with Congress to expand the American Opportunity Tax Credit that has helped 7.4 million families send their kids to school. 

When we discuss social issues, education should come first. As Obama has unequivocally stated, personal decisions like gay marriage and abortion are not issues that the federal government has jurisdiction over.

That means that when we talk social issues, we should talk about the issues our government does control – like our ability to receive an education and join the workforce, strengthening our economy and our nation in the long run. On issues like these, the choice is clear: Barack Obama leads the country forward.

Faceoff Election 2012: Obama versus Romney—Who should be president?

Marty Rogachefsky, College Republican Representative

Why vote for Mitt Romney? He is generally scoffed at by liberals, taken like cough syrup by conservatives and seen as out-of-touch by independents. To moderate libertarians like me, he is a flip-flopping neocon that tries to appeal to everyone, and is accepted by no one as a result.

During a meeting of the Geneseo College Republicans early last year, an organization of which I am vice president, we drew straws to determine who would represent Romney in our mock primary debate. He is the universal “meh” candidate: the man who nobody wants to be associated with, but appears to be the next best alternative to the current president. The typical response a Republican gives to, “Why do you like Romney?” is, “He’s not Obama.”

Now, you’re probably wondering why I’m writing an article supporting Mitt Romney when I’ve spent the first two paragraphs bashing him. To answer that question, let’s begin with a premise on which both candidates have agreed: This election represents a choice between two fundamentally different visions of where to take the economy. President Barack Obama’s vision has been made clear over the past four years: spend our way to prosperity.

Romney’s vision has been less clear but is becoming more coherent since choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate. The Romney-Ryan ticket has shown the largest commitment to cutting our deficit and national debt than any other candidate in recent history. Past presidents, Obama included, have maintained their voting base by doling out dollars to special interests and promising that entitlement programs will not be touched by stealing from the next generation and kicking our long-term problems down the road. As college students, we are the ones who are going to have to pay for the reckless spending of the past.

Romney and Ryan are not afraid to tell us that we need to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington, D.C. by making difficult decisions. The reason Romney has been so vague about his plan is because he knows it will be politically unpopular to make those cuts. No candidate can run a successful campaign by telling people that he is taking away their goodies. But no president can truly say they are committed to reducing the debt without making difficult cuts.

Let’s do a comparison: Obama has rejected the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and said that he wants to keep government spending at 22 percent of gross domestic product; Romney wants it to be at 20 percent, and it is currently at 23 percent.

Right now, the national debt is 63 percent of our GDP. Over the long term, Obama’s 2013 budget will allow the debt to skyrocket to a potential 76.5 percent by 2020 and 180.8 percent by 2080. These numbers come from his very own Office of Management and Budget. Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future,” on the other hand projects a debt increase to 69 percent of GDP by 2020, stabilizing, and then reducing to zero by 2080.

Although Romney does not have nearly the same amount charisma or eloquence as his opponent, he is serious about the country’s fiscal needs and committed to reducing the deficit. When you go to the voting booth in November, you will be able to choose between the same failed fiscal policies of the past four years and policies that will lead to a future where we leave the next generation better off than we leave ourselves. The choice is yours.

Devin McConnell, College Democrats Representative

At the beginning of 2008, I was a proud and self-described cynic, convinced that America had once been great but was on an irreversible path toward social and economic entropy started long before I was born. But here I am, four years later, convinced that America – thanks to President Barack Obama – is back on the right path.

As I sit at the close of 2012 and reflect back over the past four years, I can’t believe the changes I have witnessed. I can’t help but think that my cynical self of a few years ago wouldn’t be able to believe the hope and pride I’m flushed with today for the future of our country, all thanks to the changes won by Obama.

At the top of the list is, of course, the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to this historic piece of legislation, all Americans are guaranteed the ability to obtain health insurance, regardless of their medical condition. In addition, middle-class families will finally have help paying medical bills when insurance tax credits go into effect in 2014.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to rescind policies when people get sick, nor will they be able to put yearly or lifetime limits on people’s insurance policies. Young people will be able to stay on their family’s health plans until they turn 26. Women won’t be charged higher premiums than men simply because of their gender. The Affordable Care Act will lead to an America where every citizen can have affordable and dependable health insurance.

The student loan system has also undergone major changes for the better. Under the old system, the federal government not only insured private lenders against any possible defaults but also paid them taxpayer money to do it. Under Obama’s reforms, the money that used to go to banks was put into the Pell Grant program and into lowering student loan interest rates.

Under the Obama administration, gay and lesbian Americans have finally seen more rights recognized. From federal protection against hate crimes, to the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” to hospital visitation rights, to having the first president in American history voice his support for same-sex marriage, the LGBTQ community has seen the greatest advancement of rights thanks to Obama.

While most of us thought this issue would be settled by the 21st century, Obama has acted time and time again to make sure women are treated equally. Not as despicable sluts, not as criminals, not as second-class citizens, but as what they truly are: half of the population. From equal pay for equal work to universal birth control coverage, Obama believes it’s more important to regulate banks then to regulate women’s bodies.

These policies are just a taste of the change that is all around us. From net neutrality to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and from reducing loose nuclear weapons around the world to reviving the American auto industry, you’ll find numerous ways the Obama administration has positively affected you and those you care about.

That’s what this election is about. Change is an unending process, and we need to make sure America continues to change for the better.

The Faceoff: Was University of Notre Dame’s switch to the Atlantic Coast Conference a good choice?

David Schantz, Staff Writer

Last week, the University of Notre Dame, like so many other schools in the last year, announced that it was switching conferences and would join the Atlantic Coast Conference for all sports except football and men’s hockey.

This move brings another powerhouse school to the ACC, and while the conference certainly stands to benefit, the Irish will regret it in the long run. Notre Dame is one of only four independent Division I Football Bowl Subdivision schools in the nation, and supporters take deep pride in this distinction.

But while the Irish football program may still be officially independent once it joins the ACC, it will be a part of the conference for all intents and purposes. Notre Dame will be required to play five football games per year against teams in the ACC. This is three games fewer than teams actually in the conference currently play, but still more than Notre Dame will play against other teams not in the conference.

The ACC is by no means a great football conference, and it only has two top-25 teams at the moment. This means that Notre Dame will be forced to play less skilled teams, such as Duke University, for every year that it continues to play in the ACC.

In NCAA football it is not enough to win – you must win convincingly and against strong competition. Strength of schedule is vital for teams that expect to compete for a national title, which Notre Dame expects to do every year, and its strength of schedule will almost certainly drop once it joins the ACC and loses its ability to pick and choose its opponents. Notre Dame won’t even be able to choose the teams it plays in the ACC, as the conference will make that decision. The Irish have been able to do that throughout its history.

At Notre Dame, tradition is everything. Any move that stands to threaten this tradition must be seen as having a negative impact on the school. The Irish’s classic rivalry games against University of South Carolina, Naval Academy, Stanford University and the like are put in jeopardy with the school’s move to join the ACC.

Given the current nature of college football, it is also not inconceivable to envision Notre Dame abandoning its football independence in the not-so-distant future and officially joining a conference. If this does happen, the ACC would obviously be the university’s current first choice. A permanent move to the ACC would result in at least three more in-conference games for the Irish and further threaten the team’s traditional rivalry games.

If you look at other athletics, the move makes more sense. Notre Dame will join recent Big East Conference departures Syracuse University and Pittsburgh University in the ACC, both highly competitive basketball teams. Notre Dame has never been a basketball school, however. They have always been, and will continue to be, a football school.

While the switch may make sense for other athletic programs, the move to the ACC hurts Notre Dame where it matters the most: its football program.

Matt Smith, Staff Writer

After all of the shuffling that has taken place in college athletics over the past six months, the University of Notre Dame made the right decision to leave the Big East Conference for the Atlantic Coast Conference.

The most important part of this change is that the Notre Dame football program, which was independent of the Big East and any other conference in the past, is now guaranteed to play five games against ACC opponents and to participate in the ACC’s bowl lineup every season.

Even though the Irish has prided itself on being independent of collegiate conferences throughout its storied past, this was a necessary move for the college. Because it brings in the greatest revenues, the conference carousel revolves around the college’s football program. This latest move by Notre Dame is no different.

Because of the Notre Dame football team’s independent status, it was considered a nonconference opponent to all the teams it played. Conferences allow their teams to play in only a small number of nonconference games each year. Notre Dame feared it might not be able to continue playing its super schedule full of nonconference games in the future.

Now, after Notre Dame plays five ACC football games, the remaining seven games will be easily filled up with historic rivals such as the University of Southern California, University of Stanford and either of the Michigan powerhouses.

These games are not only important because of the rivalry, but primarily because of recruiting. The stability the ACC provides allows Notre Dame to not only maintain its presence on the West Coast and in the Midwest region, but expand its brand and recruiting reach to the Southeast. Notre Dame does not have the same type of aura it once had, making recruiting on these fertile grounds a necessary step toward remaining relevant.

Some might say the move to the ACC was a poor decision because of the great competition and rivalries the basketball program is leaving behind in the Big East. In reality, this move does not affect basketball all that much, with Syracuse University and University of Pittsburgh moving to the ACC in 2013. West Virginia University also left the Big East for the Big 12 Conference in July. In addition, two games against legendary Duke University and University of North Carolina basketball programs is something no other conference in the country can offer.

Other conferences including the Big Ten have tried to recruit Notre Dame in the past, only to be denied. The offer of exposure to the stagnant Midwest was nothing new for Notre Dame. In terms of demographics and recruiting, the Southeast made the most sense for Notre Dame.

Although Notre Dame will be forced to pay the Big East an exit fee upon its transfer, it will undoubtedly profit financially from this move. According to the Big East’s 2011 tax statement, Notre Dame earned $5.65 million in conference revenue sharing in 2010. In the ACC that same year, each school received a $12.25 million cut of the conference share. With the addition of Syracuse, West Virginia, Pittsburgh and now Notre Dame, that number is certain to jump even higher.

While this may seem like an unnecessary change, it is the right move for Notre Dame and will continue to be decades down the line.

The Faceoff: Did Lance Armstrong deserve to be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles?

AJ Devine, Staff Writer

Lance Armstrong recently chose to give up his fight against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and its charges that he used performance-enhancing drugs en route to winning seven consecutive Tour de France titles.

Armstrong continues to state that he is innocent but said in a statement that he believes “enough is enough.” The USADA plans suspend Armstrong from international cycling and strip him of his seven Tour titles.

If I were in Armstrong’s shoes and I were truly innocent, I would never stop fighting the USADA. Wouldn’t you?

Many have said that the costs of fighting the charges – financially, mentally and emotionally – are not worth the chance of being found innocent. But isn’t the opposite true as well? Being shunned from the cycling community and no longer glorified as one of the greatest athletes is a lot to give up if he is certain that he is innocent.

All of this leads me to believe that Armstrong did use PEDs during his stretch of dominance in the late ’90s to early 2000s. After all, who didn’t? An innumerable amount of cyclists have been found guilty of using PEDs since 2000. It seems astounding that not only did Armstrong win seven straight Tour titles clean, but he also beat out a host of top-tier cyclists who were cheating.

Sorry, but in this day and age I just do not buy it. We have seen too many athletes who we thought were clean found guilty. We have also seen how long masking agents can help athletes cheat without being caught.

Now that he has given up his fight, we will never know for sure if Armstrong used PEDs to win those seven titles. This seems like the perfect outcome for a guilty Armstrong. He can keep his image somewhat intact for his cancer foundation and the millions of fans that believe in him. He can say that he was never found guilty of any wrongdoing.

Years from now, maybe we will forget about the exact details and outcome of this whole scandal. If I were Armstrong, that’s precisely what I would want.

What do you think? Did Lance deserve to get his titles stripped?

Andrew Hayes, Staff Writer

Lance Armstrong has won the Tour de France – widely considered the top cycling event in the world – seven consecutive times. Now, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is pushing to erase this achievement from cycling history.

The USADA brought doping charges against Armstrong, who recently halted his efforts to counter these accusations. The agency considered Armstrong’s failure to contest the charges a sufficient reason to forfeit all awards and prizes that he earned after Aug. 1, 1998, including his seven Tour titles. In case that wasn’t enough, the agency also banned Armstrong from cycling for life.

Unfortunately for Armstrong, he knows this drill all too well. Authorities from the Tour de France as well as U.S. prosecutors have questioned him throughout his career and have subjected him to over 400 tests throughout his lifetime, none of which have been conclusive enough to prove performance-enhancing drug use.

The only reason Armstrong was banned from cycling is because he has failed to contest the USADA’s latest allegations, an action which the agency interprets as an admission to cheating. I would also be pretty tired of fighting for my cause had I been constantly harassed my entire cycling career.

Additionally, if everyone had been using performance-enhancing drugs, as some claim, then it was a level playing field. And had Armstrong been using performance-enhancing drugs at the time, he would have just been doing the same as everyone else. One of Armstrong’s titles will even go to the 24th-place finisher, as probably all 23 men before him will have been stripped of their cycling awards.

It is apparent that the USADA will strip Armstrong of his titles because he “gave up the fight,” only after living through stage three testicular cancer with less than a 50 percent chance of surviving. Just two years after his treatment and after his cancer went into remission, he was back to winning cycling events.

Whether you believe that Armstrong was doping or not, he did win the Tour de France seven times in a row, a historic effort that cannot be overlooked. Armstrong fought these allegations for as long as he could, but like any human, there comes a point when it is better to come out with whatever dignity you have left before an organization tries to strip you of that too.

What do you think? Did Lance deserve to get his titles stripped? Click here to read a differing opinion.

The Faceoff: Who is the most dominant athlete in sports?

Novak Djokovic

Ryan DeVito, Staff Writer

Though long considered to be the third wheel to a game dominated by Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, a new king of the courts has emerged in tennis.

Novak Djokovic, the 23-year-old pride of his native Serbia, has ascended to the highest ranks of tennis history in the past year. Today, no one parallels his dominance.

Djokovic began his meteoric rise in the early tournaments of 2011, opening the season with a second title at the Australian Open en route to a 43-match winning streak. Though falling in the semifinals of the French Open in May, Djokovic easily won 10 tournaments by year’s end, three of them Grand Slams.

Djokovic was peerless in his dominance in 2011. His 70-match wins gave him a 93 percent winning record and included multiple defeats of both Nadal and Federer. In fact, Djokovic bested Nadal in all six matches they played last season, each being in the final of a tournament. Djokovic claimed the world No. 1 ranking in July, making him the first player besides Nadal or Federer to hold the title since Andy Roddick in 2003 and has held the ranking since.

Lauded Association of Tennis Professionals Player of the Year in 2011, Djokovic continued to steamroll his competition into 2012. He opened this season in a spectacular fashion, defending his Australian Open title in a match against Nadal in the longest final in Grand Slam history. Just this month, Djokovic defeated world No. 4 Andy Murray to defend his title at the Miami Masters.

And next month, Djokovic could make history in Paris, France. Should he win at Roland Garros, he would be the first player since 1969 to win four consecutive Grand Slam tournaments.

Though fierce on the court, perhaps Djokovic’s most endearing quality is his good-humored nature. He is known for his lighthearted impersonations of other players and his constant optimism.

But he’s no “Djoke,” as former world No. 1 Boris Becker noted: “He’s beaten everybody [that comes] around to challenge him.”

LeBron James

James Costanzo, Sports Editor

LeBron James averaged 31.6 points, 9.6 rebounds, 4.6 assists and 3.4 steals per game in his senior year at St. Vincent - St. Mary High School in Akron, O.H. It’s safe to say he’s been dominating for quite some time.

Perhaps the most physically gifted athlete we’ve ever seen, the 6-foot-8-inch, 250 pound small forward plays like a power forward and thinks like a point guard.

Realistically, James has the ability to play and defend all five positions effectively, with the ball skills, court vision and ability to get to the rim unlike anyone we’ve seen since Magic Johnson. If you were going to dream up the perfect basketball player or try to create one in a lab, James would be it.

Unfortunately for James, his decision to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers, and the way he did so, in addition to his laid-back, fun-loving personality and his lack of championship hardware has allowed his domination to go unnoticed and underappreciated. For all those haters out there, let me drop some knowledge on you.

Player Efficiency Rating is a measurement that attempts to reduce a player’s contributions down to a single number. Using a detailed formula, PER sums up the player’s statistical performance per minute for that season. Take a guess at who leads the NBA in PER this season? That’s right, King James.

Not only does James’ current 30.86 PER lead the league, but runner-up Dwayne Wade is not even close. Wade has a 26.65 rating, while Oklahoma City’s Kevin Durant rounds out the top three with a 26.48. Kobe Bryant you ask? Please, child. The “Black Mamba” doesn’t even crack the top 10 with a 22.31. James led the league in PER for four years running, ranks second all-time behind only Michael Jordan for his career and this season he has a shot at eclipsing the all-time PER mark of 31.89 set by Jordan in the 1987-88 season.

So hate on James because he doesn’t have that killer instinct or a championship ring, but keep in mind that Jordan didn’t win his first title until he was 28 years old. James turned 27 in December 2011.

Whether you like it or not, LeBron James is the most dominant athlete in sports and it’s been that way since he was a teenager.

Brittney Griner

David Schantz, Staff Writer

On Monday April 3, junior Brittney Griner and the Baylor University Bears put the finishing touches on a perfect season, beating Notre Dame 80-61 in the women’s NCAA tournament final.

The win not only cemented the team’s place in history, but it also made it clear that Griner will be remembered as one of the most dominant centers in NCAA history and the most dominant athlete in her sport today. This year she was, hands down, the best player on one of the best teams of all time.

Griner led the team with 26 points, 13 rebounds and five blocks in the NCAA title game, statistics that reflected her body of work throughout the season. During her junior campaign she averaged 23.2 points, 9.5 rebounds and over five blocks per game, while shooting 60 percent from the field and 80 percent from the free-throw line.

Such statistics are the reason why she won virtually every major award this year, including the Naismith and James R. Wooden Awards, and she was named Associated Press Player of the Year. With her size and skills, Griner electrified stadiums this year with dunks and blocks comparable to her male counterparts. She has the potential to revolutionize her sport, something that few others in the realm of sports can relate to.

In every other major sport there are at least two athletes, and often several others, that can legitimately claim to be the best – with Griner it is not even close. Many casual fans cannot even name another women’s basketball player as dominant as Griner.

We are currently in an era with very few dominant athletes. Those that were once far and away the best in the field, such as Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant and Roger Federer, have fallen back. This has allowed a class of younger athletes to rise up and to lay claim to the throne.

But, because of Griner, this parity is nonexistent in women’s NCAA basketball, which is why she is the most dominant athlete in sports today.

Lionel Messi

Matt Smith, Assistant Sports Editor

At the young age of 24, Fútbol Club Barcelona center forward Lionel Messi is clearly the most dominant player in his sport.

Manchester United star striker Wayne Rooney recently tweeted, “Messi is a joke. For me the best ever.” This incredible praise came after Messi displayed his dominance by scoring a record five goals against German league winner Bayer Leverkusen in the UEFA Champions League bout.

Although Messi had never scored five in Champions League play before, he has consistently proven his dominance on the biggest of stages.

Messi recently became the youngest player in almost 40 years to score 60 goals in one season. The all-time record of 67, set by Gerd Müller of Germany’s FC Bayern Munich in 1973, is well within Messi’s reach.

While some claim Messi’s astronomical success is mainly due in part to the other world class players that surround him on the FC Barcelona roster, his dominance is in fact his own. Not just a striker who finishes off great passes, he is a player who scores on his own and creates for others.

The Argentine star conducts the orchestra while playing first violin. What sets him apart from others like Real Madrid winger Cristiano Ronaldo is his ability to be successful by any means.

As FIFA’s World Player of the Year in 2009, 2010 and 2011, Messi consistently proves to be more dominant in soccer than any other athlete is in their respective sport.

With video game-like moves that embarrass even the staunchest of defensemen, Messi’s dominance will only increase in the years to come.

Tom Brady

Erik Talbot, Assistant Sports Editor

To be a dominant athlete in any sport, one must combine play on the field with being both a winner and a leader. For that reason, Tom Brady is the most dominant athlete in professional sports.

The quarterback is the most influential position in the sports world and for more than a decade Brady has been and continues to be the best quarterback in football. It’s worth noting that I don’t like Brady, the New England Patriots or Boston teams in general.

Throughout his career, Brady’s team has consistently won. He holds a remarkable record of 124-35 during the regular season and 16-6 mark in the playoffs, he won three Super Bowls and he competed in two others in 10 seasons as a starter. He holds the record with 18 wins during the 2007 season in what was possibly the greatest single season performance of all time.

Brady is amazing on the field and has improved throughout his career. In 2011, he threw for 5,235 yards and took the second worst defense in football to the Super Bowl. The past three years Brady has averaged over 4,500 yards, 34 touchdowns and only nine interceptions.

Novak Djokovic may be the No. 1 tennis player in the world, but his dominance has been skewed. He may have won seven in a row against Rafael Nadal, but he still lost to Roger Federer. Djokovic only appears to be the best because Nadal continued to dominate Federer throughout their careers. It’s a circle of dominance with Djokovic beating Nadal, Nadal beating Federer and Federer beating Djokovic.

Andrés Iniesta contributes more to Barcelona’s success than Lionel Messi does. He may not appear on the stat sheet, but his passing and space-creating abilities as a midfielder are irreplaceable. Not to mention it was Iniesta who scored the game-winning goal in the 2010 World Cup final while Messi failed to score in the entire tournament.

There is no way that Tom Brady is not the most dominant athlete in professional sports. His combination of performance and winning success is second to none.

The Faceoff: Kony 2012

Audrey Schiffhauer, Columnist

Invisible Children has recently faced criticism for their campaign Kony 2012. Their goal is for everyone in the world to know who Joseph Kony is, and to make it known to people in power that they want this man brought to justice. Invisible Children’s goal is for Joseph Kony to be apprehended by Dec. 31. Here are some common criticisms of the movement:

Kony is no longer operating his army in Uganda.

The Lord’s Resistance Army left Uganda in 2006, and since then has been committing his same atrocities in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic. Invisible Children recognizes that the LRA is no longer in Uganda but because they wanted Kony 2012 to reach people who are unfamiliar with Invisible Children, they needed to include the history of the conflict in the video, the majority of which takes place in Uganda.

Some claim the Ugandan army to be corrupt.

In October 2011, United States Special Forces were sent to aid the Ugandan army by providing them with the necessary training and technology to locate Joseph Kony. Invisible Children does not support the human rights abuses that the Ugandan army has committed. None of the money Invisible Children brings in goes to the Ugandan government. The Ugandan military, however, is the only army in the affected area that could feasibly become organized enough to apprehend Kony. They are not prepared to do this on their own and that is why U.S. forces were sent to help them. Invisible Children is not involved in any affairs of the Ugandan government aside from capturing Kony; they are working together to achieve their common goal of stopping Kony’s long reign of terror in Africa.

Most of Invisible Children’s money doesn’t even go to Africa.

Invisible Children has its finances audited every year by a private company in San Diego but recently they have been criticized because only about one-third of their profits actually make it to Africa – this is intentional. Invisible Children has three main goals: to make the world aware of the LRA through free documentary films, channel energy from supporters into large-scale advocacy campaigns and operate programs on the ground in LRA-affected areas that provide protection, rehabilitation and development assistance. They use about one-third of their profits to support each of these goals, and a very small amount of money for employees’ salaries.

If you want to explore different opinions or learn more about Kony 2012, look for information in credible sources, not places like Reddit. This organization was started by young people that wanted to do more than just watch. They have no reason to lie to the American or Ugandan people or their audience at large, because these are the very people they have so heavily depended on for support these last eight years. Invisible Children wants to bring us a better world: a world without Joseph Kony.

Tyler Ocon, Columnist

The first time I watched the Kony 2012 video, I found it curious. Then I watched it a second time and realized that, contrary to the rave reviews from everyone blowing up my Facebook feed, the Kony 2012 video (and subsequent campaign) is nothing but inaccurate propaganda intended to target the average American young adult who will propagate information, no matter what it is, in order to feel like they’ve “changed the world” in this age of youth indirection.

Let’s start with the video. First, the oversimplification of the facts is atrocious – no one can appreciate the full breadth of the situation and all its complexities when it is displayed on a black and white format suited for a four-year-old with no concept of “the grey area.” Second, Kony 2012 fails to acknowledge the fact that the Ugandan military also employed child soldiers – a shocking omission, given Invisible Children’s overarching mission. Third, the film gives a misleading impression of Joseph Kony’s strength and his area of operation – Kony is currently somewhere in the Central African Republic with only a few hundred soldiers – a drastic difference from the tens of thousands at the height of his power. The fact that Invisible Children is willing to either ignore or give lip service to the reality of the situation in exchange for YouTube views and retweets on Twitter is reprehensible. I could go further, but I do have a space limit.

As for the campaign, it fails to account for the number of individuals who will inevitably engage in “slacktivism.” The advent of social media has made it so the average American young adult can hop on to a number of causes without knowing what they actually are – and without feeling any motivation. I have respect for those who take the time to do their research – but those are few in number. How many of the 86 million viewers of the Kony 2012 film know the Lord Resistance Army’s (LRA) history in Uganda? How many decided to read up on it after viewing the film? And how many simply clicked the “share” button and smiled smugly, patting themselves on the back for a job well done, only to forget about the video a week later?

Let me lay it out for you: Sharing a video does not make you a warrior for the cause, nor does buying a bracelet, nor hanging up some flyers nor putting a Kony sticker on your MacBook. Out of approximately 5,000 students on campus, I haven’t heard a sound about Kony 2012 in the last two weeks. I don’t know about you but that doesn’t sound like a captive populace that’s determined to make a difference – it sounds like a passive society that “paid its dues” to the cause and went on its merry way. Change isn’t about “action kits” – it’s about giving those affected by Kony’s atrocities the resources necessary to take control of their own destiny. Invisible Children and Kony 2012 depend on publicity and propaganda to further a flawed agenda that only barely serves in the best interests of those affected by the LRA – and the fact that many are willing to play into it only validates their tactics.

The Faceoff: Who will have the better NFL career?

Robert Griffin III

Matt Smith, Assistant Sports Editor

Pundits have been drooling over golden boy Andrew Luck ever since his breakout sophomore season. Even though he has lived up to most of the hype surrounding him and has all but signed the contract with the Colts to be the first overall pick in next month's NFL Draft, it does not necessarily mean that he will have a more successful career than Robert Griffin III.

One of the most common knocks against Griffin is that his lack of size will limit his long-term success at the quarterback position. At 6 feet, two inches and 220 pounds, Griffin does not fit the traditional physical mold of an NFL quarterback. According to this widely accepted standard, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Michael Vick and Tony Romo all are "undersized" for successful NFL quarterbacks, too. Not only does Griffin match their size, but he is also much more athletic than these veterans.

Griffin's 40-yard time of 4.41 seconds at the NFL Scouting Combine on March 1 was extremely fast for any position and incomparably fast for a quarterback. While the 40-yard time can be overblown and assigned too much importance, in Griffin's case, its value is immeasurable. Because he has the speed to run past pro-level defenders and avoid the big hits, not only will he be more successful, but his chances of injury are much less than any scrambling quarterbacks in the past. In a sport often referred to as "a game of inches," the approximate two-foot advantage Griffin's speed gives him could put him just out of reaching distance.

While often being compared to Michael Vick for their similar speed and agility, Griffin is more than just a speedster. In his Heisman Trophy winning junior season at Baylor, Griffin compiled 3,998 yards and 36 touchdowns through the air, and led the nation with a 192.3 passing efficiency rating, 29.5 points greater than Luck.

We are currently witnessing the evolution of the quarterback position, encouraged by an offensive need to become more dynamic. While a polished, more traditional pocket quarterback like Luck will never completely fade from use, quarterbacks with freakish athleticism like Griffin have a greater chance of success because of the flexibility they bring to an offense. 

When discussing long-term success in the NFL, the mental aspect of a player must not be overlooked. Griffin has received top marks from scouts on his ability to go through his progressions of receivers while facing pressure in the pocket. Not just a smart quarterback, Griffin's dedication and time spent in the gym are unseen amongst most quarterbacks. From an early age, Griffin's parents Robert Jr. and Jacqueline, both United States Army Sergeants, instilled a work ethic and built up a mental toughness that Luck and most athletes will never possess. 

Griffin's physical build, incredible speed and agility, along with natural athleticism and mental strength is a recipe for success. At the moment, no one, not even Luck, can challenge it.

Andrew Luck

AJ Devine, Staff Writer

To compare Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin's futures as professional quarterbacks is to compare apples and oranges. So much depends on the teams that draft them, the coaching staff and the management and ownership of that team.

Sports fans do still have some idea of which teams are likely landing spots for each quarterback: Luck is almost certainly going to be an Indianapolis Colt and he could even be signed by the team a month before the draft starts, while Griffin's future isn't as set in stone. Speculation is that the teams most likely to trade up to snag him are the Cleveland Browns and Washington Redskins.

The Colts, as they stand right now, undoubtedly have more talent at the skill positions than both Cleveland and Washington. Three of their top wide receivers and Pro-Bowl center Jeff Saturday are unrestricted free agents, but even if they managed to sign just two of those four that would still hold true.

If the team must give up at least two first-round picks, a second-round pick and a third-round pick to trade with St. Louis (which is optimistic in itself) to have the opportunity to draft Griffin, that potentially sets the franchise back even more. Now there is less opportunity to build the team around Griffin. The Colts save all future picks, and also have the No. 34 overall pick in the draft, where they can still find a first-round talent (perhaps an offensive tackle to help protect Luck).

There is a reason Luck is regarded as the clear-cut top quarterback in the draft. There is a reason there has been no trade speculation with regard to the Colts' No. 1-pick. There is a reason Luck has been called the best college prospect since John Elway, Jr.: He's that good. 

Griffin is a spectacular athlete with an extraordinary football mind. In almost any other year, he would be the top quarterback on every team's draft board. But Luck is just on a completely different level.

Luck redshirted his first year in college and took a back seat to Toby Gerhart in his RS freshman season. In his sophomore year, he threw for 2,575 yards and 13 touchdowns. In his last two seasons, he threw for 6,855 and completed 70.5 percent of his passes.

But the numbers don't do his skills justice. He played in an NFL-style offense under David Shaw and had free-reign over the offense his last two years – similar to the control Peyton Manning had in Indianapolis. Oh yeah, it also doesn't hurt that he put up similar combine numbers to what Cam Newton did last year (4.59 seconds in a 40-yard dash). Luck will have a much smoother transition into an NFL offense than Griffin will, which isn't to say Griffin will have trouble.

There's no doubt that both will turn into great players in the NFL. Luck, however, will have a brighter future because of the situation that will receive him.    

The Faceoff: What's the bigger New York sports story?

Linsanity

David Schantz, Staff Writer

Two weeks ago, this debate would have been a moot point. The New York Rangers were quite arguably the best team in the NHL and seemed destined for their best season in years. Meanwhile, the Knicks were wallowing in mediocrity with an 8-15 record and were about to lose stars Amar'e Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony to personal issues and injury, respectively.

It had been a largely disappointing season to date for the Knicks, one characterized by poor defense and impotent offense. There was too little chemistry and too much frustration.

Flash forward to today and the Rangers are still one of the best teams in the NHL. But the emergence of Jeremy Lin has vaulted the Knicks into the national spotlight, all while leaving the Rangers in the dust.

On Feb. 4, the legend was born: Lin came off the bench to record 25 points and seven assists in a winning effort against the New Jersey Nets.

From that game on, Lin's legacy has only grown. He scored more points in his first four starts than any other player since the NBA/ABA merger in 1977, out-dueled Kobe Bryant, hit a game-winning shot to sink the Toronto Raptors and beat the defending champion Dallas Mavericks.

Lin's story is as captivating as it is improbable. It is a true underdog story about a humble, hard-working individual who made the most of the opportunities presented to him. Lin has been calm and cool both on and off the court, winning scores of fans in the process.

Quite simply, no athlete or team has received more attention in the past few weeks than Lin and the Knicks.

Even Osi Umenyiora of the Super Bowl Champion New York Giants admits that the Knicks have become the toast of the town. In an interview with ESPN, Umenyiora stated, "There's nothing like when the Knicks are winning … It's a really a special time."

If Lin can supersede the Super Bowl Champions in popularity, then it is hard to imagine him being beat out by a hockey team.

To put it bluntly, basketball is simply more relevant and popular than hockey. It was born in America and we are proud of it. And despite growing competition from abroad, America still has by far the best basketball players in the world.

Combine this popularity with a feel-good underdog story, the basketball-mecca that is Madison Square Garden and the revival of one of the most storied franchises in the NBA, it's no wonder that Lin's story has taken off like it has.

Now if this debate were about which team was better, then the Rangers would most likely come out on top, having put together a consistent and dominating season thus far. But just as this debate was a moot point two weeks ago, it is likewise today. Lin has overshadowed every athlete in the sporting world and shows no sign of slowing down.

Lunsanity

Brian McCormack, Staff Writer

"We're over here! Down the other hallway at MSG!"

In case you were wondering, that would be the New York Rangers, first in the Eastern Conference, trying to get just one anchor on ESPN's SportsCenter to swivel their chairs and banter in their direction.

And while the nation, the city and the cover of Sports Illustrated glorify an exceptional feel-good story on Broadway for a sub-.500 team, the New York Rangers are having their most successful season since 1996.

LINsanity? How about LUNsanity? Henrik Lundqvist – the Rangers starting goaltender since 2004 and a three-time Vezina Trophy finalist – is enjoying his best season yet, running away with his first Vezina and perhaps competing for MVP honors. Only four goalies have won the Hart Trophy since 1962 – Dominik Hasek has twice.

Lundqvist ranks first in the National Hockey League in save percentage and shutouts, second in goals against average and fourth in wins. Lundqvist blanked the Devils on Monday for his seventh straight 30-win season, breaking his own record for consecutive 30-win seasons to start a career. Lundqvist was drafted 205th overall out of Sweden in the 2000 NHL Draft's final round – not a bad Cinderella story either, is it?

And what about the other Blueshirts?

Dan Girardi, who came to the Rangers as an undrafted free agent in 2005, worked his way up through the East Coast Hockey League and American Hockey League to make the Ranger roster in late 2006 and has become one of the premier shutdown defenseman in the NHL.

This year Girardi made his first All-Star appearance, leads the league in average ice time, is third in blocked shots and sixth among defenseman in hits. Not bad.

Overall, this entire roster is what Ranger fans in the metro area have clamored for over the last decade. They're young – the average age is 27 – they're tough and they have a coach in John Tortorella who has brought the kind of no-nonsense mentality that appeals to New York.

They also have the comfort of knowing that they have relied most heavily on homegrown talent.

Michael Del Zotto, exiled in his sophomore season as a defensive liability, has returned to lead the NHL in plus-minus and has 32 points through 57 games. Ryan McDonagh is a first-unit D-man.

Marian Gaborik and Brad Richards have proven to be the right free-agent additions to this young core to make the Rangers a team ready to win now, despite pundit opinions over the summer.

The Rangers have filled Madison Square Garden this year to 99.9 percent capacity and with their combined road attendance, the Rangers have sold out to 103 percent arena capacity this year – the best in the NHL.

While SportsCenter shoves photos of Jeremy Lin's couch in our face and dedicates 20 minutes to the best Lin pun – Linstigator? Really? – the rest find their own way to enjoy the East's best and the Rangers' best shot at a parade in almost 20 years.

New York's best-kept secret? That is absolutely Linsane.

The Faceoff: The graduate school debate

Amelia Stymacks, News Editor

Graduation is rapidly approaching for seniors and graduate school application deadlines are nearly upon us. We’ve declared our majors and explored our interests, but that doesn’t mean we all have a future in mind. The “real world” may be intimidating but I feel that if you’re not certain where you want to end up, there’s no point wasting time and money in graduate school.

I have a lot of friends who know exactly what they want to do and the only way to get there is with a master’s degree. If that’s the case, then go for it. I admire your ambition and frankly, I’m envious of your vision. I wish I had one of my own.

For those of us stuck in the middle, unsure of where we want to go, why not jump right in? Don’t be afraid to make mistakes. Take some time, do some volunteer work, try something new, just get out there and experiment. Figure out what you love before you invest all that money.

Cost is a major issue for most of us. What is that $50,000 really buying? Two years of hard work, semi-real world experience with the helping hand of a professor and the alumni network. In an economy like ours the network is a tempting promise but I don’t think it’s worth the price, especially if you don’t know where you want to end up. And frankly, it’s not that hard to create your own network.

My main issue is my indecision. I’m afraid that if I go to graduate school, I won’t be able to be picky when it comes to choosing a job. There may be more options available with a master’s degree but there won’t be time to delay once the debt starts piling up. I don’t want to settle. I’ll take a part time job as an assistant or even an unpaid internship if it sounds interesting enough, but I don’t want to settle on the kick-start to my career just because I have to start paying back my loans. I want to be interested and I want to be able to quit if I find that I hate my job. I want to shop around.

I don’t see any problem with starting out at the bottom, wherever that may be, and learning on the job. In the time it takes to go to graduate school, I could be working my way up the ladder in whatever field I decide to stick with.     

It’s a terrifying prospect; most of us have never been truly independent, but it’s also the most exciting transition in our lives. This is the first time we’ll be able to do whatever we want without anything to tie us down. There will be loans to pay back but they’ll be manageable. If there’s ever a time to explore, it’s now. We can move around the world, try different fields and start building that network. Most importantly, if things aren’t working out, we can go back to school with a better idea of what we want to pursue.

Charles Schulz, Public Relations Manager

Graduate school is absolutely necessary for the overwhelming majority of undergraduate students. It’s an obvious necessity for graduates seeking careers in fields such as medicine, law and education. It’s still essential for other careers that don’t necessarily require a graduate degree.

People that aren’t planning on graduate school don’t want to hear what awaits them in the job market. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the median starting salary for individuals with an undergraduate degree was $27,000 in 2010. That average is just for the people that were able to get jobs, not necessarily jobs in their field of study.

Moreover, most undergraduates in the workplace feel unprepared for their desired career. “More than 60 percent of those who graduated in the last five years said they would need more formal education to be successful,” as reported in The New York Times. Students that opt out of going to graduate school are at a significant risk for lacking the education needed to be successful.

The argument against attending graduate school is primarily focused on the high financial costs. There are several factors that should greatly reduce the gross exaggeration of these expenses. Most importantly, graduate programs have been transformed to pack more information into a shorter amount of time – often only one or two years. Decreasing the amount of time out of the work force and paying tuition significantly reduces the costs. Graduate schools also offer graduate and teaching assistantships in undergraduate classes, again decreasing tuition.

Another major source of expense reduction is that graduate schools can offer financial aid based on the individual student, not their parents or other family members that the student had previously put on their financial aid forms. This distinction allows many students to receive a large amount of financial aid. Graduate students also often get a variety of merit-based scholarships for their undergraduate work.

The bottom line is that graduate school attendance is still rising because of the growing perception that a graduate degree is integral to success in the workplace. Though there was a slight dip in enrollment from 2009 to 2010, according to The New York Times, there has been an 8.4 percent increase in applications. It will be tough for people with undergraduate degrees to compete with an increasing number of people with graduate degrees that are also searching for jobs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that almost 96 percent of people over 25 with a master’s degree have a job, even in this tough economy. Additionally, individuals with a graduate school degree earn over $10,000 per year more out of college than people holding solely undergraduate degrees.

Graduate schools offer their students increased and advanced learning that is specific to their field of study, as well as alumni networks, which serve as resources in the job market. Furthermore, graduate schools now train students specifically to make them more marketable to employers. They’re invested in the success of their graduates because this success is used to attract new students to their institution.

I have “real-world” experience in my field of study. I still feel the need, however, to go to graduate school to further develop my career skills at an institution that is invested in my success. I want to be part of the 96 percent of people that hold a master’s degree and have a job.

The Faceoff: Football versus Baseball

Levi Fiske, Staff Writer

One day out of the year – every year – over 100 million televisions across the United States are all tuned to the same television channel. That day happens to be the day of the Super Bowl. In fact, Super Bowl XLV, had over 110 million viewers in the United States.

The 2010 World Series had 75 million viewers, which is impressive in its own right. But that was over a span of five games.

NCAA football is one of the biggest moneymaking machines in the world, but the only NCAA baseball we see is the so-called "College World Series." When it comes to sports, the people of these United States have made a clear choice: football is America's pastime.

Let's face it – football has an appeal that baseball is simply lacking. First, each game in football means more than each baseball game. In the NFL season, each team plays 16 games – just 16 chances to prove that your team belongs in the talk about the playoffs. In NCAA Division I football, you may only get 10 or 12 games to prove that you belong in a bowl game. Not to mention that in all of the Bowl Championship Series hoopla, losing one game may break your season.

Meanwhile, in the MLB, each team plays 162 games, which makes losing one individual game much less punishing.  

Second, football has a smash-mouth, do-or-die, blue-collar style that appeals to and represents the mentalities of hard-working Americans. While baseball players are prancing around a bunch of "bases," football linemen face off in the trenches in a battle of sheer strength.  While baseball players are trying to hit a ball with a stick, football players are trying to hit each other in order to gain possession of the pigskin. While baseball playoffs consist of best of five or best of seven series, football playoffs are best of one: win or go home.

Finally, football is the genesis of possibly the greatest American tradition: tailgating.  During the NFL season, no matter which stadium you choose to go to, you're going to witness some great scenes. The close-to-home example is Pinto Kenny, with his Pinto-turned-grill and famous bowling ball shots, but there are great tailgating traditions all over the football world.  From the Tiger Walk at Auburn, to grilling in the Muni lot in Cleveland and Boulevard beer in Kansas City, football has churned out more camaraderie and devoted fandom than any other sport.

When it comes to America's pastime, there shouldn't be any discussion. It is football. No fans are more devoted, and no sport is more American.

Rebecca Fitzgerald, Assistant copy editor

A national pastime isn't about favoritism. It's not about practice, entertainment or even viewership. Instead, "A national pastime … doesn't necessarily refer to the spectators. It refers to how people pass their time," stated sports economist Andrew Zimbalist.

Baseball has always been America's pastime – and it still is. Baseball has been America's appropriate pastime ever since its early practice in the 18th century. As baseball grew in popularity over the next few centuries, it became the new American sensation that everyone played, regardless of gender, age and race.

In comparison, football didn't reach colleges and universities until the mid- to late 19th century. The Harvard University and McGill University match-up in 1874 acted as a kickoff for the modern American game. Collegiate football became the dominant version of the sport until the first half of the 20th century. Professional football, however, wasn't practiced until the 1890s. The first professional league formed in 1903, while the first professional championship game wasn't competed for another 10 years.

But maybe Zimbalist is wrong. Maybe factors, such as prevalence, amusement and fan base do matter in a sport's qualification to be a national pastime. Even so, baseball still tops football.

Throughout baseball's history, many different leagues of all various levels were developed. Baseball expanded its practice to minor leagues, collegiate level, high schools and even youth leagues, allowing children as young as 4 years old to play. Football, however, didn't, and still cannot produce the same leagues, since 4-year-olds tackling each other is just a bad idea.

While some argue that football should be America's pastime because of the viewership statistics, they do not consider the fact that baseball yields a similar sized crowd and fan base. Last year's World Series yielded about 115.7 million viewers over the seven games. Super Bowl XLV, the most viewed television broadcast in the United States history, attracted a 111 million-member audience.

While that speaks to television viewership, how about regular season attendance? In 2008, over 78 million fans went to MLB games, while only 17 million attended NFL games. Baseball must be somewhat fun to play and watch, with that many supporters. Football fans may think baseball is too slow, boring and the same old thing over and over again, but football isn't much better. I would rather sit and watch a baseball game in full than a football game, not only because football takes up an entire day, but because baseball is more exciting. Walk-off home runs, stolen bases, diving catches, Jim Joyce-like mistakes and the occasional fights trump football's usual touchdown.

Throw me a glove or pass the remote, ‘cause I would rather spend my time having a catch or cheering on the Yanks than have anything to do with football on any given day.

The Faceoff: Is it time to expand instant replay in Major League Baseball?

Rebecca Fitzgerald, Assistant copy editor

Baseball is a game full of human errors. Batters strike out left and right and infielders incomplete simple, routine plays. Errors are bound to happen. The errors that are intolerable, however, are not by the players, but the umpires.

Between 2008 – when the MLB first implemented instant replay – and the conclusion of the 2010 season, replay has been used 123 times, 48 of which were overturned calls. The scary part is that this statistic only applies to boundary reviews for home runs, which determine whether a home run was fair, whether the ball left the playing field and if the ball was subject to fan interference.                

So my question is: Why not use instant replay to eliminate officiating errors that are easily avoidable? Furthermore, why not expand the use of instant replay?

Even MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, who generally doesn’t support replay, agreed: “It is vital that mistakes on the field be addressed.”

It is really only common sense to allow umpires to utilize instant replay at their own discretion. Everyone makes mistakes, right?

Just look at Jim Joyce, the infamous umpire who robbed Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga of a perfect game. Joyce incorrectly ruled that Cleveland Indians batter Jason Donald reached first safely on a ground ball; due to baseball’s rules, however, Joyce was unable to correct his error.

This shook the world of baseball, although most of the community was apologetic and supportive for Joyce and Galarraga. The use of instant replay, however, should at least be expanded to “spare the umpires unnecessary infamy,” according to veteran umpire Tim McClelland.

“There are a lot of problems eventually with this, but in the last year, I think, a lot of umpires have taken undue criticism,” stated McClelland on ESPN’s “Mike & Mike in the Morning” radio show. McClelland, whose own missed call on a rundown play in the 2009 American League Championship Series left him open to ridicule, continued, “I think more and more umpires are coming around to it.” 

Instant replay should be expanded to other rulings of the game, such as force-outs, foul balls and tag plays. Oftentimes these are missed calls because of the players. For instance, a wide throw to first forces the umpire to watch the ball into the glove or the runner hit the base. The umpire cannot watch both, since they aren’t in his line of vision. Other poor calls are caused because of the players’ bodies blocking the umpires’ view.

As the playoffs are approaching, just consider the importance of fairness. As you’re watching your favorite team lose its opportunity to reach the World Series because of one bad call, remember it could’ve been a different story. You’ll wish there was instant replay to get it.

Matt Smith, Assistant sports editor

As the use of technology becomes more and more popular throughout the sporting world, Major League Baseball has been under pressure to expand its use of instant replay.

I agree with the extent of the current Major League Baseball rules regarding instant replay use, but I feel that although it would not be a disastrous one, expanding its use would be a mistake.

Before I dive into the argument something needs to be cleared up first. In the last few years, the idea has spread that the accuracy of umpires making correct calls has greatly lessened. This is merely an illusion. We as viewers now have a dozen different camera angles to see the missed calls that have been a part of the game since its inception. This humanity is an aspect of the game that is overlooked and underappreciated. Umpires make mistakes, it happens. As a game fought between humans, should some machine really determine the competition? This is similar to why no one cares about chess anymore – the computer always wins.

Time is one of the greatest issues with instant replay, and already one of baseball’s greatest foes. The average time of a typical game pushes the three-hour mark, not to mention when the Boston Red Sox square off against the New York Yankees. Let’s face it: C.C. Sabathia gains another five pounds and Derek Jeter’s hairline retreats another inch by the 7th inning stretch.  

In a time when sports fans and society in general have an ever-decreasing attention span and an endlessly increasing desire for action, MLB can’t afford to slow down play. While I can appreciate the beauty of a classic low-scoring pitcher’s duel, the typical younger generation of fans are more attracted to a fast, more “exciting” play – something that professional football and basketball provide on a daily basis. Instant replay would only accentuate the time problem, slowing down an already slow game.

Also, a large portion of fans actually enjoys the drama and excitement that results from the fallibility of some umpires’ calls and the importance placed on them making the right call. The sub-plot of manager-umpire interaction is a direct result of this, and would be lost if instant replay was ubiquitous in baseball.

While umpires do miss some calls over the course of a season, they still are not making these mistakes at a rate in which wins and losses are affected enough to raise concern. Instant replay contradicts the game’s tradition, and tradition is undoubtedly more important to America’s pastime than any other sport.

There is a place for instant replay in baseball, but just adding the technology to all aspects of the game because it is now available, does not necessarily mean it is what’s best for the game.

Sex and the 'Seo: Is the walk of shame really shameful?

"Yes."

-Shannon Sullivan | Columnist

We're at a point in our lives now where we are considered to be "adults." At the age of 18 we are awarded our independence and the responsibility to do as we please.  

Many of us here at Geneseo have decided to embark on the true college experience, leaving home and entering an environment where we can truly be masters of our lives. We are permitted to pick the classes we want and stay out as late as we wish. We have the liberty to spend the night with whomever we want and decide if it's going to be something steady or a one-night fling.

The next morning, however, might not always be our shining moment. Many of us gawk at the girl standing in line for breakfast the next morning who is still clad in last night's outfit. Although we are now a generation who is exposed to sex at an early age, seeing a girl standing there holding her heels from last night is telling us more information than we need to know.

The walk of shame is something we all laugh about. For the person who's doing the walking though, it's not always so funny. It feels like everyone is staring at you. Hear someone laugh behind you? They're obviously making jokes about you to their friends. See someone whisper into a friend's ear? They're obviously commenting on how you're still in your clothes from the night before.

For the entire walk home, you're psychologically beating yourself up because you're fearful that everyone you walk past is judging you. All stares are directed at you and you find yourself practically sprinting back to your room.

Once you get home, it's no better. Many of us retreat to our rooms in an attempt to find sanctuary, only to be confronted by roommates who insist on making jokes. Although meant to be light-hearted and fun, it hurts even more because now it feels as if the people who pushed you to get with this kid in the first place are the ones judging you.

The feeling doesn't subside until you've showered and cleaned yourself up. Even then, the feeling that everyone is looking at you still doesn't leave. So you wind up spending most of your day inside, pretending to do homework while piecing together your previous night so that you won't repeat your actions the next time you go out.

The worst part is that these jokes never end. For the next week or two, your friends will repeat their joke, laugh at how uncomfortable you are and then proceed to poke fun at you for that. The event that you most wish to forget is brought up on repeat for the next few weeks until someone new in your crowd makes a similar mistake.

So, ladies and gentlemen, as happy as we are for you that you had a fantastic night somewhere, please, before you go to breakfast the next morning, remember to change your clothes. If you have time to stop for food, you probably have enough time to change beforehand.

"No."

-Darla Stabler | Columnist

Let's picture the classic walk of shame: Girl in a too-tight, too-short dress, hair a mess, smudged makeup, pair of heels dangling from one hand and her purse from the other, passing the dining hall as the girls who slept in their own dorms walk to brunch in their pajama pants. No one thinks she's classy. But what about the other, ignored people around them, like the girl walking back to campus with her boyfriend from his apartment, where she keeps a change of clothes? Or the guy who got lucky, coming back in the rumpled jeans and T-shirt he wore out? Using the same logic, they would have to share the same shame, because those who see them in public can all easily assume that they had sex the night before.

Yet they are not, in actuality, subjected to the same shame. Aside from those for whom religion has chosen to define all premarital sex as a source of disgrace, a large majority of college students think sex is an OK thing to do, and many have done it themselves. Some choose only to have sex within a committed relationship, but even most of those don't condemn it in their single friends' lives, as long as they're not putting themselves in danger by doing so, or if it's not with too many different people. So then sex itself isn't really the shameful thing about the walk of shame.

Those last stipulations for peer-sanctioned sex are in part because, with the level of sexual education in most modern American school systems, by the time they get to college, students have almost universally accepted and understood the importance of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. It's less clear, however, what the problem is with sex with multiple or unknown partners. A little clearer is what people who engage in this type of behavior are called: sluts, tramps, whores, skanks, ladies' men and studs. The gender double standard is glaring and unfair, and everyone is familiar with it.

But let's return to the girl from the first image, the classic walker-of-shame. Let's say she's painfully insecure, and uses frequent sex with strangers as an attempt at self-validation that only leads to worse self-worth, creating a vicious cycle. While clearly a self-destructive behavior, the sex is not the problem at all, but a symptom of larger problems with her own self-image, perception of men and reaction to how she experiences the pressures of our culture.

What if, however, she's not that girl at all? What if she knows she looks good in dresses like the one she's wearing, knows how to use her femininity to attract a partner and has sex because she enjoys it? What if she always does it safely because she values her body, and doesn't always do it with people she knows because sometimes strangers are more attractive? What if she never sees the guy again because she decides she's not that into him? There's no shame in that.

The Faceoff: “Have” versus “Play” catch

"People from Queens to Westchester and Albany to Buffalo all agree the proper phrase is ‘play catch.'"

Matt Smith, Asst.Sports Editor | Erik Talbot, Asst.Sports Editor  

There is nothing better than a game of catch. Throwing a ball around is a game, and people play games. The proper term, therefore, for the game of throwing a ball around is "playing catch."

Think of the board game Monopoly; Monopoly is something people play. You can say "let's play Monopoly," but if you say "let's have a monopoly," that's something completely different.

Nothing against Long Island or its inhabitants, but the select few people we have heard use the phrase "have a catch" are Long Islanders. People – including college baseball players –from Queens to Westchester and Albany to Buffalo all agree the proper phrase is "play catch." So does the rest of the U.S.

"Play catch" is proper English. In citing examples of the proper usage of the word "catch," Merriam-Webster's dictionary uses the phrases "let's play a game of catch" and "she used to play catch with her dad."

Prior to a recent game, Mets third baseman David Wright was tossing a baseball around with a few young Braves fans. Every article about Wright's kind gesture was headlined, "David Wright plays catch."

So the next time you go out and have a fun game of catch, make sure you use the proper phrase: "play catch."

"You may play hopscotch, tag and Frisbee but you definitely do not play catch."

James Costanzo | Sports Editor  

Whether you believe it or not, to have a catch means more than just tossing a ball back and forth. Yes, I said, "have" a catch and yes, I am from Long Island, N.Y.

Believe me, if that's wrong then I don't want to be right.

Although I am from downstate, the debate has less to do with regional dialects and more to do with semantics. The fact is that catch is more than just a childhood game; it's an experience. Each game of catch holds a unique sight, smell and tempo. When two people have a catch they take their relationship to the next level – they bond.

Saying "have" adds meaning to what the two people are doing. Just think of things that people normally describe as "having": relationships, family and children, for example. All of these things hold some type of significance.

The alternative – to play catch – cheapens the act; you may play hopscotch, tag and Frisbee but you definitely do not play catch.

I realize that I am outnumbered in my assertion. Along with the majority of western and central New York – and perhaps the country – major media outlets such as ESPN insist on using the cheap alternative.

But then again, bias might as well be ESPN's middle name.

In the final scene of the classic baseball film Field of Dreams, protagonist Ray Kinsella asks his father if he wants to "have a catch." As you fight back tears watching father and son share a special moment together, I dare you to say that they are "playing" catch. It's impossible.

Games are meant to be played, but catches are most certainly meant to be had.

The Faceoff: The great ethics dilemma

"The independent variable of all morality… is human action."

-Alan Gewirth, "The Objective Status of Human Rights"

By Jesse Goldberg | News Editor

In today's world of globalization and inter-cultural exchange, many people have abandoned the thought that any kind of objective morality is possible without appealing to some kind of divine source.

This rejection is ill-founded. God is not necessary for morality, and a denial of God's existence does not equate to a denial of moral truth.

Philosophers including Thomas Nagel, Richard Taylor, Michael Smith and Alan Gewirth have implicitly and explicitly denied David Hume's suggestion that we cannot derive conclusions of what should be from observations of what is.

If we accept that denial and agree that we can in fact discern what should be by referring to what is, then ascribing to certain objective moral principles seems necessary.

I am not the first to make this kind of an argument. I am in debt to each of the aforementioned philosophers for providing the basis for many of the ideas expressed here in this abbreviated argument for objective moral realism.

For many, value is the perennially subjective component of morality. The thinking goes that all cultures and people have different values and therefore finding objective value is impossible, especially in our post-modern world of cultural relativism. While this may be true for many values, there are, in fact, certain foundational values that objectively matter. Two such values are freedom and consciousness.

Consider freedom abstracted away from conflicting circumstances. Given the choice between more freedom and less freedom, which would you choose? More restrictions or fewer restrictions, just for you; which is better?

I'm betting you picked more freedom over less freedom, less restrictions over more restrictions. Think about it.

It's hard to make statements about human nature, but I think it's fair to say a couple of things. One is: humans do things. In order to do things, humans need the ability to act and conditions that allow them to act. By restricting the conditions necessary for action, a basic feature of agency is denied.

Human beings instinctually desire more freedom over less freedom, and so freedom perpetuates its own worth.

Now consider consciousness. Once consciousness begins, it too perpetuates its own value. When you have consciousness, you don't want to relinquish it. Sure, we fall asleep each night, but we only do so because we believe we will re-acquire consciousness in the future. There is an inherent instinct in most people to preserve their own consciousness – of course, there are exceptions, but to a certain extent widespread instinct does count for something.

People want to live. It could be argued that this is just biology talking, but even if one beliefs that biology has absolute explanatory power, it is a fallacy to believe that morality is non-existent simply because the self-preservation instinct is attributable to biology.

If we can objectively establish that concepts like freedom and consciousness hold intrinsic value, then we can develop parts of ethical systems since morality is commonly understood to depend on value. Slavery is morally wrong because it denies human beings the objective foundational value of freedom. Killing is morally wrong because it denies human beings the objective foundational value of consciousness.

It is therefore possible to understand objective morality without appealing to the divine.

"The Overman ... Who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character and become creative. Aware of life's terrors, he affirms life without resentment."

-Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

By Aaron Davis | Opinion Editor

In the beginning, Man looked up into the sky and saw the infinite expanse of stars looking back at him. He shivered, decided that infinity was too much for him and replaced it with God so that he could reconcile just how insignificant his existence was in the scheme of things. Delusion followed.

It is tempting for humanity to believe that there is evil in the world on the basis that if evil exists, then there must also be goodness inherent in some people. Usually this goodness is ascribed to the grace of God, but sometimes people simply believe in polarity. It's not true, though: There is no good and there is no evil.

We're a uniquely arrogant species in our assumption that we can be ordained to such a lofty position of morality. To their credit, some humans have argued against this presumption; perhaps the most notable of these arguments was proffered by Friedrich Nietzsche, who famously composed the philosophical treatise Thus Spoke Zarathustra. "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him," Nietzsche wrote.

What Nietzsche meant was that any notions of absolute morality are invalidated by the greatest strengths of mankind: adaptability and logical thought. With these forces in play, there can be no absolutism; polarity exists only in the unthinking reason of computers, not in the emotional exigencies of human experience.

In the face of this nihilism, how can any person hope to assess relative value or to live a life of decency without falling into depression in the face of the hopeless brevity and insignificance of the individual human life?

The answer lies in self-determination. The only morality is that which each individual constructs for himself based on his own experiences and prerogatives. Nietzsche puts forth the idea of the Übermensch (the Overman): Through the strength of his personal drive to live a good life, the Übermensch self-determines the parameters that will govern that life, eschewing traditional assumptions about good and evil and instead following the principles that he determines to be most beneficial to himself and to the advancement of the human species.

The Faceoff: Who is the greatest soccer player in the world?

"The scariest thing about Messi is that he is still improving."

By Matt Smith | Asst. Sports Editor

Ruthless yet refined, powerful yet poised, FC Barcelona striker Lionel Messi can be compared to no other.

While it may be considered a copout to choose Lionel Messi as the greatest soccer player in the world today, he is the easy pick for a good reason. Messi's consistent production over the past several years places him ahead of all others in the soccer world. As far as I am concerned, there is Messi, and then there is everybody else.

With moves that are difficult to execute even in video games, Messi can regularly be seen tearing through some of the best defenses in the world with astounding ease. His grace on the pitch makes opponents cry tears of humiliation and leads fans to shed tears of joy. Even someone who has never watched a minute of soccer in his life can appreciate the beauty with which Messi plays.

Messi possesses a rare combination of speed, strength, ball skills, vision, passing and finishing ability. For one player to possess a combination of any two of these talents would make him a star, so for one player to possess all of them certainly places him in a league of his own. I can't deny that there are great players in the soccer world today that some ignorant Arsenal fans may argue have a stronger shot or are faster than Messi, but what makes Messi the greatest player is how complete and well-rounded his game is.

At the young age of 23, Messi has already accomplished more than most of the greatest soccer players have achieved in their entire careers. As a result of his standout efforts with his club team Barcelona and national team Argentina in 2009 and 2010, Messi was awarded the World Player of the Year award. This fact alone should leave little doubt that Messi is the greatest footballer in the world not just today, but of his generation. The amount of personal and team accolades Messi has accumulated is greater than most will ever achieve in their careers, let alone by age 23.

To be fair, Messi's success can be attributed in part to his teammates like midfielders Andrés Iniesta and Xavi Hernandez, but this is an argument for the best player in the world, not the best supporting cast.

What sets Messi even further above other superstars of the game is his ability to remain calm under pressure and play his best in the biggest of games. To any informed spectator, Messi's accomplishments undeniably set him atop the soccer world.

The scariest thing about Messi is that he is still improving. It is hard to imagine what his game will look like in a few more years when he reaches his prime.

"Anyone who follows soccer knows that the game involves more than cranking out goals to achieve a final score."

By Taylor Solano | Staff Writer

For a passionate soccer fan, having to select the best contemporary soccer player in the world is analogous to a musician having to choose his single favorite song: agitating and nearly impossible.

Anyone who follows soccer knows that the game involves a lot more than cranking out goals to achieve a final score. The real talent lies in the ability to create goal-scoring opportunities and to conversely limit these same opportunities for your opponents. Moreover, in the international soccer arena, the ultimate goal is to win the FIFA World Cup, an achievement that supersedes any honors associated with winning club titles. Therefore, Andrés Iniesta deserves the recognition of world's top player for his versatility of play and hefty contributions both to his club, FC Barcelona, and to the Spanish national team.

Iniesta plays an attacking midfield position that allows him ultimate offensive creativity without forfeiting defensive capability. The midfield is often where opportunities are created or stolen. A master of his position, Iniesta maintains one of the highest ball possession rates in the Spanish soccer league, La Liga. Vicente del Bosque, manager of the Spanish national team, told Guardian newspaper that Iniesta "is the complete footballer. He can attack and defend, he creates and scores." This breadth of skill is considerably more impressive than being a mere goal-scoring machine.

This doesn't mean that the ability to score goals isn't important or impressive, but goal scoring must be more than just a flashy tallying effort. Lionel Messi currently tops the La Liga league in goals and is tied with Cristiano Ronaldo at 27 apiece. While Messi performs well for his already stellar club team Barcelona, perhaps a greater test would be to judge his contributions to Argentina, his national team. This past summer, Messi's World Cup efforts fell quite short. How did the leading goal scorer of La Liga fail to net a single goal for Argentina in the sport's most significant tournament?

Iniesta, on the other hand, scored the second goal in Spain's 2-1 win over Chile to advance his team out of group stage play, and then scored the winning goal in the final match versus Netherlands to make Spain the champion of the 2010 World Cup. Talk about some definitive goals. Naturally, Iniesta was voted onto the 2010 World Cup All-Star Team; Messi wasn't even granted that honor.

One could easily rattle off Messi's impressive stats for hours. But if his skills can't translate from club play to national team play, he is lacking the qualifications of world's top player. Having scored seven goals this season for Barcelona, Iniesta has successfully balanced his talent in the club and international arenas. Add this to his ability to champion multiple positions and his acute responsibility to help his team succeed, and you've got yourself the world's best player.

The Faceoff: Winners and losers of the MLB off-season

 "A bad offseason can certainly set a team back, say, seven years and $126 million."

By James Costanzo, Sports Editor 

A strong offseason won't win a World Series, but a bad one can certainly set a team back, say, seven years and $126 million.

That's the deal the Washington Nationals gave 31-year-old outfielder Jayson Werth this offseason. Prediction: they start to regret that deal around year four, if they don't already.

The Nationals don't get my "worst offseason" award because their five consecutive losing seasons might force them to overpay on coveted free agents. Instead, my best-of-the-worst offseason goes to the Texas Rangers, who failed to resign Cliff Lee. Now the load falls on C.J. Wilson, Colby Lewis, Tommy Hunter, Derek Holland and perhaps Neftali Feliz to help the Rangers return to the World Series.

On its surface, the signing of Adrian Beltré seemed to soften the blow of failing to keep Lee in Arlington, but let's be honest, Beltré isn't batting .328 with 28 homeruns again. The Beltré signing might also cost the Rangers Michael Young, who wants out if he has to be the team's designated hitter. Besides the loss of the league's most formidable left arm, the Rangers will also be without Vladimir Guerrero, who had a decidedly solid year.

Don't get me wrong, the New York Yankees get an honorable mention in this category after losing out on Lee to the Philadelphia Phillies and Andy Pettitte to retirement – not to mention the panic signing of Rafael Soriano, who will essentially be just a really good setup man. The bombers also added Andruw Jones, Bartolo Colon, Mark Prior and Freddy Garcia to their payroll. Too bad it isn't 2002 anymore.

The Tampa Bay Rays also get a nod, just look at who they lost: Carl Crawford, Rafael Soriano, Matt Garza, Jason Bartlett and Carlos Pena, to name a few. Nevertheless, they're young and they still have a lot of talent.

The American League East isn't completely full of disappointment, however. The Boston Red Sox get my "best offseason" award for their acquisitions of Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford; two great defensive players that make the Sox lineup downright scary. If Josh Beckett, John Lackey, and Jonathan Papelbon can bounce back, the Sox will have a shot at another title.

Honorable mentions go to the Milwaukee Brewers who added Zack Greinke, and the Phillies who have the best rotation since Greg Maddux's Atlanta Braves.

"Plan C for the Angels?  Luring Vernon Wells out of Toronto."

By Dayshawn Simmons, Staff Writer

With spring training right around the corner and catchers and pitchers reporting on Feb. 14, let's explore which Major League Baseball team should be crowned the winner and loser of this offseason.

For the loser of this offseason, my pick would have to be the Los Angeles Angels. It is no secret that last season was a bust for the team; the Angels lost a key player during a walk-off celebration. It was widely reported the team had money to spare this offseason and was primed to make big splashes.

The Angels were looking to have a strong defensive outfield, with hopes of adding Carl Crawford to left field. Angels General Manager Tony Reagins even had right-fielder Torii Hunter involved with recruiting Crawford before the 2010 season ended in hopes of luring him to the west coast. The team lost out on Crawford, though; he joined the Boston Red Sox on a seven-year, $142 million contract.

Plan B? The Angels reportedly made a significant offer to Adrian Beltré, who had a comeback year as third baseman for the Boston Red Sox, but Beltré ended up at the Texas Rangers on a multi-year deal.

Plan C? Luring Vernon Wells out of Toronto. The Angels needed to save face somehow but Wells certainly isn't Crawford or Beltré, so they never really had a chance even with their promising resources. The Angels weren't the only team to lose out big: the New York Yankees are a case in point.

The offseason winner has to be the Philadelphia Phillies. Yes, they only signed one major player, but that player was Cliff Lee. Lee surprised everyone when the Phillies were identified as the mystery third team bidding for his services. It seemed like the Texas Rangers or the Yankees would nab the southpaw.

Now the Phillies have a rotation in which Roy Oswalt is the third starter and Roy Halladay returns as the ace. The Phillies lineup lost some power with the departure of Jayson Werth to the Washington Nationals, but the saying goes that good pitching usually beats good hitting any day.

Perhaps Philadelphia should start planning the team's victory parade now. If the players stay healthy, the Phillies are the team to beat in the National League this year.

Sex and the 'Seo: Where do we go from here?

Meg Musilli, Managing Editor

Oh, summer. We're all looking forward to that time of few responsibilities, flip-flops and flings, right? Except that some of us are faced with a tough decision before that time comes…

No, I'm not talking about the choice between making minimum wage at Target or Walmart. Rather, the choice of whether or not to continue that lovely relationship you've got going on here at Geneseo.

Honestly, this is a difficult topic because it truly depends on the person at hand. I could rant for pages about how the summer is perfect for spending time by yourself and gaining control back over the life you lost to the college workload. I could also go on about how these next three months of relaxation also serve as a great opportunity for pursuing that person you've been pining over all year, but just haven't had the time to establish anything with. Or I could say that it's an awesome time to revitalize a relationship, now that there are fewer responsibilities and more time to spend with each other doing things you both enjoy. And then again, I could promote summer flings, which are always exciting, to say the least.

So, where do we go from here? The way I see it, summer is a time to do whatever is going to make you happy. It is a time for personal reflection and a way to regroup before you're hit with another semester full of work, drama and opportunities.

If that means you need to take the summer away from your significant other, do it. Don't hesitate; there's always next semester (sorry, seniors, you're on your own with this one). If there's the slightest internal debate going on in your head, recognize it and realize that you probably need time apart to reflect upon yourself without the stress of maintaining a relationship with someone else.

On the other hand, if being with that special someone makes you happy, despite the distance and difference in social atmospheres, keep it going. Why lose something you're confident about just because of a couple months apart? Road trips are great, and visiting your partner's hometown can allow you to learn a lot more about that person than you do when you're stuck in Geneseo.

This may seem like a cop-out article, and I apologize for that, but there's no way I can give a definite answer on this one. My only advice - take from it what you will - is to use these wonderful summer months to focus on you.

Aaron Davis, Opinion Editor

The semester's drawing to a brilliant close, everyone is stressed as hell and "sleep" is rumored to be some kind of elusive creature that lives in the Andes Mountains.

You know what you need? Some summer lovin'. And not just any lovin'! You need the kind that only Geneseo can give.

OK, that sounds pretty stupid, even to me (and I'm noted for saying pretty stupid things). What I mean is this: Over the summer, why not pursue that crush that you haven't been able to all year?

I mean, let's face it, between schoolwork, actual work, good friends and a substantial amount of alcohol-oriented gaming, there really isn't much time to go out and meet people. The whole hook-up scene is largely confined to two options: Your immediate circle of friends (rarely a good idea) or the Inn Between. Sure, sometimes good things come from the IB. More often than not, though, only ruin leaves that evil place (though they make some damn fine drinks).

Maybe there's some smoking hot girl you had some sort of chemistry with while you were working on a group project. There was flirting. She complimented that butt ugly sweater your grandma gave you. Hell, she even laughed at what you said even when you weren't joking. Actually, she might have been laughing at you. Anyway, the point is, there was chemistry, right?

But you move in different circles. Other than that one class, you don't see each other And this is where summer comes in.

Now, bear with me. Considering the way populations work in this school, I think you have a one in three shot that anyone you're into will wind up in your vicinity during the summer (I'm an English major, don't ask for the fuzzy pseudo-mathematics I employed). Those are pretty good odds that I just made up! And other than a summer job, maybe a class or two, what do you really have to do over the summer? It's the ideal situation to have a Grease-esque story, what with making out under docks and having cars and stuff. That's a timely reference, right?

Then when you get back to school, you either continue the whole romance thing or just cut it loose. Summer love is supposed to be a fling, anyway. People go into the situation expecting it.

So in sum: Take the summer as an excuse to hook up without strings attached and see what happens. Can't hurt, right?