Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Thursday, April 2, 2026
The Observer

Opinion


The Observer

Man's best friend

·

"A dog has no use for fancy cars, big homes or designer clothes. A waterlogged stick will do just fine. A dog doesn't care if you're rich or poor, clever or dull, smart or dumb. Give him your heart and he will give you his."


The Observer

A culture in need of relations

·

"The trouble with many of us, and with our culture as a whole is that we don't take time to 'relate,' to connect publicly and formally but meaningfully with others. We sit in meetings and conferences and dinner sessions with scores and hundreds of others . . . But we don't take the time to meet one to one with others, to hear their interests and dreams and fears, to understand why people do what they do or don't do what they don't do," community organizer Michael Gecan wrote.


The Observer

In defense of Catholics and Catholicism at Notre Dame

·

In its recent student government endorsement, Scholastic Magazine criticized one ticket for its proposal "to instate a prayer before home football games." Scholastic insisted that such a proposal "contradicts their platform of inclusion." No doubt, furthering the inclusivity of the campus environment at Notre Dame has been a very important focus in recent years. After publishing an offensive comic strip by The Mobile Party in January 2010, The Observer issued a statement condemning the "cruel and hateful" comic printed in its pages. The comic made an offensive joke about gay men being assaulted.


The Observer

Fostering discussion and debate

·

As we are students at one of the most prominent universities in the world, I believe it is our duty to engage ourselves in the realm of public policy. For years, we've heard our parents and grandparents say, "You kids are going to be the leaders of the future," and if that is true, should we not start talking about controversial issues now? One of my professors jokingly mentions "Notre Dame students are too nice," and I believe part of that is true because no one wants to say anything controversial in fear of backlash. But here is the sad truth: If we are scared to voice our opinions at a university - the literal institute for academic discovery and debate - where else is there for us to discuss such divisive issues? I decided to apply to write for The Observer because I wanted to discuss some of my libertarian-leaning ideas, hoping to probe some response from the student body. It feels like there is a grey cloud shadowing the younger generation all across America with apathy, and if we, the "young leaders," want to make the future better than today, it is crucial to start discussing things sooner rather than later. For these reasons, I would like to thank the readers of my last column on gun control who contacted me in agreement with my position - it's great to hear people care enough to show their support - but I would more importantly like to applaud those who contacted me in disagreement, particularly Ms. Conron, who ran an article, "If gun control is futile, what isn't?" on Feb. 6. I know I wouldn't be providing provocative or stimulating articles if I didn't rustle any jimmies in the process. Criticism forces you to discuss in further detail where you stand on particular issues and also develops your argument, just as practicing free throws will make you a better basketball player. But, it is this area of dissent I would like to discuss in further detail. I'd much rather discuss something like gun control with someone who completely disagrees with me on the topic than with someone who is indifferent to the issue. Debate is the way we as Americans can change culture and you can't debate someone who is ignorant to the world surrounding them. One of my favorite quotes reads, "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped," and to be quite honest, I was expecting completely different oppositions to aspects of my last article. With my anti-gun-centralization position, I was expecting some people to send me emails asking questions, "Are you suggesting American citizens should be able to buy sniper rifles or AK-47s?" or "Do you believe there should be armed guards in public schools?" Those are relevant issues and are obviously not held uniformly in the pro-gun arena, but instead of those topics arising, the primary criticism I received was for apparently being anti-speed limit, anti-driver's license and anti-safety. In order to create a community that will foster debate, discussion and a free-flow of ideas, we need to do our best to hold back emotion and approach things analytically. In my last article, I was attempting to weave a political philosophy of anti-force and anti-coercion, stating government guns will be necessary to collect guns of private citizens; I then continued to offer statistics that suggest cities or countries with more "anti-gun" laws actually have more crime and violence. I was then incredulously surprised to see a response stating I must be against "basic regard for other people's safety," when in actuality, I was offering a platform that would help make our country better off (by being more safe). Ms. Conron argued in her article, "if expanding gun control is futile ... basically ever other government activity imaginable [will be too]," which is another argument in itself, but has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. We are discussing how guns affect the safety of the public, not whether or not I disagree with being taxed for driving 67 in a 60 mile-per-hour zone. So to answer the question, "Does that mean our society should abandon all legal attempts to ensure public safety?" the obvious, simple answer is "No." If we want to further this discussion of what is the most efficient at stopping violence in America, it won't help to attack a misrepresentation of one side's argument (see "straw man"). In order to delve into debate and actually mitigate the country's problems, we need to be concise and stick to the issues at hand. So please, let's have a discussion. Let's talk about divisive policies that will stir up emotion, but let's also attempt to hold back our passions and keep the issues in clear sight. Without doing so, the one percent will just be known as "those who don't care about the poor" and the pro-choice proponents will just be labeled as "baby killers." As soon as one side just starts throwing around demeaning accusations and fails to provide any concrete, relevant point or counterargument, any hope of positive change will fade into oblivion and the "debate" will simply turn into name-calling. I would also like to clarify for those students confused by Ms. Conron's statement: "I must have missed the day in class where we learned about our right to defend ourselves ... not given by Congress, but by God." Don't worry, none of you were daydreaming in Foundations of Theology the day natural law was mentioned. That idea is explained in the Declaration of Independence - check the first sentence. Connor Roth is a sophomore economics major and constitutional studies minor. He can be reached at croth1@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

The Observer

More government transparency

·

In the days leading up to Wednesday's student government election, students became acquainted with the diverse platforms of each of the six tickets running for student body president and vice president. Each platform contained promises and pledges, and their ideas ranged from town hall forums to balloting students on their priorities, working more closely with the South Bend mayor to an intercollegiate social justice forum, making sure the proposed gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and questioning (GLBTQ) student organization comes to fruition to more concerts in the JACC. And yet these different platforms all included a uniting thread - more transparency in student government. Juniors Alex Coccia and Nancy Joyce proposed regular "State of Student Government" reports. Juniors Dominic Romeo and Philip Hootsmans pledged to keep an accessible list for all students of their checkpoints in major projects and to update it throughout their administration. Sophomores Billy Christy and Pat Roemer would post monthly YouTube videos to update the student body on their work. Junior Michael Masi and sophomore Tim Scanlan would build the student government presence on Facebook and Twitter. Freshmen Austin O'Brien and Nick Boggess wanted to release Student Senate meeting minutes every week. Even freshmen Kevin Salat and Paul Mascarenhas, the traditional Zahm House ticket, pledged to use social media in their administration, even if they pledged to do so in order to help students avoid friends during their most stressful or insufferable moments (i.e. before an organic chemistry exam). We can be guaranteed that whatever ticket wins the election will take steps toward a more accessible, more transparent student government. The names of the victorious candidates or of the tickets to compete in a runoff election, however, have been withheld from students twice now in the wake of allegations of campaign misconduct. Information on what those allegations are, what tickets have been challenged and the possible response from the Judicial Council has also been withheld from students. We're waiting with more questions than answers, and the need for more transparency is especially apparent as we continue to wonder the names of the students who will lead student government next year. Honestly, The Observer staff has editorialized about this more than once, and that in itself should be telling. In 2009, the Editorial Board requested the Judicial Council publicize the reasons it found a class council ticket guilty of two charges of campaign misconduct, which meant they could not spend any additional money on their campaign during the runoff election. "This policy should change and student government should amend the Constitution to allow the Judicial Council to disclose election violations," the 2008-2009 Board members wrote. In 2011, the Board called for a more transparent election process when a campaign "ethics clause" violation delayed the results of the student body elections, just as this year's allegations have caused the Council to withhold results again. The ticket found guilty of an election violation was required to submit an apology email to the Council before election results could be published. The Observer editorial proposed a number of alternate solutions, including a repeat election or eliminating the offending ticket. "Regardless of the challenges and imperfections of these alternatives, each proposal would have made at least some impact on the results of Monday's election - something the Election Committee's final decision completely and utterly failed to do," the editorial stated. This year, we know even less about these vague allegations. When the Council delayed results Wednesday evening, vice president of elections Katie Hennessy explained she reviewed two allegations against two tickets and found them considerable enough to be brought before the Election Committee. The Committee dismissed the allegations, yet another accusation was made before the window for complaints closed at 11:59 p.m. Wednesday. Hennessy said the names of the tickets in question would not be released so as not to sway any votes in a potential runoff election. We understand the challenges faced by the Judicial Council are difficult ones, and we applaud the way the Council challenges student government leaders to meet the standards of their Constitution. We also appreciate how seriously the Council takes its responsibility to run fair elections. But without informing students about these allegations, the Judicial Council continues to close the doors to the second floor offices in LaFortune and student government as a whole. When students know what these allegations were, we can contribute to the debate about the best response to broken rules. We can be a part of a larger conversation about the Constitution of the Student Government. We can learn more about the candidates who campaign with their best selves and make informed decisions about who we want in office. The candidates vying for the role of student body president and vice president are all ready to make their administrations more transparent and more open. It's time the Judicial Council worked for that same goal.


The Observer

Fall and laugh

·

I fall a lot. Anyone who studied abroad with me could verify that it's one of my defining characteristics. First I wiped out in the cafeteria of my international school in Toledo, Spain. Luckily, I managed to keep all my food on the plate. Talk about the luck of the Irish (or Spanish?). Then I faceplanted outside a cathedral in Granada. A mildly amused man selling trinkets on the sidewalk asked if I was okay. When I returned to Notre Dame, I made it through approximately one week of the semester before tripping up the stairs in Ryan Hall. If there's anything my tendency to fall has taught me, it's that I should permanently be clothed in bubble wrap. But if there's a second thing it has taught me, it's not to take myself too seriously. When I took my tumble outside the cathedral, I was incredibly frustrated. I grumbled to my friend about why I couldn't just stay on my feet like a normal person. Then something surprising happened - she laughed. After an initial moment of shock, I laughed, too. Within moments, we were both laughing so hard we could barely breathe, latching onto each other's arms as we strolled away from the building. Instead of sympathizing and stoking my largely undeserved self-pity, my friend demonstrated to me that my fall wasn't actually such a big deal. Where was complaining about my bad luck and lack of coordination going to get me? It would just leave me on the ground - angry, disillusioned and going nowhere. Getting up and laughing though would enable me to keep moving forward, focusing on the road ahead and not the path (or ground) behind me. And if I didn't think about them too much, I would barely notice the battle scars. I'm going to fall sometimes. Maybe a tray-on-tray collision will leave me more acquainted with the floor of North Dining Hall than I'd like to be (very probable). Or maybe I'll bomb a test, struggle in a relationship or just get a little under the South Bend weather. I'm not going to say that when we fall, we just need a good friend to pick us up. I'm going to say that when we fall, we need a good friend to laugh at us, remind us the world isn't ending and make us get up, dust the dirt off our knees and keep walking. As a wise friend once said, there's no use crying over spilled dining hall trays.


The Observer

Thoughts on the student election

·

Coverage of the student body presidential race intensified over the past week, with the election being held Wednesday. Even with the delayed results, I thought I'd offer my thoughts on the election and voting as a whole.   In most elections, it is often tough to discern the best way to cast your vote. This election is no different.  Essential questions need to be asked, such as, "What does a vote for a candidate actually mean?" Is a vote an endorsement for the whole person? If I vote for the pair of students running from Zahm, am I endorsing Zahm House as a whole? As a Stedsman, I surely hope this isn't the case. Or is a vote an endorsement of strictly someone's platform, judging them solely on what they could feasibly accomplish in office, regardless of their stances on broader moral issues? For example, a candidate might be a morally challenged person but successful at fostering pragmatic solutions to take place between two schools of thought. Does a vote for this person implicitly tell society that it is okay to live an immoral life as long as you are good at your job? Admittedly, I have no real answers to any of these tough questions. Even so, I believe just trying to answer these questions can lead you in the right direction when choosing a candidate. Additionally, every election reminds me how skeptical I am of most politicians, no matter if it involves electing a student body president or electing a United States senator. Is there any way to know for certain the person I am voting for really is the person they say he is? It is entirely possible that my vote for the earnest Ben Stiller in "Night at the Museum" is actually a vote for the obnoxious and knifing, albeit hilarious White Goodman from "Dodgeball." In the end, it's always tough for me to realize that there is no way to know exactly what I have voted for. Getting past the general uncertainty of elections as a whole, a review of the candidates in this election shows a particularly ambitious group. We have heard about printers in each academic building and a restaurant in DeBartolo, as well as a social justice forum and even renovations to the stadium. At the end of the day, however, I'm not sure realistically what impact the election of any of the pairings will bring about.  As far as probability of occurrence, the promise of Domer Dollars on Eddy Street might as well be a monorail running from Zahm to St. Mary's. The sad fact is many of the election promises and goals are bound to be broken and unfulfilled. For me, it is always tough to get past inevitable letdowns which accompany elections. Maybe it's because I'm cynical. Maybe it's because the last election I ran in resulted in a loss to a close friend. Regardless, one thing which continued to bother me in this election cycle was the lack of a Catholic identity on any single ticket's platform. I may be wrong, but I did not see any platform which included something close to building Notre Dame as a Catholic campus. Sure, candidates cited being more inclusive and broadening the Notre Dame family, but not a single ticket highlighted or looked to improve upon the foundation of this University. I feel, if a ticket really wanted to break out from the pack, they would assert and embrace our Catholic tradition. If the student body fully embraced these ideals, inclusion and a sense of family would surely follow. Instead, I was left to choose between five similar tickets and one ticket which at best brought about some needed comic relief.   My challenge for everyone, including myself, is to look past all the shortcomings of the election. We all need to realize most of the action items in the platforms will go unfulfilled. But in the end, it is really okay. These candidates will all surely put their best effort forth, but it is our job to realize they are students, like us, who need to balance work, play and potentially running the student government on top of that. If nothing else, it makes more sense to vote for those who I feel best represent the University and its ideals rather than who will get a Redbox on campus the fastest. If there is a runoff, I implore everyone to ask themselves the aforementioned questions before casting their ballot.  Exercising the right to vote is important to be an active member of any society  and I hope that my reflections shed light onto what your vote really means. Joel Kolb lives in St. Edward's Hall and is a sophomore studying mechanical engineering. He can be reached at jkolb1@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.


The Observer

Day of Man

·

This Wednesday, February 6, is Siegfried Hall's annual fundraiser Day of Man.


The Observer

Brotherly contest

·

All in all, there wasn't too much about the Super Bowl to cause complaint. The game itself ended up being a great contest. Ad lovers delighted in humorous and heart-wrenching commercials. Beyoncé proved during her halftime show she is still the reigning queen of show business. Yet, there will always be critics.


The Observer

An argument against amnesty

·

Last week a bipartisan group of United States senators unveiled an outline suggesting ways to fix our countries illegal immigration problem. Sen. Chuck Schumer, who leads this crusade, said: "This plan introduces a tough but fair path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders, reforms our current immigration system that will better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families, establishes an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers and lastly establishes an approved process of admitting future worker to serve of nations workforce needs while simultaneously  protecting all workers."


The Observer

Picture this . . .

·

It's 1:43 . . . about six minutes and 42 seconds are all that stand between you and an angry physics professor . . . and you haven't eaten. Your only options seem to be to starve or fail the physics lab. Luckily, you remember Grab 'n Go and you go on to enjoy a PB&J while excelling in advanced astrophysics.


The Observer

Enjoy the snow

·

Last Monday, our humble campus was finally blessed with one of Mother Nature's most truly magnificent gifts: snow. To some of us on campus, this powdery white precipitation might be viewed as a nuisance, to others, a novelty. All of us, however, have made the transition from sneakers and Sperrys to Uggs (and less feminine winter footwear) and from t-shirts and hoodies to bulky yet remarkably cozy coats. Why? Because this is the Midwest, and no matter where we hail from, we have to play by the rules - the cold, windy, sometimes soul-crushing rules of winter. Some of us, like myself, have grown up with snow. We have participated in countless snowball fights, made a myriad of snow angels and, of course, we are all seasoned sledders. We embrace the winter and everything that comes with it, and I for one enjoy it. I love experiencing all four seasons because I always have something to look forward to and eagerly await. As The Temptations said (or, to be more precise, sang), "When it's cold outside, I've got the month of May." But for now, the month of May can wait, because I'm going to take my time enjoying the snow. I am perfectly content to wait for spring because in a way, I think winter, and especially the snow, brings out the best in us. Sure, at times the serene beauty of winter brings with it bone-chilling winds and dangerously icy sidewalks, but it's all well worth it. While walking to class early in the morning last week through the wind tunnel that is South Quad, I heard someone yell, in a voice much too loud for any time before 9 a.m., "Weather builds character!" Though this merry winter warrior was certainly aiming for humor, I found profound truth in his exclamation as well. As a matter of fact, I think it is remarkably true in a number of ways. Of course, the cold, wind and snow build our physical durability, but weather builds character in a much deeper way than simply thickening our skin. I have found snow makes us more willing and happy to help one another. Whenever it snows at home, one of my neighbors almost always clears a path in the sidewalk the entire length of the block with a snow blower before anyone else is even awake. When Chicago was inundated with roughly 23 inches of snow nearly two years ago, my entire neighborhood took on the waist-high snowdrifts together. Never before, or since, have I seen such impromptu teamwork and genuine care for the community. Perhaps more than bringing people together though, I love the snow because it is so simply and uniquely fun. Nothing quite lets out our inner child than the prospect of playing in the snow until we can't feel our fingers anymore. The simple fact is winter allows us to revert to our five-year-old selves for a while and make snow angels, go ice skating and build snowmen. This observation was perfectly portrayed last Wednesday night, when at the stroke of midnight, hundreds of my fellow students and I, all legal adults mind you, took to South Quad and engaged in the largest snowball fight I have ever had the pleasure of partaking in. For the record, I am proud to claim, though un-authoritatively so, a victory for South Quad. Winter affects our lives in many more ways, too, many of them we don't necessarily realize. In many areas, including Chicago, the "politics of snow" is a well-documented political phenomenon. With elections often occurring in the middle of winter, the timely and effective management of snowstorms can make or break a campaign. As a matter of fact, Chicago Mayor Michael Bilandic lost a reelection campaign in 1979, partly due to his mismanagement of a blizzard in January of that year that dumped just shy of 19 inches of snow on the city. In the same vein, many Midwestern governments regularly spend tens of millions of dollars on snow removal each winter. As a self-professed literary nerd, though, perhaps my favorite impact snow has on our lives comes in the symbolic nature of snow. In literature, snow can be used as a symbol of purity and rebirth. Snow, particularly an excess of snow, is traditionally used to represent death. Or, as James Joyce most beautifully depicted the snow in his short story "The Dead," snow can be the universe's great equalizer. Joyce stunningly and elegantly depicts the snow "falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead." Beyond all of the politics, symbolism and cultural significance though, it all comes back to the simplicity and beauty of nature. Indeed, there are few moments in one's life more breathtakingly beautiful and romantic than watching fragile flakes of snow descend gently to the ground on a quiet winter's night. So take some time to sit back, relax and enjoy the snow. Jack Rooney is a freshman studying political science.  He can be contacted at jrooney1@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.


The Observer

The GOP's electoral groundhog game

·

Tomorrow is another Groundhog Day when Punxsutawney Phil pops his head above ground for the annual spring weather prognostication that hinges upon whether or not he casts a shadow. Spotting his shadow brings six more weeks of winter since it frightens him back into his hole. Ironically, a few miles away, Pennsylvania Democrats continue their Whac-A-Mole fight against a long, diabolical shadow cast by state Republican legislators across the commonwealth's presidential electoral process. The GOP has proposed a redistribution of the electoral wealth by drastically changing the state's Electoral College distribution to favor their highly partisan and currently Republican-tilted redrawn congressional district maps. Democrats hope exposing their blatant shadowy electoral rigging will force the GOP to back down like frightened groundhogs. Historically, Pennsylvania is a presidential swing state with a reliably Democratic blue tint. The GOP - unable to win statewide during the last several cycles and last year actually falling short by a million votes in the overall tally across all of their gerrymandered districts - simply wants to dismantle the winner-takes-all electoral rules. Their fabrication would dilute votes from Democratic strongholds in several key swing states currently under GOP control that, enacted across the board, collectively would have changed last year's election to favor Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. Republican National Committee Chairman ReincePriebus endorsed the scheme saying "states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to" consider the change. The GOP-hatched ploy seeks to also change Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Virginia - all currently controlled by Republicans but won by President Obama twice. The rules-changing ploy purposefully dilutes the one-person, one-vote principle, especially in urban areas where African-Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, the college-educated, gays and non-religious voters - mostly Democrats who twice overwhelming supported Obama - live in heavy concentrations. Republicans reason they must either suppress their opponents' electoral power at the ballot box or divide Democratic strength. Priebus encourages this systematic rigging to help elect a Republican without actually winning a majority of the vote. Bowing to fringe ideas that did not earn majority support last year, the GOP, absently changing its policies, needs to rig a handful of states now to compete in the 2016 election. Priebus calculates an Electoral College redistribution based on currently gerrymandered congressional districts that will keep the GOP competitive regardless of policy flaws.  His plot is simple. The state winner would not earn all of the state's electoral votes. Votes would be awarded one electoral vote at a time to the winner of each congressional district. The two electoral votes of each U.S. senator would be piled onto the already skewed congressional districts' winner regardless of the total statewide vote. Using just Pennsylvania and Virginia as examples, President Obama won all 33 electoral votes while Romney won none. The GOP scheme would award Romney a 24-9 advantage despite losing by 300,000 and 150,000 votes respectively. Democrats need to be loud and clear - the loser always loses in a fair election. Republicans currently control various reliably Democratic states merely by happenstance, having won control during the decennial year. That alone is not license to decimate precedence or ethical governing for a decade. Should Democrats lessen Romney's electoral totals in reliably fire-engine red Texas, Georgia and Arizona as their consolation? If so, the national popular vote might as well determine elections, which currently also favors Democrats.  Democrats need to counter these rules changes through legislation or ballot initiatives by creating unbiased, nonpartisan commissions to redraw the congressional districts before any electoral vote redistribution. Assuredly that would reduce the atypical number of Republicans presently in congress. It will also forever kill the amoeba-shaped districts and preserve community borders.  Interestingly, Pennsylvania traditionally exercised parity regardless of governmental party control. The longstanding precedence - prior to the 2000 and 2010 Republican-drawn "amoeba" congressional maps - maintained the principal of "wholeness," that is, of maintaining as many complete and natural municipal divisional lines. Most of the 67 counties were not divided. The few divided counties preserved the integrity of townships and municipalities. Districts remained quite stable without looking like amoeba with spider-legs, salamander fins and trapezoid edges. Parity existed for three decades from Watergate and the Reagan landslide through the Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich elections. Democrats peaked with a 13-10 edge while Republicans held an 11-10 edge after the state lost seats. Since then, however, the Pennsylvania GOP has shamelessly created disfigured districts, even splitting my small hometown, Canonsburg, along certain streets to dilute the impact of traditionally reliant Democratic votes. Republicans gained a 12-7 edge that was washed out by anti-Bush sentiment to favor Democrats 11-8. But in 2012, Pennsylvania Republicans recreated a 13-5 delegation advantage through grotesque tentacle-looking districts that split a majority of counties and major cities to dilute their natural community vote.  As national voter demographics evolve, the 2016 presidential contest just may hinge on newly trending blue states like Texas, Georgia and Arizona. That looming shadow portends a Republican winter longer than six years. In any case, be thankful the GOP does not forecast the weather. Gary J. Caruso, Notre Dame '73, serves in the Department of Homeland Security and was a legislative and public affairs director at the U.S. House of Representatives and in President Clinton's administration. His column appears every other Friday. Contact him at: GaryJCaruso@alumni.nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.


The Observer

Groundhog day

·

Before I begin, I'd like to respond to all my fans who claim I always choose an Inside Column that coincides with a holiday so I can say something silly or sarcastic, and thus avoid writing anything real. To them I say: Yes ... and there is nothing you can do about it. Chances are you don't believe me. Chances are you've bought into the propaganda, but the fact is Groundhog Day is the greatest holiday ever. Unlike other holidays, Groundhog Day offers suspense. I mean sure, the first time around it was a miracle the oil lasted for eight days, but after a few thousand years it gets a bit predictable; same goes for the rest. The great thing is we don't know what is going to happen Feb. 2; Phil may see his shadow, he may not. This uncertainty, coupled with the importance of knowing the amount of winter weather remaining, means Groundhog Day builds up a level of suspense that simply cannot be replicated, no matter how much Ryan Seacrest wishes it could. Another quality that makes Groundhog Day great is that it brings people together. On Saturday, everyone will join together, fingers crossed, in willing Punxsutawney Phil to see his shadow. We all want to hold on to our glorious winter as long as possible and Groundhog Day serves to remind us of that beautiful shared desire. We must also keep in mind that Punxsutawney Phil is a man, or rather marmot, of the people. While other holiday figures break into homes in the middle of the night or leave the glad-handing to impersonators at the mall, Punxsutawney Phil gets down and dirty (literally - he lives in a hole in the ground). Phil is a marmot of simple tastes and when Punxsutawnians need him, he shows up and humbly does his thing. He may not be a mainstream holiday figure, but his loyal cult following shows his connection to the common man is still strong. In fact, the only problem with Groundhog Day is we underutilize this wonderful resource. Why do we only ask this clairvoyant rodent, this Sciuridae seer, what the weather will be like for a month and a half? Now let me be clear, I am not saying we should overwork or exploit Phil - he's a friend - I'm simply saying we should give the Punxsutawney prophet a chance to do more good with his gift. The Super Bowl is coming up; why not have Phil tell us how many touchdowns to expect from Kaepernick? Wouldn't it be great to know when the next economic crisis, technological breakthrough or celebrity break-up will come to pass? Just saying. In the end, let's all just be thankful that when February rolls around, we can rely on an oracular ground squirrel instead of that "science" stuff for accurate weather forecasting.


The Observer

Just breathe

·

The question comes with a sudden feeling of anxiety and desperation, a sense of nausea in the pits of our stomachs. But we've settled into spring semester, and we can't seem to avoid it: "Do you know what you're doing this summer yet?" Or even worse: "Do you know what you're doing after graduation?" Cringe. On Tuesday, we abandoned traditional sweats and denim for suit coats and pencil skirts, ties and button-down blouses. We dodged our friends who are happily employed come May and set out for the college student's hunting ground - the Career Fair. The student body is job-searching with near-desperation now as the year rounds into its final turn, and we try not to visibly sweat through our perfectly ironed clothes as we chat up recruiters with a hunger for something, anything. By today, most of those recruiters from Tuesday's Career Fair have headed home, briefcases heavier with the weight of stacks of résumés. But the panic remains for those who have not yet settled on their summer plans or post-grad employment. To those still in freak-out mode, we have one piece of advice: Breathe. We're all here because we eventually have to leave for somewhere else. We'll need to find those internships, service opportunities and jobs - and we need to put in hard work to find them. But we also need to stop stepping on our own toes as we search for the perfect job or the cookie-cutter internship to pad our resumés. When the semester ends, we will step off this campus in May with the advantages of our Notre Dame education, an education that prompts us to view the world holistically and with a distinct sense of self. But when we leave our classrooms and take that next step, we are not done learning. We choose a major based on what we want to study, but also what we think we want to do with our lives. But as we continue to study and work, we continue to learn about ourselves. Our internships and jobs are an education in themselves. Alumnus Thom Browne earned a degree in accountancy in 1988, and he is now a successful fashion designer, recently acclaimed as the designer of Michelle Obama's checkered coat from Inauguration Day. Irish football coach Brian Kelly majored in political science at Assumption College and worked for a Massachusetts state senator before he began to coach football. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice studied piano at the beginning of her undergraduate career, but ended up pursuing a graduate degree in government and international studies from Notre Dame. Higher education has empowered these graduates. They trusted the lessons they learned here and elsewhere to guide them as they traveled away from campus, and as they charted their own courses, they continued to learn. As we prepare to join their alumni ranks, we're looking for our first internships and our first jobs that will eventually contribute to our careers. And when we job search, we have the chance to try something new and unexpected, to take that next step and walk off the beaten path. We have the chance to move somewhere that's not Chicago. We have the chance to challenge ourselves and to change our minds. We have the chance to find our own brand of success, whether it is in medicine or business, service work or government. No matter where we go, we can and will continue to learn along the way. So we can brush up our résumés and polish our business shoes. But we can also remember, in the middle of it all, to just breathe.


The Observer

Just breathe

·

The question comes with a sudden feeling of anxiety and desperation, a sense of nausea in the pits of our stomachs. But we've settled into spring semester, and we can't seem to avoid it: "Do you know what you're doing this summer yet?" Or even worse: "Do you know what you're doing after graduation?" Cringe. On Tuesday, we abandoned traditional sweats and denim for suit coats and pencil skirts, ties and button-down blouses. We dodged our friends who are happily employed come May and set out for the college student's hunting ground - the Career Fair. The student body is job-searching with near-desperation now as the year rounds into its final turn, and we try not to visibly sweat through our perfectly ironed clothes as we chat up recruiters with a hunger for something, anything. By today, most of those recruiters from Tuesday's Career Fair have headed home, briefcases heavier with the weight of stacks of résumés. But the panic remains for those who have not yet settled on their summer plans or post-grad employment. To those still in freak-out mode, we have one piece of advice: Breathe. We're all here because we eventually have to leave for somewhere else. We'll need to find those internships, service opportunities and jobs - and we need to put in hard work to find them. But we also need to stop stepping on our own toes as we search for the perfect job or the cookie-cutter internship to pad our resumés. When the semester ends, we will step off this campus in May with the advantages of our Notre Dame education, an education that prompts us to view the world holistically and with a distinct sense of self. But when we leave our classrooms and take that next step, we are not done learning. We choose a major based on what we want to study, but also what we think we want to do with our lives. But as we continue to study and work, we continue to learn about ourselves. Our internships and jobs are an education in themselves. Alumnus Thom Browne earned a degree in accountancy in 1988, and he is now a successful fashion designer, recently acclaimed as the designer of Michelle Obama's checkered coat from Inauguration Day. Irish football coach Brian Kelly majored in political science at Assumption College and worked for a Massachusetts state senator before he began to coach football. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice studied piano at the beginning of her undergraduate career, but ended up pursuing a graduate degree in government and international studies from Notre Dame. Higher education has empowered these graduates. They trusted the lessons they learned here and elsewhere to guide them as they traveled away from campus, and as they charted their own courses, they continued to learn. As we prepare to join their alumni ranks, we're looking for our first internships and our first jobs that will eventually contribute to our careers. And when we job search, we have the chance to try something new and unexpected, to take that next step and walk off the beaten path. We have the chance to move somewhere that's not Chicago. We have the chance to challenge ourselves and to change our minds. We have the chance to find our own brand of success, whether it is in medicine or business, service work or government. No matter where we go, we can and will continue to learn along the way. So we can brush up our résumés and polish our business shoes. But we can also remember, in the middle of it all, to just breathe.


The Observer

The politics of dying: part one

·

Two things are promised to every person: death and taxes. While most op-eds would focus on the second of these two, I am going to focus on the first: death.


The Observer

Choose love over hatred

·

It is simpler to vilify those who disagree with us rather than to understand them.  Mr. Bradley, your viewpoint "Gazing into the Abyss" (Jan. 25), demonstrates a concerning lack of empathy for women who choose abortion. Jesus calls us to love one another without condition, while you gather stones to hurl at those you should regard as sisters.


The Observer

My 'pro-life' agenda

·

I believe that every person is endowed by their Creator with human dignity. However, this is often violated by discrimination, violence, labor injustice, inequity of resources and the killing of innocent life. I have a responsibility to oppose actions that contradict human dignity and support those that affirm it. This absolutely means challenging abuses in the labor market, speaking out against racism, denouncing anti-immigrant attitudes and laws and rejecting homophobia. But the way I see it, this is not enough. Pope John Paul II once asked. "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted?"


The Observer

It's time to take a seat!

·

A couple years ago I read one of the most disturbing newspaper articles of my life. It started out innocently enough, outlining a local middle school play, highlighting notable performances. Here is the disturbing part - the article mentioned that at the end of the production the middle-school students received a standing ovation! Clearly, the state of affairs in America regarding the standing ovation is at an all-time low. Everyone and their kid brother receive a 'standing-o' nowadays. To fix this problem, we as a society need to turn to the origins of the Roman ovation. In short, a Roman ovation was a celebration for a returning warrior. The celebration fell short only of hosting an actual parade for the individual. The honor was given to those who had avoided war or won a war with minimal bloodshed. The point though is the Roman ovation was an honor to those who earned it. Contrast the Roman ovation to the laughable use of the standing ovation in today's society. In 2010, the current Mexican president spoke to the Senate and denounced legislation which burdened illegal immigrants from his home country. Those who supported him gave him a standing ovation! It seems preposterous that a dignitary would receive a 'standing-o' for merely being in concurrence with certain members of the Senate. Foreign dignitaries aren't the only ones receiving standing ovations. Watch any State of the Union address and you'll find standing ovations, which some look as if they're planned. The overuse of the standing ovation only devalues it. But fear not, our world is not completely forsaken. Every year, PBS hosts a Memorial Day service honoring our fallen veterans and their families. Often Hollywood actors read letters written by the deceased to their loved ones, capturing the emotion and tension of losing a spouse or parent. The families and the rest of the audience watch, captivated by the words the fallen soldier wrote as their final words. Upon introduction of the soldier's family, the audience almost always gives a standing ovation. In this situation, the solider greatly deserves the standing ovation. In the sports world, the great Andre Agassi, American tennis player, announced his retirement from the sport after winning a tournament. Agassi, arguably the best tennis player at the time of his retirement, received a standing ovation. Agassi and the veterans deserved the ovation, while the Mexican president did not.   Who deserves a standing ovation?  Luckily for everyone, I have a modest proposal to fix the flagrant misuse of the 'standing-o' in today's society. First, everyone should look inward and examine their values in life. From these you can recognize the people who deserve automatic standing ovations. Personally, the only 'automatics' on my list are war veterans and whoever ends up finding a cure for cancer. Your automatics can be whomever you like, but be sure to make them meaningful and rare. Of course, it is much more likely a situation arises where there are no automatic standing ovations, but you are still considering giving one. If this is the situation, you need to ask yourself these essential questions: Is this one of the best performances/sporting events/feats I have ever seen and probably ever will see? Will I remember this moment/production/viewing for the rest of my life, namely because of the epochal quality of this situation? If you answer yes to either of these questions, then feel free to bust out of your chair. A final question is, however, "have I given a standing ovation within the past two years?" If yes, then the question becomes, "is this as amazing as or better than the last time I've given one?" Finally, armed with these questions, remember the tenets of recognition, prevention and assimilation.  Recognition - if you see a couple of people starting to clap and stand, you should immediately begin asking yourself the essential questions and decide whether or not to act. Prevention - do society a favor. Do whatever it takes to prevent a bad standing ovation from occurring. Feel free to say things like, "Sit down before I make you." Assimilation - if you feel a standing ovation is worthy, then join right in. I've been a part of a couple of really good ones and let me tell you - it was phe-nom-e-nal.   I'd like to end on this note. Last semester, I listened to Father Hesburgh speak at a Veteran's Day service.  At the end of the speech, he received a standing ovation. The same standing ovation which was given to the middle school play two years before. Should we as a society be comfortable putting Father Hesburgh on the same plane as middle school kids? I know I'm not comfortable doing that and you shouldn't be either.  The next time you are confronted with a standing ovation, just recall what I said.  If you're on the fence about participating in one, just remember, "When in doubt, sit it out." Joel Kolb lives in St. Edward's Hall and is a sophomore studying mechanical engineering. He can be reached at jkolb1@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.