Sex and the 'Seo: The Great Date Debate

Megan Musilli, Managing Editor

I tend to overanalyze situations; I'm pretty positive that's a trait most girls possess. And because of this, an "ideal date" is a complicated situation to imagine.

When asked about the ultimate first date, most picture a cliché response - dinner at a fancy restaurant paid for by you, a romantic-comedy movie that melts her heart, a quick kiss on lips and a promise to call tomorrow that ends the night. But in all reality, figuring out the perfect date environment is a much more difficult task.

Dinner is always tricky because there's the whole internal debate about what to order and if there's anything in your teeth and who is going to pick up the check at the end. Movies provide no means of communication, which prevents the couple from determining whether there is any real connection besides the awkward hand-hold in the darkened theater. And while a kiss and phone call are nice, sometimes they're simply not the best capstones to the night you've had.

So, after much debate and discussion with other females, I've come to this conclusion: An ideal date is a) something cheap, especially with this economy, b) something unique, that will make her remember it and make you stand out and c) something that helps you determine whether or not there's any real connection. Also, she should never have to choose where you go and what you do at any point in the night - assuming it was you that asked her out on this date in the first place.

A carnival or a Dave & Buster's-type place is a great location - something that sparks some friendly competition between the two of you can be a good gauge in determining what type of person your date is. It's inexpensive, something you can both enjoy and has the added benefit of a prize with all the tickets you earn (get her something nice!). Bowling or miniature golf are other activities of the same nature - lighthearted and fun, not cliché and stressful.

If your girl isn't of competitive nature, try something a little more laid-back. My favorite date was a night sitting on the dock at my lake house looking at the stars. True, I'm jumping back toward a more-cliché route, but it's not always the most extravagant things that one remembers.

And as for the whole goodnight-kiss-thing … well, my only advice for that is: be nice, be respectful but please, don't be shy.

Aaron Davis, Opinion Editor

So, dating. Men don't usually like to talk about their ideal date because, let's face it, everyone assumes it just involves sex.

But seriously, give us more credit than that. The ideal date also involves food and some booze and probably even talking. I certainly can't speak for all men, but let me lay out the ideal date as I see it:

First, dress the part. Women have a disturbingly decent eye for clothing; if you look like a slob on the special day when you're going out, you'll make her think you're more of a slob every other day. So make sure you look good - a female friend can help with that.

Second, always pick her up. This seems to be forgotten a lot these days. Go to her house, knock on the door, endure the pleasant small talk with family or friends (who are judging you) and, by all means, be polite. Don't ever honk the horn and wait for her to come out the door. Her father or roommates will hate you and you'll be screwed - but not the way you'd like.

Then proceed to a nice restaurant, defined as any restaurant where you can afford to pay for both your meal and hers. Making her pay is tacky, and tacky is bad. Besides, you're supposedly interested in this girl, you like her, therefore, you need to show her that you can provide more than oh-so-stimulating conversation. Also, be prepared for awkward pauses. Dinner is long and there will be awkward pauses. It happens.

What happens after dinner is really up to you, or more accurately, up to her. Do whatever she wants to do.

But never ever for a minute forget the words "walk hand-in-hand at night." Try to insert this somewhere in the itinerary; it'll break that prickly physical barrier and probably lead to a good conversation. Hand-holding and walking should be a staple of life.

And then, who knows? If this is truly the ideal date, most men probably do want sex. Or for the poets out there, you know who are, the lingering kiss before she goes inside. Whatever happens, always remember: make her feel special, because she is.

Sex and the 'Seo: College relationships—do they work or do they end?

Megan Musilli, Managing Editor

The best part about moving from high school to college, I believe, is the opportunity to meet an endless amount of different people - new acquaintances, new friendships and, inevitably, new relationships.

Upon entering college, you are immediately exposed to a vast variety of individuals, and because of this, it's likely you'll find someone you are compatible with. After escaping the stigmas of high school - the forbidden cliques and worrisome reputations - it's easier to find that "perfect someone" among the plethora of students at Geneseo.

We're more mature now - at least, most of us are - and because of this, our relationships are more mature as well. Without dealing with the drama of high school hormones, it's simple to focus on what makes you happy and what's working (or not working) in a relationship.

You're also free from parent supervision, which is usually a good thing. True, there's no more excitement in sneaking out of your house to see your partner at 2 a.m. (who does that?), but the opportunity to spend the day and night with your loved one really builds upon the connection in a way you simply can't when you're younger.

The size of college compared to high school also does justice to relationships at this point in our lives. While you have the opportunity to spend literally all of your time together, you also have the means to participate in separate organizations, separate groups of friends and separate classes - which allows you to create an identity for yourself outside of your relationship. The breathing room permitted by a college atmosphere is key in any relationship - something you can't necessarily achieve from the confinement of a close-knit high school.

On the other hand, your post-college life isn't ideal for relationships either. After the excitement of new opportunities wears away, you're forced to grow up and focus on yourself - your job, your finances … your life. By also concerning yourself with someone else, especially if you're in the early stages of a relationship, can be irresponsible.

College provides a model atmosphere for developing relationships - and I encourage any lonely Geneseo students to get out there and spark their own.

Aaron Davis, Opinion Editor

Oh dear, sweet relationships; the scourge of mankind.

Seriously, think about how much better off the world would be without monogamous relationships: the Trojan War would never have started … and that's the only example that readily springs to mind. It's a good example, though!

The fact is, in college at least, relationships seem to have an inordinately high mortality rate. Of course, the question is then begged: What goes wrong?

Well, nothing, really. It's just that people change pretty drastically in college. Think about who you were senior year in high school. Now think about yourself now. These two people probably bear only passing resemblance to each other. The college you probably has a beer can in hand. But I digress.

Then taking into account the awful fact that most college relationships are also long-distance relationships, you're in for a mass of trouble. Considering the number of "Dear John," letters written every day to soldiers who were called away to serve in combat in another country through no fault of their own, one wonders why we even bother with the comparatively tame long-distance college relationship.

Besides, even though it may feel like an eternity (and God, does it ever feel like an eternity sometimes) until graduation, it's really only four years before you will more than likely go your separate ways. There's something almost fatalistic about beating the odds for four long, perilous years and then, after everything, realizing that you're bound for different things.

And finally, there's the guilt. There's a lot of guilt associated with college relationships, for good reason. First you might be out carousing with other people. Then your significant other might not be out carousing and get jealous.

Perhaps your new friends of the opposite gender are also grounds for jealousy or guilt. Actually, everything you do in college is grounds for guilt, in the irrational mind of the jealous lover. So, hypothetically, two people spend what is supposed to be the best four years of their lives alternately guilty and jealous. Not good, not good at all.

Stay single, Geneseo.

Sex in the 'Seo: Is dating in the workplace a great idea or a disaster waiting to happen?

It can work! Dating in the workplace can bring out creativity and productivity.

Megan Musilli, Managing Editor

A relationship, if it's a good one, should work under any circumstance - this includes the workplace, despite any negative feedback it might entail.

Working with a significant other usually evokes a conflict of interest: How are you supposed to keep your personal life separate from your job? Is it awkward for co-workers to work with the two of you? What happens during a fight, or worse, a breakup?

With good communication and a strong bond, none of this should be a problem. Working with someone who's close to you may, in fact, even be seen as a benefit.

Oftentimes, fights arise over not spending enough time with each other. Working together not only gives you an abundance of bonding, but also a different level of communication - something you can both vent or cheer about with complete understanding of what the other person is talking about.

A person's job is a core part of who they are as an individual, and having that in common with someone else can make your relationship with that person even more special and fulfilling.

Working together can also spark creativity. When two people have chemistry as a couple, they also clearly have the compatibility to collaborate on different projects and ideas. Since the two of you mesh so well together outside of the office, it could be beneficial to all to have you both working together on different tasks within the workplace.

There will be difficulties - fights and other personal matters should be left at the door. And, for everyone's sake, never show PDA in the office. But any strong, mature couple should have no problem with this - especially if you love the job you do and the person you are with.

Seeing a coworker will likely result in misfortune for all parties involved.

Tom Wilder, Editor-in-Chief

Dating in the workplace has been romanticized throughout the years, notably with the adorable saga of Jim and Pam from "The Office." In reality, however, the collision of work and pleasure results in a thorny situation for everyone involved.

Entering any relationship results in a considerable loss of one's independence. In the office, this loss of independence is manifested in coworkers' perceptions of the couple. While each partner may have their own distinct career goals, their peers immediately perceive them as a single unit once they start dating; as far as their peers are concerned, their goals become each other's.

These impressions are only compounded when there is a difference in power between the couple. Whispers will inevitably circulate the office regarding possible conflicts of interest, whether or not the lower-ranked significant other is unfairly influencing a higher-up.

If the power disparity is great enough, such gossip can become damaging to the reputation of both members of the couple: Is So-and-So using sex to get ahead professionally? Is our boss giving preferential treatment to him or her based on their off-the-job performance, rather than their job performance?

Even if the relationship doesn't provide ample office gossip, it's nearly impossible for a couple to keep their private and professional lives 100 percent separate. Every relationship has highs and lows, and these varying moods will predictably affect the job performance of the parties involved. Perhaps the most prominent hindrance intrinsic in an office relationship occurs after-the-fact, when it inexorably comes to a close - unless it ends in marriage, and even then a positive outcome is only 50/50. Will the former lovers be able to maintain a healthy working relationship? Will the split, if particularly acrimonious, create a divide throughout the entire office?

Individuals should focus on success in their careers and personal lives separately. Otherwise, a breakup could result in the destruction of both ambitions.

The Faceoff: Liberty, justice... health care for all?

Matt DuBois, News Editor

Hopefully you're among the lucky half of America that won't get seriously ill this year. Because for the other half who are dealt a stroke of bad luck by disease or injury, expenses mount quickly: The sickest percent of the population will need $150,000 of care on average in a given year. Most people can't pay these, or even more moderate, expenses out of pocket and instead rely on private insurance companies to foot the bill.

Unfortunately, millions of people (15 percent of the country) are without insurance and an estimated 42 percent more are underinsured, and risk being forced into debt by emergency medical expenses. Conversely, in every other advanced nation in the world, the government keeps all its citizens affordably insured - an admirable use of taxes if I've ever seen one.

Still, opponents of universal health care like to echo the refrain that our health care system is the best in the world. And by rights it should be - we spend the most money per capita on health care of any nation in the world, twice as much as Canada or France.

Yet the World Health Organization rates our health care system No. 37, beaten out by France (No. 1), and even Colombia at a modest No. 22. And they do it on the cheap. How can we spend so much and yet get so little for our money's worth?

For the answer, just follow the money. Universal health insurance critics like to call government programs inefficient and overly bureaucratic. Not so - Medicare spends just two percent of its funds on administration, private insurers about 15 percent. This is not to mention the billions more spent by private insurers on paperwork and litigation to deny coverage to those who need it, or the untold costs of neglecting preventative medicine in favor of forcing the uninsured to wait for a costly emergency.

And all this needless expense buys us is a maternal mortality rate worse than that of Canada, Slovakia or Serbia. Whether you feel guaranteed health care is a right or not, all evidence shows that we can't afford to go on treating it as anything less.

Aaron Davis, Opinion Editor

Liberal-bashers' favorite topic of late has been the concept of universal health coverage, which sends conservative pundits into a terrified tizzy at its mere mention.

Pundits aside, the practice of universal healthcare as it's often described is fundamentally flawed and would be extremely inefficient; therefore a negative policy for our currently debt-ridden country.

The main argument in support of universal health care is well-known and repeated by rote without considering its implications: Many countries in Europe have universal healthcare, so America can as well. The problem with that argument, however, should present itself immediately: America isn't Europe.

There are more people, different health problems and a completely different ethos with respect to individuality and personal responsibility in America that remains prohibitive to the nature of universal health care.

There are 65 million people in France. America has 300 million. The logistical differences are staggering and perhaps the most compelling argument against the analogous theory of universal healthcare.

Further complicating the problem is the bureaucracy of medicine in the socialized healthcare state. Procedures will take longer to obtain and necessary help may well be denied because of bureaucratic red tape.

While this isn't unheard of under the current system of private insurance, it is far less common; insurance companies have to make a profit by providing a service and thus have strong incentive to provide fast care. There's no such draw where the government is involved.

This segues into the extremely important issue of waste: every government agency is prone to copious waste in every field. It's part of the very nature of government. By contrast, a commercial public company has a responsibility to its stockholders to turn a profit, giving a stimulus for private health insurance companies to provide quick, efficient service to their clients.

As usual, the root of the argument is steeped in American tradition: Universal health care would be extraordinarily useful to the poor, but the poor aren't the democratic majority. The majority, the middle class on which democratic states are based, benefits more from our current system of private insurance and thus it will, and should, remain in place.

Sex in the 'Seo: Is a relationship really what you call it?

Megan Musilli, Copy Editor

One of the most defining moments of a relationship is that first leap of faith: putting a label on yourselves, or, to put it in more modern terms, becoming "Facebook official." Though the beginning stages can go without being formalized, a simple brand opens an entire new realm of exploration.

It's a completely crucial part to any relationship - not because couples should care what society thinks of them, but because people should mind how society acts around them. Having those around you know you're in a relationship changes their take on you, as well as changing the way you act around them.

Society tends to understand things best when it can see a situation and label it clearly. A guy at a bar, for instance, is going to flaunt himself differently around a girl with "no label" than he would around some other guy's "girlfriend." One word transforms the situation entirely.

Though people in a confidential relationship may act the same as an official couple would in private, that's only a small piece of their lives. They may not try to hook up with someone they meet at a party or flirt with a random classmate, but they also won't be holding hands in public, going on dates, or simply experiencing life together, if the relationship is concealed. It's difficult to grow as a couple if you can only do so in private.

I've heard many excuses for not labeling a relationship: it's too soon, someone's scared of commitment, they're happy with how things are now. People today relish in the opportunity to make mistakes and not be held accountable. Without a title, nothing is stopping someone else from pursuing you, or you from pursuing someone else - despite the secret connection you may have. You become a different person when you take that "single" label off.

Hiding a relationship from those around you shadows being ashamed of your status. The title you give yourselves represents security and commitment - essential factors in any real relationship.

Labeling binds you together; it creates a pact that you're no longer in search for something more. A title indicates what level your relationship is on by providing clear boundaries. It's scary, it changes things, but it also opens up so much more.

Dan Skahen, Editor-in-Chief

Remove the "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" titles from all the individuals who have assumed them, and you will leave the world with no less love, sex, romance or commitment than it had before. You may even leave it with more.

When a boy and a girl with a mutual crush first kiss each other, they are closer in every respect, in that moment, than a boyfriend and a girlfriend who can't remember the last time they felt butterflies from kissing.

Our labels are only signposts pointing toward the relationship's essence, and they are often outdated at that. The wisdom and beauty in the first kiss are not found in a title binding the two who share it, but rather precisely in the lack thereof.

A relationship is simply defined by feelings shared exclusively with another individual, so compelling that they subdue or drown out any similar feelings that might arise for others.

Publicizing a relationship may allow friends in your life to celebrate it with you and decorate it with their own sentiments. But the heart of that relationship is not subject to change when it goes public any more than the relationship between oxygen and life was in flux when biologists arrived at its discovery.

The old cliché about wanting to shout your love from the rooftops is founded on the notion that feelings of love are so powerful, joyous and pervasive that you want to share them with the world.

Nevertheless, these feelings dwell within. They are sufficient in their own bliss; the relationship is sufficient in its own expression. The feelings, not their labels, are the binding agents. The feelings, not their publicity, are the essential elements.

We are so eager to nominalize our relationships, boxing them into socially understood and accepted conventions that vaguely represent their essence. But the secondary payoffs of using whatever words and titles we think the relationship deserves are always secondary, and often destructive, to the true source of its beauty and integrity.

If our eagerness persists, the representations soon eclipse the truth, the external references soon overshadow the internal feelings, and the relationship becomes lost in the title it never had to begin with.

Sex in the 'Seo: When the relationship is on the rocks, do you cut sail or stay the course?

Dan Skahen, Editor-in-Chief

There are few endeavors of human experience that are so predictably disastrous, yet approached with such relentless optimism, as modern-day relationships.

We move through cycles of flying sparks and fading dreams, always thinking that this time is different, this time it's real. But invariably all relationships start with a talk and end with a talk, the awkward curtains of the ecstatic play between them.

The break-up process - which includes not only the dreaded talk, but also the weeks leading up to it and the weeks of bad aftertaste - is almost universally painful.

The good news is that if you can step back from your self-hypnosis of cherishing just long enough to see the relationship life cycle for what it is, you can see the break-up coming, accelerate the process and minimize the pain.

The real problems arise when people resist the natural course of their relationships by mimicking that which originally brought them together through chemistry that no longer exists. Maybe the couple plans a date night or digs their heels deeper into a mundane routine.

Ironically, this resistance to the end only amplifies the pain. You accidentally set the stage for a nasty break-up in place of a quiet conclusion to a beautiful chapter in your life.

Routine breeds boredom, which, in its defiance of the exciting hopes, dreams and promises set forth at the start of the relationship, breeds resentment. From resentment, anger builds, accusations fly and affairs often arrive to consume the relationship like maggots to a corpse.

If you feel like you're losing grip of your relationship, it's not time to cling harder. It's time to let go of your attachment to the long-term promises once invested in short-term feelings that have since passed. Focus on preserving the friendship rather than reviving the cadaver.

The requiem of a relationship is sung in the words, "Where are we going to be in five years?" to which every heart knowingly answers: in misery, in therapy or out of the relationship.

Don't follow your analysis. Follow your heart and end things at the first sign of trouble, so you can break up on good terms and keep this special person in your life as a friend if nothing else.

Megan Musilli, Copy Editor

In the course of a relationship, there will come a time when the fighting and nagging get to such an extreme, you find yourself asking, "Is this worth it?"

Sure, the sex might be great and it's nice having someone to rely on, but is that worth all the drama? Well, yeah, I think it is.

Of course, it all depends on why you began your relationship in the first place. If it was just to have fun, then maybe you're right to nip it once things get tough. But if you started that relationship with the intentions of having something serious, why let a few bumps along the way bring you down?

You're together now because, at one point in time, you thought it was the right thing to do. When you start losing that chemistry and getting annoyed with everything the other person does, there has to be an underlying reason. By working on it and figuring things out, you're only benefiting your connection with the other person, making your relationship stronger and proving that you actually care.

If all relationships ended at the first sign of trouble, the first waiver of interest, everyone would be single. Healthy relationships have problems - fights are going to happen, you won't agree with everything your partner says. That's what makes us human, that's what keeps life interesting. Ending your relationship isn't solving anything; you're just running away from a potentially perfect situation down the road.

We're constantly working for what we love. We're writing papers to get a degree, going to work to earn some money - relationships fall into these categories. Nothing good in life is easy.

Ending on a rough patch isn't going to preserve your friendship - it's going to make you resent them even more. If you hold onto what you have and at least try to fix it, if an ending comes you'll at least both know you made an effort instead of wondering what could have happened.

Ending a relationship because of some faults is a sign of cowardice. Making that first commitment shows that you're willing to work. It's not every day you find someone you want to have a relationship with - you need to hold onto that person while you've got them, despite any troubles that may ensue.

The Faceoff: 'Naked for Peace' -A legitimate channel for expressing dissent?

By Matt Dubois

Wednesday afternoon, a group of students dedicated to ending the war in Iraq gathered on the College Green to bare all for the cause, forming a fleshy monument in the name of peace.

Some have their doubts as to the validity of the demonstration, however, calling it just a shameless excuse to get naked that failed to make the statement it intended to - namely to remind us all that war in Iraq is still being waged and that ending it should be important to us - and instead simply called attention to all the nudity. Surely, the demonstrators would have been better served expressing their beliefs through more scholarly and clothed channels.

Such naysayers couldn't be more wrong. If you saw someone naked in public, would you look? Whether you like it or not, the answer to that riddle is an unequivocal yes. Simply by getting naked in such a morally restrictive society as our own, in which sexuality and nudity are stigmatized - except in certain pop culture outlets where they are glorified - the demonstrators accomplished more than most people with a positive message can ever hope for: They got our attention.

Let's be realistic: Chalk messages, posters and even rallies are all well and good, but how often do they actually make a lasting impact on the average student? Within minutes we've repressed unpleasant thoughts of seemingly faraway concerns like the war and its casualties, and are back to the important stuff, like who's dominating whom at Scrabulous, and whether or not Lost will ever start to make any sense.

By refusing to be ignored, the student demonstrators on the Green did the impossible - they got us to focus entirely on them, and consequently on their message of peace. Some call their means extreme, but in a world desensitized to all but the most shocking of stimuli, I'd say they were just right. It speaks to our collective attention span that it takes a giant peace sign composed of naked bodies to wake us to our own nation's actions abroad, but I can't think of any better way.

By Sean Kaplan

Like many students here, I have very strong feelings about the war in Iraq. I feel that it will end up as one of the darkest chapters in American history and President Bush should be impeached and tried for war crimes.

That being said, the clothes-less students who decided to assemble in a large group on the College Green yesterday ultimately did not bring attention to their noble cause, but rather to themselves. Anyone who passes a group of naked people, regardless of their cause, will not remember it as a political statement, but simply as a bunch of naked people in public.

What these students did will not change anyone's viewpoints; if anything it will have a negative effect. If students want to inform people, they should attempt to talk to others and spread their viewpoints that way, rather than spreading themselves out without clothing. Making a display of images and articles summarizing the war could potentially be a great way to show others at Geneseo how these students feel, and could be useful to informing and involving others in their cause. Isn't that what this group of students wants to do?

I found the display today to be disturbing and embarrassing. There was no intelligent dialogue, just a bunch of naked students yelling "Naked for peace!" Although the group had good intentions, they made themselves look like idiots. On the other hand, students promoting sexual assault awareness had tables with information and displays stating why their cause was important. They provided a much more powerful and intelligent message.

Geneseo is supposed to be New York State's top public college. Students should be using their intelligence to productively work towards a cause, rather than lying in the middle of campus naked. What message does a naked peace sign send to a campus visitor? Not one that would make him or her want to hear a message about the war.

After all, a naked peace sign certainly isn't going to get us out of this Iraq mess.

The Faceoff: Are the protests against the Olympic torch relay justified?

By Matt Dubois

This year's Olympics are one of the most politically-charged in the history of the games, and in the wake of protests along the torch's relay route in London and France, the atmosphere of unrest has grown even more pronounced. Human rights activists call for corporations and even competing nations to boycott the games: They cite China's long history of human-rights violations such as Tiananmen Square, the religious persecution of Falun Gong and more recently, China's refusal to use its considerable influence in Sudan to help halt the genocide in Darfur, choosing instead to supply the Sudanese government with planes and weapons.

Many call the protestors extreme in their efforts to physically extinguish the torch, a supposed symbol of peace and international unity, and Chinese officials have unsurprisingly condemned the acts, stating that the "despicable activities tarnish the lofty Olympic spirit."

To hear a nation with a human-rights track record as abysmal as China's call a protest "despicable" actually makes me laugh, but in an angry way. And considering the European protests fall on the heels of a rash of violent clashes in PRC-occupied Tibet, the issue at stake takes on special significance.

The initial Tibetan protests in Lhasa fell on March 10, the 49-year anniversary of the failed 1959 Tibetan uprising against Communist China. What began as a peaceful demonstration by monks soon exploded into widespread rioting after the monks were arrested and Chinese military forces called in. It is estimated that anywhere between 10 and 100 Tibetans have been killed and up to 100 monks detained in the crackdown.

A more exact count is unavailable, as the only foreign media access to Lhasa takes the form of government-guided tours, but the bare that China still militarily occupies and squelches resistance in Tibet casts a pall of shame on China and the Olympic spirit it claims to hold so dear.

Also, the running of the torch itself loses some of its symbolic luster when you consider its origins: The institution of the torch at the 1936 Olympic Games was originally part of a Nazi propaganda campaign to draw international focus from Germany's designs on territorial expansion and its regime of genocide.

China, too, has dirt it would prefer kept under its rug - dirt the Tibetan and European protestors hoped to bring to light. Prior to WWII, the U.S. had an opportunity to boycott the games, thereby withholding public support from Germany and potentially stemming the worst of its crimes - one we failed to take.

It seems that chance is slipping by us today, as well: Instead of using American political clout in the Olympic Games to help pressure China to ease the crackdown on Tibet, President Bush plans to attend them personally. But surely this has nothing to do with foreign trade, and everything to do with Olympic spirit.

I won't say that the Tibetan occupation is the same as the Holocaust, or that the concept of the Olympic spirit is an inherently bad thing, but the torch and what it stands for shouldn't blind us to the fact that the Olympics are a human institution subject to human motives and flaws. To carry on playing games while a people is persecuted under our very noses, while not uncharacteristic of U.S. foreign policy, is inexcusable.

By Aaron Davis

This argument must be prefaced by an acknowledgment that the Chinese history of oppression in their own country and in Tibet is both immoral and horrifying, and that I believe that Beijing never should have received the blessings of the Olympic Committee to host the Olympic Games.

I must admit, though, that it deeply saddens me to see the violent protests against China's hosting of the games. In ancient times, during the games the people participating laid down their arms against each other and initiated a brief interlude of peaceful athletic competition. Apparently, we've forgotten this idea.

By suppressing the people of Tibet, China itself does not uphold the spirit of the games. Many will point to this hypocrisy and proclaim that, of course, their violent protests are justified by the violence of the Chinese government against other people. I cannot agree with this position, for the simple reason that it is wrong.

As children we are taught that the way to beat a bully is to be better than him, not to descend to his level. In war, as Americans, we hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct than our opponents do. In life, we are taught to take the higher road. But in the games, which are historically the epitome of peace, we can apparently descend to another level.

Why is it so impossible for anything to be sacred in the world today? Nothing is free of politics, nothing is free of violence and side-taking. That was the original plan of the Olympic Games: a free forum of athletic competition. Nothing more, nothing less. To be an Olympic athlete is to be an Olympic athlete. You're not a banker and an Olympian, or a lawyer and an Olympian. You are simply an Olympian.

Many cannot let the Olympics be so simple, though. They use them as a tool, it seems, to deride the nation that was chosen to host them. I don't defend China here, I simply wish to present the notion that maybe the Olympic Games are not the forum for criticism that some would take them to be.

In short, the decision is made. The flame has already left Mount Olympus, and is bound for Beijing. The debate is over, nothing will stop the games from being held in China. Why protest? Why can we not hold to the true spirit of these competitions, and let our athletes run, swim, jump and play peacefully, without malignance or spite?