North by Northwestern » Aubrey Blanche

Body of Art

Aubrey Blanche — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:02:06 +0000

Getting a tattoo is serious business. Once you’re inked nothing (except really painful, expensive lasers) can get the ink out. Sarah Gray, a Chicago-based tattoo artist, tells you what you should expect…and what is just plain wrong about getting some sick body art.

Choosing a tattoo

The Good

Let the artist run with your general idea.
Bigger tattoos can be custom fit to your body.
Pick something that means something to you.

Block Six in photos

Aubrey Blanche — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:28:09 +0000

Blago: a history

Aubrey Blanche — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:23:26 +0000

On Tuesday, students will have a chance to grill Northwestern alumnus and former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on everything from his time at NU to his alleged attempt to sell President Barack Obama’s former senate seat. Students will be joined by Law School Professor Tonja Jacobi, Political Science Professor Donald Gordon and Medill Professor Donna Leff to question Blagojevich about the scandal and anything else they can weasel out of him.

In fairness, it’s important to note that few remember his achievements before being accused of being a regular Chicago politician; as governor, Blagojevich actually made some positive changes in Illinois. But before he sits down in Cahn Auditorium, we’ll take a look back at some of Blago’s shadier activities before those f***ing phone calls.

Education
Growing up in Chicago, Blagojevich was admitted to the competitive Lane Tech for high school, but ended up transferring to Forman High School. He did the exact opposite for college. He spent two years at the University of Tampa, but ended up at Northwestern for his junior and senior year. He eventually graduated with a BA in History, but what exactly he did with his time on campus isn’t as clear.

First of all, he didn’t spent much time on campus. Blagojevich never lived on campus, preferring to live just north of Oak Park, about 30 minutes away. Based on yearbook photos, he wasn’t significantly involved in campus clubs. More interestingly, in the 1979 Syllabus, there is no senior head shot of Blagojevich. He graduated in the summer after the June, 1979 commencement ceremony and so his name only appears in the 1980 commencement program, one of the only actual records of Blagojevich’s time here at NU.

Sick of the Chicago weather, he eventually when to Pepperdine University in Malibu to get his JD. But by his own admission, he didn’t do a lot of studying while he was there. He told reporters in 2003, “I went to law school at a place called Pepperdine in Malibu, Calif., overlooking the Pacific Ocean — a lot of surfing and movie stars and all the rest. I barely knew where that law library was.”

Early politics and shady connections
After law school, it doesn’t seem that he stepped up his motivation game much. Instead of shopping his resume around like a traditional post-grad, he used a bit of friendly networking. Blagojevich used his father-in-law Richard Mell’s connections to get a job with Chicago Alderman Edward Vrdolyak. He eventually moved up and took at job with the Cook County state’s attorney, future Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley.

Using family connections to get employment isn’t uncommon, but for Blagojevich it should make a difference. Vrdolyak plead guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud in 2008. Being associated with a known conspirator isn’t a guilty sentence, but in Chicago politics, it can’t help.

Houses
Blagojevich channeled his experience as a prosecutor into a successful 1992 election campaign for the Illinois House of Representatives. His platform focused mainly on the reduction of crime through the strengthening of the judicial system, which one may find ironic in the wake of recent allegations. But the Illinois House was just one step on the way to bigger and better things.

Daddy(in-law)’s help came in handy with his next job as well. After having his fill of the Illinois legislature, Blagojevich decided to run for the seat in Illinois’ 5th congressional district. He defeated the incumbent in 1996, but it’s unclear whether a scandal in the district two years before or his political connections that made the largest difference in his victory. In his time in congress, he voted opposite of many Democrats, most notably on the Iraq War. He was in the minority of Democrats who voted to invade Iraq, by a margin of 82-126.

Being Governor Blagojevich
Alderman Mell helped Blagojevich out yet again in 2002 when he helped him run for governor of Illinois. He wasn’t an obvious choice for the post. In the primary, he barely defeated former Attorney General Roland Burris, whom he would later suggest to fill Obama’s vacated senate seat. He defeated Republican Attorney General Jim Ryan by almost seven points.

During his administration, Blagojevich helped to push through important legislation for Illinois. He was a champion of death penalty reform and strongly supported the statewide smoking ban. Under his watch employers were forbidden from discriminating against employees because of their sexual orientation and he expanded KidCare (now All Kids), a public health care initiative.

The people of Illinois overall liked Blagojevich as governor, because his second gubernatorial bid was much easier than his first. He swept the primary, and won the general election with almost 50 percent of the vote. He was elected to serve until 2011, but he was impeached in 2009.

And you’re out!
In total, Blagojevich has been the subject of more than twelve federal investigations, although two have been more public than the others – he was accused of trying to buy positive press in the Chicago Tribune and other Chicago publications using money from the sale of the Chicago Cubs.

The national scandal even involved the president. Blagojevich is accused of trying to trade an appointment to President Obama’s vacated senate seat for, among other things, campaign financing and an appointment as the U.S. Ambassador to Serbia.

Blagojevich was removed from office on January 29, 2009, with a unanimous vote from the state Senate and a 114-1 vote from the House.

Going forward
Nothing has been proven against Blagojevich yet. He has maintained throughout investigations that he is completely innocent of the charges brought against him, and is awaiting trial. He’s not doing so well in the court of public opinion, but his appearance at Northwestern could be an effort to change that.

His political career hasn’t been shining in terms of monumental achievements, and his only election without any meddling by his father-in-law was his campaign for re-election for governor. Based on what is known to the general public, though, it’s impossible to say whether he’s guilty of anything but exploiting family connections and a bit of old-fashioned laziness.

This Supreme Court case could change the way elections work

Aubrey Blanche — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:38:14 +0000

“Every week, we meet here at Burt’s. Together, we represent the chief spokespeople for the tobacco, alcohol, and firearms industries. We call ourselves the MOD Squad. M-O-D. The Merchants of Death.” — Thank You For Smoking

Lobbyists are everywhere in Washington. They push the agendas of major corporations at the expense of the individual voice in the legislative process. Corporations have always been allowed to hire lobbyists to influence politicians to vote in a way that favor them. But now, corporations have an even better way to influence the political machine: direct campaign finance.

The Decision

Corporations can buy elections, because corporations have the right to free speech. In last week’s landmark decision, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that funding of “independent political broadcasts” could not be limited because it limited free speech.

Now, for-profit and not-for-profit corporations can provide advertising 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election. They’re required to disclose who is placing the ad, of course, but they can still pour all the money they want into the political campaign of whichever politicians will probably defend their interests.

The decision overturned Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which said that corporations couldn’t use money to buy ads because corporate money “influences elections”.

Why?

It’s a widely known fact that Wall Street runs Washington (or this is at least a pretty popular conspiracy theory), but now they have to do it out in the open. By allowing them to sponsor politicians through campaign ads, they’re essentially branding themselves in a new way. They are accountable on a public relations level to their consumers for aligning themselves with a particular politician.

The Bill of Rights says that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”. But it never specifies that the right applies only to individuals, so under an extremely strict interpretation of the Constitution, corporations can’t be barred from political speech, whatever methods they choose to use.

What’s wrong with it?

McDonald’s can now sponsor a Congressman to vote down a bill that bans trans fats from restaurants or mandates nutrition facts be posted in all locations. By putting their fiscal muscle behind specific candidates by buying ads, corporations can essentially buy a politician — and condition their support on that politician voting their way.

Some say that the ruling is biased against Democrats, because historically big business has supported more conservative candidates while blue-collar institutions such as workers unions have been on the side of liberals. President Obama called it a “victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and other powerful interests,” but some don’t seem to agree.

It sucks that McDonald’s and Altria (née Phillip Morris) can buy off elected officials, but what’s worse is that it’s not just American companies that now control who gets elected. The ruling extends to international companies: all they have to do is do business in the U.S. So the same companies that are making your leaded-up toys and fake Louis Vuittons can also have more sway with your congressman than you do.

Could it be right?

Some say that this ruling empowers the little man, the small business owner. It technically gives the right to advertise to every mom-and-pop shop, teachers’ union, and even Green Peace to run ads for the candidate they support. But the problem here is that the media will be dominated by large corporations: those that have the profit margins and incentives to spend millions or billions pushing a politician who will vote in their interest. The $500 that Sam’s Hardware can afford to spend won’t exactly seem meaningful next to JP Morgan Chase’s $500 million.

Even the Trib is behind the decision, saying that now organizations like the ACLU and NRA can openly support their candidates right up until election day.

And it could help lesser well-known candidates, those not on the Republican or Democratic tickets. Candidates that don’t quite fit into what a major party thinks could be successful now have more options to get their platform out to the public.

The Aftermath

Democrats are now trying to come up with legislation to minimize the damage, but there isn’t a lot of hope that much can be done. Even though the new ruling overturned a few precedents, it would take another case large enough for something to be changed now.

With this decision, it has become more important than ever to listen to those annoying “Paid for by ……” at the end of political ads. Instead of assuming that the government will regulate who is paying for the messages we hear about a candidate, people will have to have their own filter.

New Moon star Kellan Lutz on gummi bears and running from fans

Aubrey Blanche — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:59:11 +0000

Kellan Lutz in New Moon.. Photo courtesy of Summit Entertainment.

New Moon: the review

Grade: B+

Bottom Line: Pretty good writing, but the real reason to go is to see Taylor Lautner take his shirt off.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon was not what I expected. As a longtime fan of the books and someone who bought her ticket at least two months ago, I was expecting Twilight 2.0. This was anything but.

The inflated budget for the movie was evident from the beginning, with clearer sound mixing and an obvious lack of the blueish cast the original had. The screenwriters got it right this time around, throwing comedic zingers in just when everything was getting too serious.

As for all the speculation about whether stars Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson are secretly dating, after seeing this movie many less people will be inclined to think so. While sexual chemistry lacked between Edward and Bella, the tension between Stewart and Taylor Lautner was hotter than his werewolf’s 108 degree temperature.

While some of the performances left a little to be desired, writing was New Moon’s strong suit. It’s worth sticking around until the end: they could teach Medill students a thing or two about writing a kicker.

It’s got tweens and Northwestern kids alike squealing and lining up outside movie theaters. It’s the Twilight series, with the latest hitting theaters on Friday. New Moon star Kellan Lutz sat down with North by Northwestern to talk about his most recent experiences as Emmet Cullen in the blockbuster franchise The Twilight Saga.

Had you read the books before you tried out for the part?

I did not. Once I had the role Ashley [Greene] came by and asked if I read the books and I joked it off, and she ran back and got the books. So then I quickly read those and then I realized after meeting fans that came to set why they’re so amazed, why they’re so marveled by this franchise. The books are amazing, they really are.

Do you think that your portrayal of Emmet is the same way it was in the books? What was your approach to creating your character?

It’s definitely important to stick with the cheat sheets you’re given with the books, and having Stephenie [Meyer, the author of The Twilight Saga] there to ask her questions. It’s nice to have a little help, but I also got the role for what I brought to Emmet and what I did in the auditions, I think we all try and make the character that we portray onscreen different and unique and I think that’s what separates us. It’s a cool spin to throw yourself into him.

What can fans expect from Eclipse that’s different from Twilight in general?

It’s more an action movie. I don’t think I would have seen Twilight if I wasn’t a part of it. Seeing the trailer I would have thought it was a chick flick. New Moon, right off the bat it looks like a guy-friendly movie, and that’s what it is. It’s is such a cool trailer, it just looks action-packed.

To what extent were you allowed to do your own stunts?

Obviously we all have stunt doubles, it’s kind of mandatory for insurance reasons and stuff. It’s fun doing a fight scene and seeing your stunt guy not do something too crisp, and being like “OK, just let me do it once. Just wanna fight, if I get hurt, I’ll sign off.” And I’ll do it once and they’ll be like “Thank God you did that, because that one’s the best one.”

Has there been anything you haven’t liked about the productions?

With New Moon, I didn’t like how little time I was able to be on set. I wish I was there to hang out with the cast. Kraft service always ran out of meat for me to eat. Not enough gummy bears, but no, no complaints.

How was the atmosphere on set in general?

Ashley and I are probably the closest on set, just ‘cuz of the years we’ve had as friends. We always just joke around. And then with the rest of the cast, no one’s changed, which is amazing to see. Everyone’s so down to earth…no one’s changed their numbers, or blocked the cast out. We all hang out in rooms and play board games or the guys would play the guitars. It’s a really good group of actors, very talented.

There have been some shake-ups as far as casting, and then there have been changes with directors. How is that adjusting to new cast members as well as a new director for New Moon and then Eclipse?

I don’t think one director could capture every book and turn it into a movie because they’re so different. With Catherine’s energy and art background Twilight was more an independent movie. And for the second movie, we had more funding and more a love triangle [and] more action-packed. With the CGI background that Chris has, he was a no-brainer to be picked as that director. And with the third one it’s dark, edgy. David Slade has such a mastermind way of looking at that script.

You’re talking about Rachel and Bryce Dallas Howard. They both brought an amazing energy to the screen. It was really cool to see Bryce step into those shoes. They’re hard shoes to fill when you have a fan base who fell in love with one actor who’s doing it. But she kicks butt in Eclipse.

Given the popularity of the Twilight Saga, have you been approached offset by fans or mobbed by fans?

Yeah. I’ll be walking down the street with my dog and I’ll hear a car screech and these girls jump out and they’re like “EMMET!” or “KELLAN!” And you start running…but no, the fans are adorable. There is really so much love, it’s really cool to have fans like that.

Since you’re so famous for playing a vampire, what’s your favorite vampire movie?

There’s some really cool vampires in there. Underworld with Kate Beckinsale, I just think she’s sexy, especially when she wears leather and depicts a vampire. And then The Lost Boys, you can’t go wrong. Kiefer Sutherland’s amazing in that and From Dusk Till Dawn…awesome movie.

Faceoff: What do you do to blow off steam?

Aubrey Blanche — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:19:42 +0000

	“I’ve started playing ping pong, so I practice to get better.” -Weinberg junior Alleliah Nuguid
“I kick trees. It’s especially gratifying in the fall when you get to see all the leaves fall.” -Weinberg sophomore Derek Suen
	“I eat.” -Weinberg sophomore Gabby Ahlzadeh
“I definitely talk to my sister.” -Weinberg senior Heidi Schroeder
	“Nap, and try to make it go away.” -Weinberg junior Brittainy Brown
“I like to take an afternoon and watch half a season of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.” -Communication sophomore Sean Bos

An out-of-this-world guilty pleasure

Aubrey Blanche — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:02:50 +0000

Pop Culture Confessional is a weekly column where our writers can divulge and indulge in their most deeply embarrassing cultural passion — and then tell you why it actually rocks. Everyone has a few dirty little secrets. Only the truth shall set us free.

Everybody wants something to believe in. When I was 12, I was sucked into the WB’s world of vampires, monsters and aliens. While I’m still a huge fan of Buffy and Angel, Roswell was that show I’d never admit I liked, but wouldn’t dare to miss — and that was before TiVo.

Roswell reminds me why it’s okay that I don’t have a secretly alien boyfriend or a top-secret contingent of the FBI after me. Maybe being ordinary is a lot better than I thought it was.

Roswell started on the WB (now the CW) in 1999, when I was 11. It was based on a series of books that I’ve admittedly never read, but the original writers were screenwriters for the series. The main idea of the series was that four aliens, who landed in Roswell during the 1947 crash, were trying to pass off as normal high school students. They were clones of royalty on their home planet, which has been torn apart by civil war.

The first season — the only one available for streaming — is pretty typical of the “main character has a secret and can’t tell anybody” show. Mysterious boy does something amazing, girl falls in love with him and eventually finds out his secret. The secret proves dangerous, and then the entire group has to deal with the ensuing danger while trying to keep the secret.

Compelling stuff, but it wasn’t the only thing that made it great. It was a primetime soap opera for the teen set, if nothing else. The “star-crossed lovers” storyline with Max Evans (Jason Behr) and Liz Parker (Shiri Appleby) was straight from Romeo & Juliet, but we all still fall for it. There was the “sidekick couple” Michael Guerin (Brendan Fehr) and Maria DeLuca (Majandra Delfino), who seemed to have more issues than anyone, and the ice-queen sister, Isabel Evans (Katherine Heigl).

The formula may be familiar, but the subject matter can’t be beat. When I need an escape — formerly, from adolescent drama and now from the unending pressure of midterms — Roswell gives me a few minutes to chill out. It’s universal and it’s special, something I like to think I want to be.

Max Evans is probably the most “special” person on the show. He’s all secrets. On the outside he seems normal, but by the end of the first episode we all know it’s an illusion. He has a secret that’s worth killing for — or at least, killing him for. We all want someone to share our secrets with, which Max finally finds. But in the process he inadvertently reveals part of his secrets to not-so-scrupulous people, and ends up fighting for his life with a secret division of the FBI. Maybe being mysterious and special isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. But even being normal on Roswell isn’t that great.

Liz Parker was the normal girl who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and ended up with a secret she couldn’t really tell anyone. I say I want to be special, but sometimes special isn’t a good as we would hope. Watching her suffer through her “specialness” gives me a sense that it’s alright to be ordinary — or as ordinary as someone juggling 5 extracurriculars and 4.5 credits can be.

I always wanted to be extraordinary, but in the range of Northwestern students, I’m really not. I take too many classes, do too many extracurriculars, and probably drink enough coffee to single-handedly sustain the economy of Columbia. Roswell reminds me why it’s okay that I don’t have a secretly alien boyfriend or a top-secret contingent of the FBI after me. Maybe being ordinary is a lot better than I thought it was.

The show was canceled in 2002, and I quickly forgot about it in the frantic rush of beginning high school. Then, in the spirit of midterms a couple of weeks ago, I was looking around Hulu for something to watch that wasn’t Community. I noticed that they had a Roswell channel, and decided to check it out. And my re-obsession was born. I had forgotten how easily translatable all of the experiences of these people from the other planets were to mine, even though I’m no longer and awkward middle-schooler who wished she could stand out.

Roswell allows me to escape, but only far enough that I can find my way back out — hopefully in time to make that next class.

Why Iran isn’t as scary as you think it is

Aubrey Blanche — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:02:28 +0000

We’ve all heard of Iran — that country somewhere near Iraq that has a crazy president and wants to blow us all to smithereens. Well, you’ve sort of heard of Iran. After sitting through a lecture on Iran — Roger Cohen’s “A Revolution in Crisis: Iran after June 12″ — I realized that most people are probably a little more scared than they should be about the entire issue. That’s not to say you shouldn’t care, but you definitely should not be losing sleep over it.

A Question of Leadership

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad probably isn’t medically insane, but he definitely has a “colorful” view of the world. He was largely criticized by the Arab world — and Muslim scholars in particular — for claims that the hidden Mahdi of Shi’a Islam was controlling policy in Iran. Al-Arabiya quoted the president as saying, “The Imam Mahdi is in charge of the world and we see his hand directing all the affairs of the country.” More recently, he’s been accused of rigging the June 12 elections, for which there is no definitive proof. But it doesn’t really matter whether he’s crazy or not, or whether he rigged the election or not, because he’s not really in charge.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is the man really running the show. While he supported Ahmadinejad’s bid for re-relection, many view the chief executive simply as a puppet for religious clerical politics in the country. The good news here is that Khamenei is much more moderate than his political counterpart. He has encouraged scientific discovery and has enumerated his intense belief on the values of human rights.

The Ayatollah gained much of his power when he was elected President of Iran in 1981. He created systems for overseeing all aspects of government, and in this way became the most influential man in Iranian politics. After the September 11 attacks, he denounced all terrorist activities. He said to the BBC that “mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be.” While he has publicly questioned the validity of the United States as a world leader righteous enough to have a strong hand in world affairs, the Ayatollah doesn’t pose a serious threat to the United States as his personal politics would make it appear. What is important to remember is that the Ayatollah’s willingness to attack the United States depends on us, not them.

Nuclear power, not bombs

The United States used to support the Iranian nuclear program, with the first reactor becoming active in 1967. Iran agreed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which puts them under the jurisdiction of the IAEA — the International Atomic Energy Agency. You know them as those guys who have been talking about Iran and uranium all month.

Uranium, the element most responsible for both civilian and military radioactivity, is the type of element that was found during the February IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities. “Low-enriched” uranium — up to 20% enrichment — is really only usable for civilian purposes, which is the type Iran claims to want. It stands to reason that the uranium could be enriched further, to the 85 percent enrichment necessary for weapons-grade uranium, but that seems pretty far off.

To be fair, recently Iran has claimed to play by the rules. Their current operating stations at Bushehr and the newly-revealed site at Qom have seemingly been in compliance with the IAEA. Iran has, however, ignored five resolutions from the UN Security Council demanding the cessation of all sensitive nuclear activities. One of the problems with the entire issue is that the international community just can’t seem to agree on exactly when Iran re-started it’s nuclear program and just exactly how illegal it is.

Basically, it’s the United Kingdom against the UN Chief Weapons Inspector and head of the IAEA. According to Britain, Iran started their program at least four years ago, but Mohamad ElBaradei (the outgoing Director of the IAEA) says that there is “no credible evidence” to support that claim. At this point, it’s just clear that Iran has nuclear reactors — the question is how honest they are in claiming that they want them solely for peaceful, power-generation purposes.

Why the US matters more than Iran

The question now is not why Iran wants nuclear weapons, but why they wouldn’t want nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia and Israel (shhhh) possess nuclear weapons. It’s the old Cold War “you point your weapons at me, so I’ll point my weapons at you” situation, except in this case we’re not sure that Iran has them, or has the capability to make them.

That’s why it’s up to us. The United States and other leading nations must create concrete incentives for Iran to stay away from nuclear energy, and negative reinforcement probably isn’t the best response. Instead of looking at Iran as a bad kid who deserves a slap on the wrist or a time-out, we must begin to talk to Iran as an equal. By recognizing Iran as a country with legitimate points of view (even though these run extremely contrary to ours at times), we make it impossible for Americans to become the faceless “Other” that can be attacked at will. We take the political fuel from any anti-West activists, and create political pressure reciprocal respect.

The second most important thing the US can do to ensure we’re not hit with a dirty bomb from Iran is to get rid of our own nuclear capabilities. President Barack Obama and President Dimitri Medvedev of Russia have agreed to cut their nuclear stockpiles by 33 percent, which is a step in the right direction, but not enough. Why would Iran not want nuclear weapons? Well, it wouldn’t want them if we didn’t have them. Think of them like your little brother–whatever you have, he wants. The steps recently taken to pacify Iran show improvement in this area, and leave a lot of room for comfort.

Progress

Iran has already agreed to talk to the U.S., U.K. and France, which is a huge milestone in the entire issue. Previously, Iran refused to discuss nuclear matters in any bilateral discussions. It’s the first time in 30 years we’ve had actual discussions with Iran about any of these issues, so we’re making progress.

Maybe, then we can begin to tone down the hysteria about Big Bad Iran. Iran’s just not as scary as we see them most of the time. Yes, they now have the ability to play with uranium, which isn’t the most comforting thought in the world, but it’s probably not as bad as Russia pointing hundreds of missiles at us during the Cold War. Now it’s time for us to step up and protect ourselves not through war, but through good diplomacy.

Obama’s politics shouldn’t matter in commencement speech

Aubrey Blanche — Tue, 19 May 2009 04:40:53 +0000

Universities have the obligation not to indoctrinate their students with one particular mantra. Instead, they should encourage students to think outside of the box and create their own opinions about the world. That’s not to say that they can’t stress a particular viewpoint — especially in the case of religious institutions — but the encouragement of original thinking is one of the American universities’ strongest values. It was commendable that the University of Notre Dame invited President Barack Obama to speak at their commencement, despite views opposing Catholic teachings.

After the media firestorm arising from Notre Dame’s choice, many wondered whether the president would actually be speaking at the ceremony. Some conservatives at the Catholic university opposed the invitation because of the president’s stance on abortion and on gay marriage, although the former was the more hostile issue. Many protested the president’s speech on Sunday, about two dozen of whom were new graduates who refused to attend the ceremony.

The speech

In his speech, President Obama encouraged the crowd not to “shy away from things that are uncomfortable.” He made the point that the two side of an argument may be virtually irreconcilable, but hoped that the students could engage in open discussion “without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

Obama’s specific views on abortion did not come into play during his speech — he instead chose to focus on less explosive issues such as preventing unwanted pregnancy. While this was not the most direct way to deal with the controversy at hand, the President should be commended for deftly dealing with a topic that has caused so much discussion and upheaval at the university.

The other issues

Discounting someone on a singular basis is immature and uninformed. The extremity with which some treat abortion — and judge the President by his views on it — is irrational.

War, diplomacy, the economy, health care: on all of these issues, Obama’s detractors at Notre Dame have been nearly silent. They have not commented on his commitment to maintaining stability in Pakistan, about the possibility of immediately removing American soldiers from Iraq or his wish to provide health care to all Americans.

What of this? Critics do themselves a disservice by completely rejecting even the presentation of a differing viewpoint, the campus pro-life movement hurts the values Notre Dame should stand for. It is an honor to have the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful man in the world, speak at commencement.

The precedent

After the pro-life movement raised a fuss over the honorary degree given to Obama and the invitation extended to him to be a keynote speaker at the 2009 commencement, one is led to the conclusion that all commencement speakers at Notre Dame must uphold all standards of Catholic piety and doctrine.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. In lesser offenses than say, killing a fetus, immorality is tolerated and even celebrated. At the 1989 commencement, MLB commissioner Peter Ueberroth was invited to speak despite being accused of collusion with team owners during the 1985-1987 seasons. Activists turned the other cheek when Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. graced the stage at Notre Dame’s sister school, St. Mary’s College. Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion in Doe v. Groody, where he affirmed the constitutionality of strip searching a 10-year-old in her own home, making him hardly a champion of respect for human dignity.

Indeed, few (if any) speakers are likely to follow all religious ideals honored by institutions like Notre Dame. This does not mean that these people should be barred from giving an address. On the contrary, critical thinking and diversity of ideas are vital to the university system. When met without rancor, differing viewpoints can even lead to constructive discussion.

If someone disagrees with President Obama on some of his political views, more power to them — the Constitution protects their right to say what they believe. A university commencement, however, is not the place to spout one’s politics. To politicize the event, rather than celebrate the achievement of the more than 2,000 graduates, is inappropriate. Take the debate to Washington, and leave the celebrating in South Bend.

How increasing road tests for the elderly could save money and lives

Aubrey Blanche — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:55:32 +0000

In Illinois, it may soon be illegal to text your friends while behind the wheel. Talking on your cell phone without a hands-free phone will get you a ticket in California. States all over the country have enacted countless laws to keep drivers safe on the roads, but lawmakers have failed to properly address what should be a growing concern for all drivers: senior citizens.

Millions of baby boomers are hitting their golden years, and with country club memberships and vacations to the Greek isles come diminished eyesight, limited hearing and slower reaction times. Putting elderly drivers on the road when they’re facing such diminished capacities is not only dangerous to them, but also could be lethal to other drivers. Texan teenager Katie Bolka’s death was the most visual case of negligent homicide, but she certainly wasn’t the only one. Something should be done to minimize the risk that other such tragedies occur.

Illinois and New Hampshire are the only two states who mandate that elderly drivers, those over 75, appear at the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Secretary of State and take a road test to renew their driver’s licenses. Unfortunately, far too many states have a multitude of restrictions on teen drivers, but none on drivers over age 65. About 20 states have no restrictions on renewals, and Oklahoma actually encourages drivers over 65 to renew their licenses online by waiving their renewal fee.

This is not just an issue of protecting others on the road, but also protecting the drivers themselves. A 2004 study by AAA showed that drivers over 65 were more likely to get in a crash than middle aged drivers, and drivers over 85 were four times more likely than teen drivers to do so. They were also four times more likely to die in a crash. Some may argue that decreasing motor privileges for the elderly is discrimination, but in fact it could lead to longer lives for many.

According to a 1995 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the only sure way to decrease fatalities by elderly drivers is to have them appear at the DMV. According to the NHTSA, elderly drivers now make up 9 percent of the total driving population, but cause or are involved in 14 percent of all traffic accidents and 17 percent of all pedestrian accidents.

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that these numbers will continue to rise. There will be more than 9 million drivers over the age of 85 by 2030 (about 25 percent of the driving population), according to the Census Bureau, which means more and more drivers with less-than-stellar reaction times will be competing with everyone else on the road.

What’s the solution to this problem? Drivers who are incapable of performing necessary duties should not be on the roads. It’s an extreme solution that would prove difficult for lawmakers to back — they wouldn’t want to alienate a huge contingent of the voter base — but it’s something that is imperative for safety on roads and highways.

In the majority of states, once a driver has passed his initial road test, there is only a vision test requirement when a license expires. In Michigan, drivers receive a card in the mail when their licenses are about to expire. The card asks if they would like to renew their license, and it’s about as simple as checking “yes” or “no.”

Even for states with a vision test requirement, it is simply not enough. While a driver’s vision may be corrected to near-perfection with glasses or contact lenses, reaction time and mental acuity are not as easily assessable with a simple visit to the DMV.

The solution is not to completely overhaul the system, but to adopt a more thorough screening for high-risk drivers. Instead of an easy renewal system, all drivers should be mandated to take a road test when they renew their license after reaching a certain age. It would not only make sure that all drivers understand the rules of the road (and minimize those pesky habits like rolling through stop signs), but it would keep everyone safe.

Washington, D.C. has the most thorough laws regarding elderly drivers and renewals, which seem to be fair. After the age of 70, drivers are not only required to pass a vision test, but are also required to have a doctor’s note certifying that they are fit to drive. They may have to submit to a reaction time test, and after age 75 may be required to take a written test and a road test.

Some may argue that the costs of administering extra tests would be an unwise economic choice, but the increase in safety measures would have positive economic effects. The increased costs of administering tests would be counteracted by the drop in medical costs from fewer instances of accidents. Elderly drivers’ vehicle mortality rates are second only to those of teenagers, so they put a huge strain on hospital emergency rooms when accidents do happen.

The average cost of a road test is no more than $60, but the average emergency room visit was $560. This average does not even take into account an injured person who is transferred to the I.C.U. or another wing of the hospital.

Having senior citizens tested will save lives while saving money. The best way to get these laws passed is to write your state or national representatives and inform them of this problem. Let your voice be heard, and help make our roads safer.