Friday, October 21st was the final day of Claremont McKenna College’s Milosz Festival, a three-day series of events celebrating the life and work of the famous Polish poet Robert Milosz. The organizers of the event saved the final event for the biggest names: Pulitzer Prize winner CK Williams, Milosz’s son and accomplished musician Anthony Milosz, and three-time poet laureate Robert Pinsky.

Steven Siegal, associate Vice President for Development at Claremont McKenna, attended and helped to organize the evening’s event. “This was a truly amazing assortment of poets,” said Fagan. “We had a really strong attendance…we had good participation from people outside the community.”

The event, initially expected to draw 100 people, doubled in size by the beginning of the readings. There were some Polish immigrants in attendance to hear commentary on Milosz’s work, but the majority of people there were buzzing prior to the show about hearing Robert Pinsky read his work.

Indeed, Pinsky was the main draw of the entire festival. His appearance, and the organization of the entire festival, is credited to Claremont McKenna Professor Robert Fagan, who could not be reached for comment.
Pinsky, who served as the nation’s poet laureate an unprecedented three times, has often been called the greatest poet of our generation. He is one of the few modern poets famous enough to be named by typical college students and was certainly the most accomplished writer to speak at the festival. As a Pulitzer Prize winner, Williams was no amateur, but he did not command the attention of the audience as Pinsky did.

Or at least he did not, initially. As the crowd of over 200 politely applauded William’s arrival to the podium, he charmed the crowd with a glowing introduction and review of Milosz’s work. He went on by reading a series of his own works, each one a more stirring and beautiful example of Walt Whitman styled free verse than the last. The crowd reacted excitedly at one poem in particular, the aptly titled “Whacked,” as its hum of approval drowned out the sound of Williams’ introduction of his next poem.

The loud applause Williams received at his exit from the stage was followed by a thunderous applause for Pinsky as he shuffled to the podium. The crowd that was so moved by William’s work was ready to be impressed by the three-time poet laureate. Unfortunately, the performance they received was less than stellar.

Pinsky, like Williams, read a few poems from his latest anthology, but his work came off as dry and occasionally arrogant, contrasting with William’s insight and warmth. The crowd remained patient as Pinsky went over his allotted time, but the buzz of approval was minimal and the applause he received at the end was brief and polite.
Chinelo Ikejimba, an assistant to Siegal and a senior at McKenna, attended the event and had a similar reaction. “Williams was better,” she said. “There were high expectations of Pinsky. He is a three time poet-laureate, and I was sitting there thinking, ‘When are you going to wow me?’”

Ikejimba, who was tasked with writing the biographies for the speakers at the event, spent time speaking to both poets and had nothing but good things to say about each one. “Both of them are nice gentlemen…Williams was straightforward and practical but still well polished, and Pinsky was more relaxed.”

The night ended with Anthony Milosz reading his father’s poems in their original Polish and English translation. The crowd chuckled at Milosz’s wordplay and humorous topics, but was also surprised by the beauty of the cadence of his meter when read in its original language.

Those who exited the Bauer Center Auditorium that night had been treated to a night of wonderful poetry. The conversation of the exodus that evening centered around Williams’s not easily forgotten performance, but those who had anticipated an unforgettable reading by Pinsky left underwhelmed.

The Claremont-Mudd-Scripps womens’ soccer team moves on to the SCIAC finals game after shutting out Pomona-Pitzer, 3-0 Thursday evening at Pritzlaff Field.

For the first 25 minutes of the match, the P-P Sagehens played stubborn defense, seldom giving the CMS Athena’s an opportunity to strike in the offensive half. They had some real scoring opportunities in the first half but missed them.
The Sagehens had a possible shot after junior defender Jordan Bryant played a long ball to Traci Lopez as she snuck behind the Athenas’ defense. Bryant’s pass was timed almost perfectly with the run as Lopez touched the ball in stride, but her strike from the 18-yard mark rolled just wide of the right post as it crept past CMS goalkeeper Hannah Dunham.

The Athenas broke the tie in the twenty-eighth minute, as they turned the corner near the left endline and played a short cross into the box. After a couple of touches, CMS forward Kerry Moller shot a 12-yarder that reached the back of the left side of the net. The Athenas maintained a 1-0 lead heading into halftime.

In the beginning of the second half, a series of unfortunate events led to the Athenas scoring two goals within two minutes of each other. The first goal came off a corner from forward Madi Shove, as senior forward Lizzie Van Buskirk remained open at the back post.

The second goal came just over a minute later after the Sagehens made a costly turnover near the box. The turnover caused Pomona-Pitzer goalkeeper Emma Wolfarth to come out of the box to try and recover the ball, which allowed Shove to score. The lead proved insurmountable, and both teams played their reserves for the remainder of the contest.

After the game while the Sagehens were huddled in a circle on the field, Coach Jen Scanlon approached each individual player to shake their hands.

“This has been a very important step for our team this year,” Scanlon said. “This is the first time any of these players, seniors on down, have ever played in a conference tournament. To finish tied for second in the regular season that is a huge accomplishment for this team.”

In terms of shots, the Sagehens had nearly as many as the Athenas. The Sagehens took 9 shots, while the Athenas had 12. However, the issue for Pomona-Pitzer was not being able to capitalize on the scoring opportunities that they did have. The ball just didn’t roll Pomona-Pitzer’s way.

“That’s just soccer. You’re on the losing side of that sometimes, and you’re on the winning side of that sometimes,” Scanlon said. “A couple of bad bounces went both ways, but that’s absolutely soccer. You have to learn to live with it, because in the game you see it all the time.”

The semifinal game allowed standout seniors Rachel Eckerlin and Traci Lopez to end their careers with their first postseason appearance.

On October 5, 2011, the world lost the man who made the computer personal. Steve Jobs, as CEO of Apple Inc., was responsible for making cold, lifeless computer technology into a fashionable, personalized trend with his Mac products. By focusing on the computer from the point of view of a user and not of an engineer, Jobs paid close attention to the aesthetics and the design.

Jobs began his career by creating the personalized computer. In the 1980s, with the newly founded company Macintosh, Jobs and his partner Steve Wozniak invented what we today know as the computer. Before Jobs there had been only limited access to computers, but with Macintosh, Jobs made it possible for ordinary people to own and operate these machines. By shrinking the Xerox PARC and giving the machine easy-to-use functions, Jobs commercialized the computer. The personalized computer became accessible because Jobs made it profitable; he turned it into a product that could be sold.

It was also tool of democratization. As Pitzer political studies professor Geoff Herrera said, “[Jobs’s] first transformation [in other words, not the iPod revolution] was more important. The fact that you have a personalized computer…the first computers, you didn’t have to be a computer scientist to use.”

The format of all computers today with the mouse-directed selection, drop-down menus, and standardized font styles were all a result of Jobs’s design. In fact, as he mentioned in his speech to the Stanford University graduates in 2005, he was inspired by a calligraphy class he took in college which led to his almost obsessive focus on the aesthetic design of the computer. As a result of this obsession came an aesthetically pleasing machine of minimalist design sparking a trend that made computers fashionable. Jobs’s designs gave emotion to technology.

Apple products became a combination of computer geekery and customizable style. Now that anyone could use a computer, they could make it their own. Though it has a minimalist design on the outside, a Mac product has a complex and flexible design on the inside. The iPod can be used to consolidate music into one easily-transported place, or it can be used to listen to podcasts or radio shows. Pitzer Professor of Mathematics Judy Grabiner uses the free iPod she received when she purchased a Macbook to listen to lectures from the Teaching Company or podcasts from BBC’s radio show “In Our Time.” Because of her new iPod, she said, “I’m learning a lot of stuff in the time that usually would be wasted.”

And that is the point of Apple products: they are designed for what people want and what people need. However, as Thomas Friedman from the New York Times points out, people do not even know what they need, and it was up to Steve Jobs to show them. It was not as if Jobs was receiving countless emails from people demanding they have a wireless tablet laptop that could play music, have video chats, and connect to the internet all at the same time; however, when the iPad was released in 2010, it was as if the world had been looking for it all along.
I
t was Steve Jobs’s “reality distortion field” that changed the way people spend their free time. Jobs was said to be able to convince anyone, including himself, to believe they could do more and be more. With the Macintosh computers, he convinced ordinary people that they could also operate such machines. With the more recent Apple products, he showed everyone they could do more than just make calls or listen to music. Nobody thought they would need to be able to call a friend, check the weather, play Fruit Ninja, and send an email all at the same time – that is, until Steve Jobs told them they could. “He’s imagining how to design these things so they will be valuable and helpful for people with a wide range of interests or thoughts,” said Professor Grabiner. By giving people the tools to do seemingly impossible things, Jobs created a culture of human-computer interaction that keeps time vibrant and fulfilling.

Now the question is: will Apple continue to succeed without its charismatic leader? Jobs certainly intended it to. The foundations he laid for the Apple brand, the uniform design of the products, and the fanatical creativity he cultivated in the Apple offices may be enough to maintain the company. It is speculated that he had planned to close the media circle by creating the Apple television. This new product would continue with the chic, minimalist aesthetic of all the other Apple products and include the underlying, intrinsic software design. “Jobs’s skill was more of a holistic designer of the computer experience at all levels,” said Professor Herrera. Jobs was creating the brand, the Apple experience of having a tool that allowed people to do things they had never imagined.

Jobs knew people wanted to explore, so he designed new ways to expand. Like he told the Stanford University graduates, Jobs wanted people to “stay hungry, stay foolish.”

It has been suggested by a number of students that the manner in which Pitzer handles the Fulbright application process is contrary to the Pitzer ethos. Students have complained that it is a process that emphasizes statistics over students. As one student who wished to remain anonymous explained, “Pitzer doesn’t care about where you get a Fulbright to, they just care that you get one. You could end up in the most obscure country, unhappy and isolated–it doesn’t matter, as long as they can put it on the website.”

Another student who wished to remain anonymous called the Fulbright class that Pitzer has created to support students in their Fulbright application, a “Fulbright factory,” in which applications are “manufactured” to fit a formulaic mold and countries are selected for ease over preference.

She went on to say that, “Fulbright is everywhere. It’s difficult to avoid. I even considered applying [without any interest in teaching or research].”

As a Fulbright applicant to teach English in Malaysia, I have experienced Pitzer’s process first hand and, like many other Pitzer applicants, have developed my own commentary. The Fulbright offers Pitzer students a priceless opportunity to do research or teach abroad and I believe that the Pitzer Fulbright staff has done an outstanding job in the endeavor to promote Pitzer students. Nevertheless, Pitzer has created a rigid system of approaching Fulbright applications and has propagandized Fulbright in a manner that may be more of a benefit to the college than to the students. Together, students may feel guided by pressures of the school to apply and are drawn by the promise of prestige.

As I walked in to the Broad Performance Space for the Fulbright informational session back in early September, I found myself in a crowded room surrounded by many of my peers who had also been allured by the excitement and mystery of the Fulbright. Nigel Boyle, professor of political studies and head of the Pitzer Fulbright support staff, took the stage.

Professor Boyle began by introducing the Fulbright as an accomplishment to place on one’s obituary. I thought this was a peculiar way of promoting the Fulbright, but I got his point—the Fulbright is a Fellowship that follows you to your death and perhaps immortalizes you. Despite this slight appeal, it was interesting that the first reason discussed to apply seemed to be directed towards one’s own personal interest and prestige.

Next, a list of countries was presented that students essentially were not allowed to apply for because they were too difficult to get. In addition, Professor Boyle had architected a scheme for which the Fulbright applicants of 2011 would be organized, listing the names of various countries and a number indicating the amount of students that he wanted to apply for these countries in order to optimize probability. Many of these countries at first look were unrecognizable to the average student.

It seemed to be all mapped out for us. There was almost a promise made that if we followed the guidance of the Fulbright staff, many of us in the room would be assured Fulbright fellowships. The offer was very compelling and during the following weeks many students seemed induced to complete an application, sometimes despite a lack of personal direction or investment in their country of choice.

I think this is best illustrated by the actions taken by some applicants in the finals days before sending in their applications. In the final stages of the process, many students changed their country in a last-minute decision, discarding their prior interest, to improve their chances of getting a Fulbright in another country.

I believe that the strategies Pitzer has put forth to support Fulbright applicants have been in good spirit and I do not believe that Pitzer is actively trying to force students into applying for a Fulbright. I want to also credit Professor Boyle and the Fulbright staff for the tremendous amount of effort and support that they have supplied to all the Fulbright applicants throughout the process this year. In my own journey in applying to Malaysia, I have been fortunate to receive their advice. Thank you.

I simply want to extend the message that the way Pitzer does Fulbrights is not perfect. I believe there are valid arguments for changing the way Pitzer views Fulbrights that need to be considered by the administration and students alike. In addition, I want to advance that I do not believe that Pitzer is a one-fellowship school. I think that students are very capable of achieving many other fellowships and I believe that Pitzer would benefit enormously from putting in place the same level of support towards other fellowships, such as the Watson, that we have extended toward the Fulbright.

Full of regret for not going to SCAMfest, I tried to make up for my lack of attendance by asking friends how they rated the performances as a whole. In response to my line of questioning, I gathered a bundle of generous reviews of the event, but here and there I noticed a large trend in responses: most noticeably, people commented on the large turnout for SCAMfest, saying that Big Bridges held a crowd at full capacity. Although I had wanted to attend SCAMfest , I wondered why so many attended the event. Of course, music has played an integral part in culture all over the world for centuries of human existence, but why did so many people go to Big Bridges and spend close to 3 hours watching people sing songs when they could simply turn on their respective Pandora accounts? In general, why do so many people find live music so much more entertaining than when it is just played on a musical device?

For the time being, my curiosity has been satiated by talking to Dean Pospisil (PZ ‘12) about his senior thesis. For his project, Dean has centered his work upon the effects of visual context upon pitch perception. Specifically, Dean predicts that different visual contexts will attain different emotional effects when perceiving pitch. Dean formulated his prediction through knowledge that mouth movements and shapes alter the perception of pitch. For example, the emotions evoked by watching the late Michael Jackson perform “Thriller” would be very different from the emotions evoked by watching Barry White sing his “Can’t Get Enough of Your Love, Babe” because of the contrary mouth movements and shapes necessary to perform the dissimilar pitch scales.

But how will the emotional responses be measured? Here is where the wonder of neuroscience takes hold. First comes in the Electrocephalograph (EEG), a device that creates a graphical record of electrical activity in the brain. EEGs have been used in order to localize the origin of epileptic seizures. In the case of Pospisil’s study, it will be used in hopes of determining how and where these visual stimuli (different mouth movements and shapes) are processed. Next comes the measurement of emotional affect provided by a Galvanic skin response, tested by a lie detector, another useful tool that measures the skin’s change in electrical resistance according to stress or anxiety.

Art has managed to become incorporated into the mix in some other manner entirely. Dean is also trying to look at the effects of a visualizer upon emotional effects of subjects. With this music visualizer, an attempt will be made in order to make music seem as if it had come from a speaker. If the results are significant, this music visualizer will increase the emotional effect of music. Ultimately, with this device, Dean hopes that the significant results may indicate that the visualizer may indeed enhance musical perception for those that have degraded hearing.

But how does such an idea come about? I know for certain that none of my classes emphasized the importance of visual stimuli upon auditory processing. Indeed, extracurricular activities first directed Dean towards his curricular studies. Specifically, previous literature concerning the theory of the origin of music piqued Dean’s interest in music and its emotional effects. According to Dean, the theory states that the emotional power of music is derived from the variety of pitches. In addition, this theory stipulates that the pitches of music garner such powerful emotional effects because people relate them to the pitches of fellow peers. For example, a low note from a cello may make us perceive a more depressed emotion because when our peers feel depressed, they exhibit lower tones than usual. Thus, in conclusion, this theory finds that the mechanisms that we use to determine moods of other people are in use when we listen to music.

So how did Dean’s reasoning for his own thesis project provide me satiety in my confusion over the large crowd at SCAMfest? Such an event as SCAMfest garners such a massive audience because of the additional appeal of watching someone pour their emotion into their voice. True, simply listening to “Rocky Raccoon” may illicit some emotions, but seeing it performed live by a band such as the Beatles will provide an exponential amount of emotional affect. Why do you think you see so many people crying in the live tapings of a Beatles concert?

Tasked with assisting students in achieving academic success, the Academic Support Services office is, simply put, doing it wrong. Staffed by one individual and housed within the Office of Student Affairs, Associate Dean of Students Rochelle Brown, the office is primarily responsible for ensuring that individuals with various disabilities receive appropriate accommodations. From learning disabilities to physical disabilities, the duty of the Academic Support
Services office is to provide a safe place where individuals can come to have special needs addressed.

Frequently, that is not the case. The office that the Associate Dean heads has lost tests that they proctored, ignored emails requesting appropriate accommodations, failed to meet with students after an appointment has been made, failed to provide students with notes in a timely manner (if provided at all) and sent private information regarding students with disabilities to other students in lieu of notes.

The Associate Dean often seems to avoid solving problems and discourage students from seeking assistance. One student, who asked to be identified only as Eleanor, said Associate Dean Brown made her “feel stupid for requesting accommodations.” With a documented physical disability that makes walking painful, Eleanor said Dean Brown told her she could not be guaranteed a first floor room and that it was not Associate Dean Brown’s job to provide accommodations. Obviously frustrated, Eleanor finished our conversation saying, “Rochelle Brown has failed to help me for three straight years.”

Another student, asked to be called Rigby, went to see Rochelle Brown after personal medical issues disrupted her academic life that necessitated medical intervention. Instead of finding herself in a welcoming environment, Rigby “felt like a burden when going to her” [Rochelle Brown].

Other students, myself included, find it difficult to interact with the office after we are approved for accommodations. As a dyslexic who did not learn how to read until third grade I am allowed a note taker in my classes, which I have employed twice in my four years at Pitzer. Brown’s office is supposed to facilitate that process, collecting class notes from a designated note taker. Notes are then passed along to the student, once a week. The first time I requested notes from the office of Academic Services, I had to wait 23 days to receive notes. They came a few days before the first test, only after members outside of Browns’ office stepped in.

More recently, I went 27 days without receiving notes. Instead I received a packet accidentally sent to me that contained a list of 17 Pitzer students who receive some form of support from Brown’s office. The list included names, ID numbers, home phone numbers, addresses and hand-written notes about the students’ needs. After pointing out the error to the Office of Student Affairs, returning the list and requesting the appropriate notes, Associate Dean Brown told me to leave her office. She made no effort to take responsibility for the time lag and instead made excuses.
Another accommodation available to students with special needs is class notes, free of charge. Instead of having a list of tutors ready by the beginning of the school year, or shortly thereafter, Associate Dean Brown published the list 56 days into the semester, one week after the drop date. Any student that could have used a tutor for the first part of the semester has presumably either dropped the class, or suffered irreparable academic harm.

Associate Dean Brown and her office have been the subject of at least four student-talk emails in the past few years. Jason Kabaker, a senior last year, blasted Brown on student-talk saying, “To this day, I am baffled that this woman has not been fired. Since day 1 of coming to Pitzer, she has been the least helpful person I have ever come across.” Kabaker stated further that Brown is “horrible at responding to emails and helping me find proctors for my exams.” According to him, Associate Dean Brown even misplaced one of his exams for almost four weeks.

This less than ideal situation has even affected student politics. The current Student Senate Chair made one part of his four-part platform improving the services that the Academic Support Services office provides. Unfortunately nothing has been done. The office remains a one-person shop, while comparable institutions like Whitman College list three individuals who make up the equivalent office.

Anecdotal evidence of this magnitude should be investigated and addressed. The Academic Support Services office needs to be reorganized and refocused on meeting the needs of the students whom it is designed to serve.

The execution of a dictator reflects on the regime’s weakness and ultimate failure to provide for the state. With the recent deposition and summary execution of Muammar Gaddafi, former ruler of Libya, one gets a feeling that this dictator “reaped what he sowed.” After ruling the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for 41 years, and surviving the subsequent civil war for 6-months, Gaddafi died in questionable circumstances on October 20th, 2011. His savage death challenges the sanctity of human-rights, yet, one might say that his death was befitting for a tyrant.

It is easy to take this example as a fragment in history, yet by doing so one excludes many other atrocious predecessors to Gaddafi. These individuals provide a peek into a small facet of the human experience: when given absolute rule and power to exact upon any desired will, how is one to behave? Should a ruler be kind and benevolent or utilize one’s god-like stature to extort the populace and raze cities in the face of open rebellion? If you, as an evil despot, choose the latter of these two options, then the following leaders will provide you a template on how to rule. But be warned, following in the ways of such individuals will inevitably turn the popular opinion against you, and in all likeliness bring about an untimely death.

During the early Roman Empire, Nero, ascended the throne through his mother, Agrippinna’s, treachery; she ordered a court eunuch to poison her husband and Nero’s stepfather, Emperor Claudius, thereby making Nero ruler. At the age of 17, Nero was given supreme authority to rule over his vast empire. Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote about the excesses Nero indulged in: disguised as a slave, Nero would roam throughout the streets of Rome ravaging brothels and taverns with his minions. When this activity grew old, Nero began satisfying his sexual appetite with relatives (including his own mother), peasants, and wives of senatorial elites; no one was entirely out of his reach. His cruelty, violence, and appetite for grotesque self-indulgence brought the Roman Empire to the brink of financial and political ruin. It is reported that he burned down half of Rome, for the dual purpose of expanding his palace while scapegoating Christians as the instigators of the fire. Christians were persecuted for their alleged crime, including disciple Peter and the apostle Paul. Nero is referenced in the book of Revelations, as the beast bearing the number 666. His ineptitude as a ruler eventually cost him his life. In 68 AD, the senate declared Nero a public enemy. Upon hearing of his planned execution, Nero reportedly said, “What an artist dies in me,” and then promptly stabbed himself. He should have said, “What a tyrant dies in me.”

To his enemies, Grigori Rasputin was the embodiment of evil. Before gaining influence in Russian politics, Rasputin was a reported drunkard and thief in the remote Siberian town, Pokrovskoye. Rasputin experienced divine mysticism, despite the fact that he was not an ordained priest or monk, and he began to amass a small following. Rasputin formed a religious cult founded on the notion that only after a man had sinned greatly could he attain salvation. Assuming the role of holy man and healer, Rasputin set about corrupting countless god-fearing peasantry. Rumors began to circulate in the early 1900s about this reported mystic, Rasputin, who had curious healing powers.

In the first few years of the 20th century, Russia was suffering from domestic disorder as well as constant threat of foreign invasion. The church and the crown, requiring a boost of moral esteem, began looking for an individual to attain divine authority from. Rasputin’s reputation as a preacher had preceded him, allowing him an entrée into the high circles of the church, and from there he gained access to the royal court and family. Once he secured his position in the royal court, Rasputin set about abusing his new founded authority. Rasputin began selling public office titles for exorbitant rates. One might call him a “fixer”, for he had acquired such influence in the royal family that he could essentially rule via influence. He had the power to appoint and remove from power lower members of the clergy, Bishops, and even prime ministers.

He was an immensely manipulative character, and his corrupt nature was becoming increasingly evident during his reign. The St. Petersburg newspaper was bursting with stories from rape-victims, crude cartoons, and articles rich with scandalous allegations. Despite political instability and public discontent, Russia entered the war against Germany. Rasputin became Alexandra’s advisor while the public, becoming very aware of Rasputin’s increased influence in Russian politics, appealed to the Tsar to remove Rasputin. The Tsar remained partial to Alexandra, allowing Rasputin to give the highest military post to his friend, Vladamir Sukhomlinov. Millions of soldiers’ lives would be lost as a result of such military incompetence. In 1915, the war turned for the worst as German forces broke through the Russian infantry, forcing a mass retreat. As mother Russia mourned her loss, people began demanding answers. Rasputin became increasingly out of control. One such story recounts Rasputin standing before a large audience, exposing himself, yelling “This is what rules Russia!” as he violently shook his manhood. Rasputin was demonized by the public for bringing the monarchy down. The people most opposed to his influential power were members of the Romanov family, the senior police, and the senior members of the government.

In the early hours of a cold December night in 1916, Rasputin was led to one of the Tsar’s palaces to be assassinated. This event is the source of Rasputin’s legendary fame. It is reported that he survived poisoned wine and cyanide infused cakes. Angered by his inability to die, the assailants shot Rasputin three times with a pistol. Again, Rasputin survived the attacks on his life. He was savagely beaten to a bloody pulp and thrown into a freezing river, finally ending the life of the villainous man.

The question of fair punishment when dealing with particularly ruthless individuals is very much a moral one: should we resort to “an eye for an eye” punishment or honor the sanctity of human life, despite innumerable offenses, through trial? It is easy to neglect, when reflecting on the past, the many other rulers who have, unlike Nero, Rasputin, or Gaddafi, died without ever being condemned for their cruelty. Within recent history we can look at Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Emperor Hirohito and Stalin as examples of monstrous individuals going unpunished for their actions. We can thus declare that not all rulers “reap what they sow.” Following this logic, there is no real compulsion to behave benignly as an autocrat when one’s power remains unchecked. Therefore, returning to the original question: How will you rule? The power is in your hands, have fun, but not too much fun.

Pitzer junior, Rowina Gaine, founded the “Help the Hairless” club in mid-October, when she says she noticed her school in the midst of a burgeoning epidemic.

“One day I just looked around and noticed all of these people with the sides of their heads shaved off,” she said. “ I’ll be honest – it was super disconcerting but once I got it together I said to myself, ‘Ro, temperatures are dropping and these people actually need my help.’”

In her opinion, these students do not fully assess the risks of a side shave, which can be dangerous to their health.
“It’s scientific fact that we lose the most body heat through our head and people with side shaves just aren’t accustomed to constant breeze hitting their one patch so I think the Shave Drive will be preventing a lot of colds this winter,” Ms. Gaine said.

In response to the outbreak, the club plans to put on a Shave Drive in which students will willingly shave off their own eyebrows and eyelashes to offer as a donation for the students with side shaves.
“We wanted to limit the donation scheme to eyebrows and eyelashes specifically so we wouldn’t disrupt the No Shave November campaign’s focus on beards and body hair,” said “Help the Hairless” club member, Mynde Voide. “In the end, we both really want the same thing – more hair.”

Despite the compromise, student advocates of the ‘No Shave November’ movement are still opposed to the event, which they believe will harm their own campaign – one that attempts to garner campus-wide participation under the single premise that participants remain totally un-shaven for the 30 day period of November.
“The Shave Drive absolutely undermines everything we stand for and will completely prevent us from carrying out a successful run this year,” said one advocate who wished to remain anonymous. “Of course, we feel for the ‘side shavies’ but this Shave Drive is just a pure lack of respect for our mission.”

However, the Hair for the Hairless club believes that the drive is both a necessary solution and the right one.
“When we all came together to discuss the issue we did throw around a few different ideas, but we really wanted the side shave solution to be organic and sustainable,” said Mynde Voide. “We really didn’t feel any kind of mass-produced, synthetic toupee would’ve been in keeping with Pitzer’s core values.”

The club says they had originally approached fellow Pitzer club, Stich ‘N Bitch, to commission knit beanies for side shaved students, however the idea for a shave drive came when S.N.B. turned them down.
“We did ask the Pitzer chapter of Stich ‘N Bitch to contribute but it turns out they had already devoted their winter outputs to the cancer wing at Pomona Valley Hospital,” said Ms. Gaine. “We believe the Shave Drive is a better opportunity to engage the community because we‘ll be needing a lot of eyebrows.”

After the event is held at end of the month, Ms. Gaine says she hopes to expand her coalition to include likeminded activists in other cities.

“I think tackling the crisis in the Bay Area would be an ideal next step,” said Ms. Gaine. “San Francisco has dozens of cases sprouting up each day, and it’s much colder weather up north.”

Though Hair for the Hairless has repeatedly appealed for the No Shave campaign’s allegiance, as of now “No Shave November” has refused to discuss the issue and neither side is willing to sacrifice their respective positions. p

The events of Occupy Wall Street sent shockwaves throughout America and across the world. Peaceful protesters lined the streets of Manhattan demanding an end to the plutocracy that has devoured our once existent democracy.

Pitzer students, anarchists, socialists, and independents alike have viewed the movement as progressive and stand in solidarity with all the Occupy events occurring across the country. Furthermore, students have even begun to start a movement of their own, Occupy Claremont.

However, what I have noticed most about these protests and the current tidal wave of thought sweeping the US and other nations is the deep existentialist beginnings. Existentialism is the philosophical movement that promotes “the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual. In existentialism, the individual’s starting point is characterized by what has been called “the existential attitude,” or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.”

In this way, the Occupy movement itself is rooted in existential thought as the participants claim it is a “people-powered movement, which aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.”

The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche would most likely stand among these protesters. Many only associate Nietzsche with madness and insanity; however, his theories revolutionized philosophy and existentialism, as we know it. He declared that God was dead and thus human beings were the only ones who possessed the “will to power.” In his book, “Will to Power,” he says, “My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement (“union”) with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on.”

In this way, the Occupy protests that are happening around us are a re-awakening of a deep American tradition in existential thought. We have always been regarded as an individualistic society, but beyond this, we are striving to find a synthesis between the individuals that embody the middle class and those that embody the 1%.

Beginning September 17, 2011 and a century in the making, the Occupy Wall Street (#OWS) movement has now swelled to over 900 cities worldwide, a level of solidarity unfathomable to the parroting punditry of the corporate media. The ongoing 1960’s style live-in, taking place in city centers across the globe, from Oakland to Beijing to Greece, has proven difficult to co-opt (as the Tea Party so swiftly was), and has already shifted the political narrative in the directly-democratic, decentralized, populist, truly leftward direction.

The original New York City chapter of the Occupy movement (which was birthed by Adbusters, a Canadian anti-consumerist magazine), living adjacent to Wall Street’s New York Stock Exchange, has recently packed Times Square with demonstrators, marched across the Brooklyn bridge, faced down eviction, and withstood the brutality of riot police for months in the cold. Much speculation is focused upon how long the protestors can endure. They stoically state, “until there is real change.”

The living standards in the US are rapidly declining due to oppression by the corporate fascist state, which mangled the already un-free markets beyond recognition, yielding the casino gulag financial sector that we have today. According to the US Census Bureau, this country’s GINI coefficient (a measure of economic inequality) has been steadily rising since the “Trickle-Down” days of Reaganomics, and is now on par with that of China, surpassed only by Brazil and Mexico. As more become aware and angry, the global insurrection against bankster occupation could be the economic equivalent of the 1960’s Civil Rights movement.

“What are their demands?” This is what the mainstream media incessantly asks (transitioning from blackout to circus mode, their only two settings according to Jon Stewart). One stands out: “We are gathered to express a feeling of mass injustice by people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world.” Opposition to the widening US disparity in wealth inspires slogans like “We are the 99%,” and “I’ll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.”
Conflicts over human rights, religious freedom, and wealth disparity tend to precipitate revolution. From the storming of the Bastille, to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the election of Nelson Mandela and the end (sort of) of apartheid; underrepresented groups do not sit quietly. As such, Thomas Jefferson called for a revolution every 20 years, as “the Tree of Liberty must be periodically refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”

The challenge, looking ahead, is to enter a brave new, egalitarian (but not top-down) economic system, where we continue advancing technologically without relying too heavily upon the State (at least not until the populace is informed and an authentic electoral process is restored).

A cause trumpeted by the moderate left—higher corporate taxation—is a justified but shortsighted proposition. Instead of funding schools, science or infrastructure, these monies are lavished on maintaining the military-industrial complex, on the order of 50% of the US discretionary budget. And yet, most democratic politicians do not actively oppose this beast. The Treasury is routinely sucked dry by vampiric lobbyists and bankers in Washington and New York—this is the nature of taxation in a fascist paradigm—one that Mussolini defines as the “merger of state and corporate power.” The supremacy of the state is being called into question. Why should we bolster an entity that claims a “legitimate monopoly on the use of violence”? Especially when that force is exerted upon protestors expressing their Constitutional rights?

But people are beginning to wake up… often in a cold sweat, futilely appealing to the consequences of a belief; refusing to accept a reality based on the magnitude of its ramifications. In the words of the self-centered sage, Ayn Rand, “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality.”

This movement, however, faces considerable opposition. Rupert Murdoch’s Neoconservative News Corporation (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Sky News…) and supposedly liberal media outlets like CNN have been condemning the movement, calling it amorphous and undirected (even likening the mostly peaceful protestors to terrorists). Publicly they deride it, but privately these political forces attempt to co-opt the movement.

In a brief interview with Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, he outright refused to listen to issues raised by #OWS (chiefly an audit and end to the Federal Reserve), and became evasive and jittery (with a quivering lip a la’ Bernanke) when I confronted him about the history, activities, and agenda of the absurdly insidious Council (most ridiculously, claiming never to have heard of Carroll Quigley, the CFR’s official historian during the 60s and mentor to Bill Clinton at Georgetown, who unintentionally blew the whistle on their insidious activities).

What Haass and others who uphold the status quo fail to acknowledge is that the diffuse, decentralized structure of the #Occupy movement is their greatest strength. They have no leader to kill or corrupt, nor have they endorsed any political candidates. The General Assembly system, the protestors’ chosen method of self-governance, seeks to maximize individual sovereignty whilst leveraging the power of numbers. And such leverage they’ve utilized, as seen with the brutally battered Oakland contingent successfully mustering tens of thousands of supporters and closing down the busy port of Oakland last week.

Our media overlords levy the powerful Hegelian dialectic to divide and conquer the voting populace; they control the talking points of democrats and republicans, framing the narrative and moving it slowly in whatever direction they desire. The intention of organizations like the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Club, Club of Rome, IMF, World Bank, Bank For International Settlements, et al. is to encourage governments to acquiesce to supranational control. By this process, they undermine individual (Patriot Act, Dept. Homeland Security) and national sovereignty (NAFTA, Security and Prosperity Partnership, EU, African and Pacific Unions—think Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia of Orwell’s 1984). In this manner, crises are manufactured and bailouts are disbursed—driving once sovereign nations into debt, and causing them resort to the panicked asset sales that we see in the Eurozone today.
Avarice and risk yielded colossal losses, which were rectified via taxpayer theft. After paying for the bailouts, the tranquilizing welfare state, and the maintenance of the military-industrial complex, the US national debt is now equal to annual GDP at $14 trillion. This heist was orchestrated by Bernanke’s Federal Reserve and its member banks JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and the revolving door that is the Treasury Department (under former Goldman Sachs chairman Henry Paulson, now under former New York Fed President Timothy Geithner).
One of the loudest demands from the Occupy Movement has been to “End the Fed,” which they describe as a private, for-profit banking cartel that commands a monopoly over the issuance of fiat (paper) currency, and thusly manipulates markets via interest rates and the supply of credit. They manipulate the business cycle and have the funds to buy politicians and think tanks by the dozen. “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place,” said Senator Dick Durbin. It’s not as though we haven’t been warned: “I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1816

Presidents from Jefferson to Jackson fought (and held at bay) private central banks. In his deathbed, Jackson stated his greatest accomplishment was that he “killed the [Second] bank [of the US],” an early attempt at establishing a monopoly on the issuance of currency. The US resisted until 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed under Woodrow Wilson, and the Creature from Jekyll Island was released on America and eventually the world after the Bretton Woods conference in 1944. The Federal Reserve is the primary reason that labor has been slowly, perpetually impoverished; via the invisible tax that is persistent inflation.

A fascist coup d’état is raging in Greece, where the indignant populace rains Molotov cocktails upon riot police outside of Parliament as politicians sign deals with the international banking cartel to impose Draconian austerity on the Greek populace while privatizing public assets. As of last week, Italy is run by an official advisor to Goldman Sachs, technocrat Mario Monti. It is relevant that Italy has the world’s fourth largest gold reserve, just behind the IMF at third. Ultimately, the PIIGS nations must default. So must the United States, but persistent inflation and debt erosion will likely be the chosen route.

The next round of austerity and public theft will be in the United States, unless the immense underutilized domestic capital can be infused into productive ventures (instead of in the form of trillions of dollars sitting idly in bank vaults as excess reserves). The elite are losing their grip, now that the Internet disseminates alternative information. The ground is fertile for an American, nay, global awakening. When the social contract is breached by the State, it is the obligation of the upright citizen to stand in open revolt. Clearly, the status quo is unsustainable.