I was recently asked to give commentary on the forthcoming SGA election and the candidates that will be running for the presidency. I am told that among the candidates are a music student who is also a Resident Assistant and a former candidate for Miss Carey whose other qualifications are left somewhat in question.

First, to address the Resident Assistant. I have a vague knowledge of this individual and have even conversated with him once. SOme might think that his status as a resident assistant is indicative of his love for this university; however, I think that those opinions are misguided. I would call him rather closeted about his opinions about this university. However, I will not devote undue time to this one as I do not think he will be elected - due to certain personal preferences he may hold.

Second, the beauty queen. My knowledge of this candidate is, I admit, somewhat secondary. However, I have had classes with her before and I know several key members of her campaign. The problem of election/electibility is not a problem that I believe will be encountered here. For one, she will have the support of everyone that recognizes her name, which will encompass a great number of people. Two, she has several important people working with her to secure her election. These are competent people and none better are available on this campus. Her election is most probably already certain.

Given the probability of her electionI feel it neccesary to give further commentary on what her campaign has promised. I was told by a member of the campaign that if she is elected she will exercise to the fullest extent the powers of the presideny (which must surely be limited). Furthermore, the suggetion was implicit to the conversation that she would be a reformer who sought to prevent the king from infringing on the rghts of the students etc...

This is a noble undertaking and one that I believe ought to be done. However, she is simply not the person to do so. The main reason that this is true is the fact that she is a she. When attempting to start a reform movement one must not be too confrontational. I could cite numerous examples of how the administration (Dr. King specifically) has displayed rampant sexism. The point is that in order to work toward reform with the administration one must be like them one must be one of the 'old boys' if you will.

The election of a female who will stand up to Dr. King will almost certainly prove fatal to any student ights etc... that are already in place. This is because although students are a majority on this campus they are also a power minority. When operating from a position of low power one should not be confrontational; rather, one should be respectful and compromising. Further, the best way to represent a power minority is by securing a representative (i.e. president) who does not look like the minority. That is, the representative must be one whom the administration can respect.

I am not suggesting that the president of the SGA should always agree with Dr. King. Instead, they should agree with him most of the tie so that their disagreements are more significant. Further, they should be, essentially, a wolf in sheep's clothing. That is, they should blend in with the administration and not stand out.

Comments?

Lewdness afoot

Hello fellow bloggers - it has been some time since my lasat post, please forgive me for my tardiness. I have not failed to post for the lack of propper gossip/news, rather, my life has been rather busy of late.

Anyway, I entered the lobby of my building today to a rather surprising scene. I found therein a certain resident assistant (one who the catalogue, as well as much university propaganda, describes as a 'model citizen') and his female companion engaging in lewd behavior of the sort most often found at public universities.

While I would certainly not call the bahvior innappropriate, as I have a quite liberal view of what qualifies for that category, I would suggest that the character of the female in question might be impuned by the action then taking place. For you see, the female in question is one who is quite well thought of on this campus. Highly regarded for her beauty (foremost) and her intelligence, she has almost won several pageants, which in this blogger's opinion she should have. Certainly, many individuals would change their opinion of her if they had happened upon what I did.

The point of this short bit is not to point out character flaws in any individual. Instead, I think that this instance serves as an example of how the expectations of modern christianity are in many ways flawed. Modern christianity, as it is practiced on this campus, demands a complete restriction of the sexual self and a concentration of that self into some other category.

However, the flaw in this thinking is the assumption that christians are somehow above other humans, perhaps even unaffected by the very natural laws which God used to bring about their existence. While I certainly would not advocate the open attitude toward sexuality that naturalistic and pagan religions take, I think there is some value in seeing the world from their perspective. By and large, (I am making a drastic summary of their beliefs/practices) individuals in these religions take a loose view of sexuality and may, in fact, have many sexual partners during their younger years. As time progresses, they tend toward monogamy and eventually go through a rite they call handfasting (marriage).

This progression allows one to 'sow wild oats' in the younger years. What is notably different in these societies is that they rarely exist in the type of world we live in which is driven toward success. In modern society, Judeo-Christian principles are not, I argue, the driving force behind monogamy and prohibitions on pre-marital sex. The new driving force is the desire to be succesful. As a simple matter of fact, women cannot be succesful if they have children early in life. Therefore, it is capitalism not christianity that drives/has driven the prohibitions on pre-marital sex.

This is also seen through the use of preganacy prevention devices and abortions. Simply put, sex has gotten safer from an economic standpoint. Its ill effects are easily prevented and if not prevented reversed. However, in an area that remains undereducated about these tools of prevention and deletion, the hardships brought about by pre-marital relations remain stark and clear.

I eagerly await your comments.