The Pre-Election Issue

the PRE-ELECTION

issue

Inside: the fi nal countdown.

11.01.12 vol. xliv, no. 9

2 harvardindependent.com 11.01.12 • The Harvard Independent

The Indy is waiting for the polls to open.

Cover Design by ANNA PAPP

www.harvardindependent.com

As Harvard College's weekly undergraduate newsmagazine, the Harvard Indepen-dent provides in-depth, critical coverage of issues and events of interest to the Harvard College community. The Independent has no political affiliation, instead offering diverse commentary on news, arts, sports, and student life.

For publication information and general inquiries, contact President Angela Song ([email protected]) or Managing Editor Sayantan Deb ([email protected]). Letters to the Editor and comments regarding the content of the publication should be addressed to Editor-in-Chief Christine Wolfe ([email protected]).

For email subscriptions please email [email protected] Harvard Independent is published weekly during the academic year, except

during vacations, by The Harvard Independent, Inc., Student Organization Center at Hilles, Box 201, 59 Shepard Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Copyright © 2012 by The Harvard Independent. All rights reserved.

Picks of the Week

Red, Blue, oR PuRPle? I Have a dReam don't tRead on me

I[H]oP[e] You vote econ foR dummIes

candIdate consumeRIsm moBs foR 'meRIca

PItcHes and PIgskIns

Senior Staff WritersMichael Altman '14 Meghan Brooks '14

Gary Gerbrandt '14 Whitney Lee '14 Will Simmons '14

Staff Writers Clare Duncan '14 Travis Hallett '14 Yuqi Hou '15 Cindy Hsu '14

Albert Murzhakanov '16 Carlos Schmidt '15 Frank Tamberino '16

Graphics, Photography, and Design Staff Maria Barragan-Santana '14 Nina Kosaric '14 Tarik Moon '15

News and Forum EditorArts Editor

Sports EditorDesign Editor

Associate News EditorAssociate Forum Editor

Associate Arts EditorAssociate Design Editors

IllustratorCartoonist

Director of AdvertisingAssociate Business Manager

Whitney Gao '16 Curtis Lahaie '15 Sean Frazzette '16Alex Chen '16Milly Wang '16Kalyn Saulsberry '14Sarah Rosenthal '15Travis Hallett '14Orlea Miller '16

Anna Papp '16John McCallum '16

Yuqi Hou '15Albert Murzakhanov '16

President Editor-in-Chief

Managing EditorDirector of Production

Angela Song '14Christine Wolfe '14Sayantan Deb '14Miranda Shugars '14

FORUM 3 5 6 NEWS 7 8 ARTS 910

SPORTS11

Compiled and Recommended by Meghan Brooks

GOTV with the Harvard College Democrats in New HampshireWhen: Saturday and Sunday, November 1st and 2nd from 12:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.Where: Buses depart from Johnston Gate and then head to New Hampshire, wherever the Obama Campaign needs you.What: Join the Harvard College Democrats and Obama for America this Saturday or Sunday (or both!) as they head to New Hampshire to remind voters to get to the polls on Tuesday. The weather is set to be brisk, but sunny, and you'll be speaking primarily with other Democrats, so the shy need fear not! This is the crucial weekend in a true swing state; let's win its four electoral votes for Obama.

GOTV and Canvassing in Massachusetts for Elizabeth WarrenWhen: Saturday and Sunday, November 1st and 2nd from 11:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.Where: The canvassing group will meet at the Harvard Square T Station.What: Join Harvard for Elizabeth Warren for even part of a day on Saturday or Sunday. The group will be headed to swing areas in the state and reminding Harvard students to vote as well. Don't let Massachusetts be the state that allows the Republicans to take control of the Senate!

GOTV with the Harvard College Democrats in New HampshireWhen: Election Day! Tuesday, November 6th from 8:30 a.m. or 1:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.Where: Buses depart from Johnston Gate and head to New HampshireWhat: This is GOTV day, the final battle, the last day to get President Obama the voter turnout he deserves. That class you hate? Skip it. That class you love? Skip it too. New Hampshire can swing blue if we put enough manpower on the ground to make it happen. This is your chance to affect the election in a substantial way, so don't miss out.

harvardindependent.com 3The Harvard Independent • 11.1.12

indyForum

Two weeks ago, I signed the little brown envelope containing my absentee ballot, stamped it, and dropped it in the mailbox in front of Mather House. With little ceremony, I voted to re-elect President Barack Obama and am proud to have done so. I could say that I voted for Obama because a President Mitt Romney would mean that I would lose rights and the nation would forfeit its economic stability — he does, after all, want to deny me the right to affordable contraceptive services and health care coverage, limit the control I have over my own body, prevent my LGBTQ friends from marrying the people they love and my undocumented friends from gaining full rights in the country they call home, throw money at a military not asking for it, raise my taxes so that the rich can pay less, follow a dangerously uncooperative foreign policy, and focus all of his efforts on reducing the deficit at the expense of education, social services, and targeted government investment when the country desperately needs it.

However I voted for Barack Obama not just because he is an alternative to Mitt Romney, but because he has been an exemplary president who has undoubtedly affected monumental positive change in the last four years despite inherited economic hardship, and his re-election will carry the nation forward.

When it comes to arguing for Obama’s foreign policy strengths, little needs to be said. Mitt Romney spent the third debate agreeing with three-fourths of what the President said but in an argumentative tone.

What affects American citizens more directly, however, is the social legislation the President has enacted. He has protected LGBTQ rights by ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and has instructed the justice department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. On the immigration front, he has fought to implement the DREAM Act, and has promised to make comprehensive immigration reform a top priority in his second term. He has supported unemployed workers and their families in the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, enabled more families to afford college and early education, and invested in education at all levels to stimulate the growth of a skilled middle class. He is an advocate for women’s rights, having signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and believes that any decision a woman makes about her reproductive health should be hers alone. Most impressively, the President has passed legislation referred to as “Obamacare”. Simply put, the President’s health care system means that no American will go bankrupt or be denied care because he or she cannot afford health insurance or pay hospital bills. This revolutionary and much-needed system makes

access to affordable health care a basic right and, once fully implemented, will create a healthier, more efficient, and more humane America. If Obama loses his re-election bid, all of this progress disappears and we become a nation that subsumes human rights to conservative politics.

While the nation should be proud of his track record on social issues, President Obama is equally as strong of an economic leader, and his plan to further the nation’s economic recovery has worked and will work going forward. When he took office, banks and the auto industry were failing, unemployment was sky-high, and financial analysts were actively predicting that we would enter a second Great Depression. The President was determined that this would not happen, and it is because of his bold stimulus packages and auto industry bailouts that we averted disaster and have gained both government and private sector jobs over the last thirty-one consecutive months. Obama’s support for small businesses in the form of tax cuts has been instrumental, as have his tax cuts for the middle class. Additionally, his Wall Street reform and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will work to protect the nation against the corrupt practices that precipitated the financial crisis in the first place. His tax reforms will give the middle class a permanent tax cut while eliminating tax breaks for companies outsourcing jobs overseas, and will ensure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair tax share. Furthermore, President Obama invests the government’s resources intelligently, distributing needed funds to employment opportunities, innovative research that will give us the competitive edge in manufacturing and technology, environmental protection and clean energy, and the education and health of the next generation of American innovators.

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, of course, argue that Obama’s economic policies have been ineffectual — that Obamacare will bankrupt the nation, and that the nation should slash spending in every area but military spending. Romney claims that his as-yet unexplained tax plan, which operates on the disproven theory of trickle-down economics and will place the tax burden on the middle class while considerably reducing taxes for the wealthiest, is the only way to reduce the national deficit. Before discussing anything else, I want to point out that the non-partisan Tax Policy Center has determined that Romney’s budget plan is mathematically impossible, and that the health care legislation will in fact reduce health care costs by providing preventative care, and has found $716 billion in Medicare savings.

More importantly, however, the truth is that Obama’s economic policies have been working. We cannot know what the next four years will bring in the global markets. We do know, however, that under President Barack Obama the American people’s rights to equal pay, marriage equality,

and reproductive choice will be respected. We know that our right to health and affordable healthcare will be protected, that our children and younger siblings will receive the education opportunities that this nation promises, and that our country will be actively pursuing solutions to some of our most pressing problems through well-funded research. The truth is that under President Obama the rights of Americans are protected, and the future is bright. Mitt Romney’s tax plan might save the rich and the aspiring rich (a.k.a. most Harvard students) a little bit of money at the expense of everyone else, but I firmly believe that it is every American’s moral duty to vote to protect the rights and equal opportunity of their fellow citizens. I voted for President Barack Obama to protect my rights and those of every other American, and I sincerely hope that anyone who reads this will do the same.

Meghan Brooks ’14 (meghanbrooks@college) urges Democrats to get out the vote from now until Election Day.

Twenty years ago, when then presidential candidate Bill Clinton was campaigning to usurp George H. W. Bush as Commander-in-Chief, James Carville posted a board in Clinton’s headquarters that read: “Change vs. more of the same. The economy, stupid. Don’t forget healthcare.” As Election Day draws near and many swing states are still (debatably) up for grabs, I would like to make a final case for presidential hopeful Mitt Romney based upon these three points.

Shortly after President Barack Obama was inaugurated — perhaps still excited from the monumental movement he had made from underdog senator to Oval Office executive — he spoke to the country about the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the economy in general, promising that “if I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

I, along with approximately half of Americans, believe it is time to enforce that one-term proposition. Because of both my admiration for some of Romney’s political views and four disconcerting years with Obama in the White House, I feel it is time for change.

The President’s inability to lower the number of unemployed directly results from his inadequacy in the economic realm. The deficit that he promised to cut in half has grown and shows no signs of slowing down. The gas prices he guaranteed to keep low have skyrocketed while billions of taxpayer dollars have been put in clean energy companies like Solyndra (which flopped instantly).

We didn’t build this, Mr. President. We didn’t build the economy in which one in seven people

POINT/POINT/cOuNTerPOINT

Red Mind in a Blue StateBy SEAN FRAZZETTE

/ cont. on pg. 4, PPP

why i voted foR oBaMa, and you Should too

By MEGHAN BROOKS


Forum

require food stamps, there are 6.4 million more people under the poverty line than when Obama was elected, or 25.36 percent of the GDP is spent on government expenditures.

Romney offers the country inarguably one of the best business minds we have seen in a candidate. In times of economic trouble, I want to see a President who has worked in the private sector, understands how the economy works, and hasn’t spent his whole life thinking that the government is what drives, organizes, and determines the welfare of a community. While President Obama was organizing communities, Romney built up a private equity giant that created investment opportunities for many. Where there are investments, jobs emerge. When it comes to the economy, Romney knows how things go.

Romney’s plan to lower marginal tax rates on businesses will incentivize companies to hire more people and invest in the economy again. He will limit spending to a maximum of twenty percent of the GDP, thus avoiding the federal debt increases that the Obama administration has produced. Romney aims to pass regulations through benefit-cost tests and improve credit availability to small businesses so that our economy can once again operate at its best. I see a man with plans that legitimately aim for economic expansion through the private people of America rather than the federal bureaucracy.

Healthcare is arguably the biggest change of the Obama Presidency, but it’s also one of the biggest problems. On the surface, Obamacare seems like an amiable goal. Most Americans would agree that the healthcare system has flaws and needs revising. There is good that came out of the bill — such as allowing children to remain on their parents’ healthcare longer and the forbidding of providers’ discrimination based upon pre-existing healthcare conditions.

Despite what the plan claims to be doing, however, it is simply pushing America down a slippery slope to single-payer healthcare, no medical innovation, and long lines to get a simple checkup. The public option used to drive prices down will push private healthcare businesses out of service. With single-payer healthcare will come the nightmarish waits at the doctor’s office —much like those experienced in Canada — and the limitation of certain hospital procedures.

Furthermore, the bill also places a 2.3 percent tax on the revenue from medical device companies in an effort to pay for the public option. A 2.3 percent tax on revenue adds up to a 15 percent tax on profit, which, coupled with all the other taxes the companies need to pay, puts these small businesses paying taxes above 50 percent of their profits. Immediately after the Supreme Court upheld the law, medical device companies began laying off workers, shutting down domestic expansion, and exiting the global market. These companies, which rarely turn a profit to begin with, cannot afford such a heavy blow.

With the passing of Obamacare, I only can see a future of stagnancy, little research, and even worse healthcare. Sure, one can argue that Romney passed a very similar plan in Massachusetts that has had solid success; however, that was a single state, a smaller playing field, and a different situation altogether. Romney pledges to work towards repealing the act, reducing the growth of Social Security and Medicare programs so the

elderly can be properly cared for and harnessing market forces in healthcare to lower prices without damaging the industry.

Finally, something I have recently heard from many Obama supporters is that conservatives are beginning to vote based on economic reasons rather than social reasons, focusing more on their money and not on equality for all and the greater good. As a conservative who is fairly moderate on these issues (such as my support of same-sex marriage), I am offended by these attacks.

To start, President Obama is a far cry from a social messiah, come to deliver peace and equality for all. Every step of his political career, he has flip-flopped on gay marriage, supporting whatever will give him leverage in the polls. While running for state senator of Illinois in the 1996, the President claimed to fully support gay marriage and promised to push for legislation in that arena. But then every step of the way after that, Obama voiced views against same-sex marriage, instead favoring civil unions. Suddenly, as his term approaches an end, the President once again flipped his views and strategically stressed his belief that same-sex marriage should be legal across the country. Overall, his views on the matter never differed from Romney’s until this summer. There is no way to say he believes one side or the other; rather, the President will simply pander to get votes from anyone he can.

What politics often teach is that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. While I cannot say I agree with everything candidate Romney supports or believes, I can honestly say that I believe he has a much better economic mind and will set this country back on its feet. The President promised us change, but has left us with barely enough change to pay for all the government expenditures he seeks to utilize. It’s time for real change in the political scene.

Sean Frazzette ’16 (sfrazzette@college) fears that the country will be blue after this election.

A couple days ago, I decided to steal from a page of my childhood and play the game “Would You Rather.”

For those unfamiliar with the game, two or more friends pose hypothetical options to one another, from which each player is required to pick one option. What makes the game fun is that neither option is ideal, and so regardless of the choice, the respondent ends up with a wacky, undesired outcome. Yes, it sounds a little ridiculous, but in many ways, this is the game of U.S. presidential politics.

One week from now, the American public (well, in reality, the American electoral college) will select the next American president, and with 100% certainty, I can tell you that it will be either Mitt Romney or incumbent Barack Obama. To most, this seems reasonable. We, the people, get to pick between these two great men, both Harvard grads, with strong family values and a real belief in their respective abilities to create “change,” “hope,” “power,” or a variety of other punchy words that get the people going.

Yes, to many this is choice enough, but let’s examine this choice a little closer. Both Obama and

Romney believe that job creation should happen only in the private sector. Both believe that free-trade corporate rights agreements should continue to be established. Both are fans of cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to help relieve the deficit. Both are in agreement on giving bailouts to banks and Wall Street corporations, and that these same entities should be immune from criminal liability. Both agree that a U.S. president should be able to detain any U.S. citizen indefinitely for an unspecified crime. Neither wants to discuss climate change treaties or negotiations. Neither supports Palestinian statehood. Getting tired of this list? I can go on like this for ages (or pages!), but I hope that the point is clear here — there is virtually no difference between the two on many of the big issues.

However, as people are wont to do when issues of substance are beyond the point of discussion, they focus on social issues — issues typically informed by candidates’ religious beliefs, cultural backgrounds and senses of morality — and unfortunately, it is on these issues that the election will be won or lost.

Why unfortunately, you ask? It’s unfortunate because these are not the issues that are relevant in any way to helping us improve our economy or aid in national security. Even if Mitt Romney wins the election, what the American public will receive is essentially a more religious, more distinguished version of President Obama — and to be frank, those same social issues that are informing peoples’ votes will take an immediate backseat to the original issues. Do people honestly think that Mitt Romney can or will repeal Roe v. Wade? Do people honestly believe that Barack Obama will advocate for the national application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the issue of same-sex marriage?

Perhaps the greatest tragedy here is not the fact that the American public is so hopelessly naïve to believe or even put serious stock in these candidates’ stances on social issues, but rather that in this discourse, the third-party candidates are rendered completely irrelevant. Their policy stances are largely ignored, and their social stances are typically less sensational than those of their Republican or Democrat counterparts.

To name one such candidate, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, rejects the cuts to Medicare and Social Security and seeks to establish a ninety-percent tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers. Similarly, she wishes to end bailouts for the financial elite and use the FDIC resolution process for failed banks to reopen them as public banks where possible after failed loans and underlying assets are auctioned off. In regards to health care, Jill Stein hopes to expand women’s access to contraception in all of its forms by lifting the Obama Administration’s ban on emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs). There are also candidates Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode, from the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party, respectively, whose policy preferences run the gamut from repealing the Patriot Act to ending capital punishment. This is not to say that these are the right views or correct views (as if such things existed); however, there should be a place for these views on the main stage of American presidential politics.

Whitney Lee ’14 (whitneylee@college) is as American as apple pie, but is starting to lose faith in American politics.

cont. from pg. 3, PPP/

3Rd paRty anyone?By WHITNEY LEE


indyForum

“The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

- James Truslow Adams, 1931.

The United States is a nation of history. Though we are a young country, the few hundred years that have elapsed since the drafting of the Constitution have written into human history successes and failures to rival that of any civilization. We are a nation of words and images, tableaus of freedom and possibility that have carried our nation’s rhetoric across the globe. But what has our history — one fraught with violence as well as optimistic ignorance — taught us about ourselves? It may seem grandiose to speak of the election on such high terms; many argue that there is not much at stake. But rhetoric made America. We have been written and spoken into existence for nearly three hundred years, and those words form our drives and our ideals. Even our most practical concerns resonate back to what an American should be. Belief in repair fuels economic confidence. Belief in ourselves fuels individual success — and as both candidates argue, this entrepreneurial, self-driven spirit is crucial to the American jobs market. We need a goal; we need a dream. But we also need means to attain it.

The American narrative began as it reads today: it promoted at its beginnings a nation of the People. Thomas Jefferson may have been a hypocrite, but he created a rhetoric of America like none other. His hypocrisy is so upsetting in part because his vision of America is so inspirationally forward-thinking and humanistic. I do not have the space to address Jefferson’s personal wrongdoings, and I do not agree with all of his ideas. But I am ardent in my dedication to his belief that America should be a land that promotes equality of participation and of opportunity. When I reflect back on a group of intellectuals and politicians who gathered to discuss the formation of the United States, I wonder, as do many Americans, what they envisioned for our country. And while I do not think that the ideas of the late 18th century could ever hold relevant in the globalized, culturally integrated world of 2012, there are words and thoughts of those figures that I believe ring as true today as they did when Thomas Jefferson first voiced them to be self-evident. Jefferson in particular believed in a country devoted to the freedom and equality of its people, a country that would give lower-class citizens the voice so many countries had denied them. His ideas would set the stage for an idealized America — one that, in / cont. on pg. 6, Dream

that would not only resonate with but comfort us: recovery is hard. It is acceptable to feel exhausted. But difficulty does not indicate impossibility.

I want to reach out to those people who have become disillusioned, those people who have every reason to feel bitter. I want them to know that I have seen the American Dream carried out. Despite the haze of bitterness and loss that covers this country, there are people who have found a way through. I have read about them, I have listened to them, and I have lived and learned amongst them. And it is in this time that there is the most potential for it to play out as Adams described; finally, there are people and programs who devote their life to ensuring the success of those who have faced and still face discrimination that prevents upward mobility. Thomas Jefferson was a proponent of states’ rights because he did not foresee the millions of Americans who, for particular historical reasons, would have insurmountable barriers to achieving success on their own without certain top-down changes to how American society works. The world of today is not the world of 1776. Nor is the world of today the world of the 1960’s. Fifty years ago, no one would have imagined we would have a black First Family. Fifty years ago, neither I nor many of my classmates could have afforded to attend Harvard. But these things are happening in this very moment — is that not something to make us feel hopeful?

My mom tells me that her proudest accomplishment is that I go to Harvard. I am sure many — if not all — of my classmates’ parents feel the same way. And the trust is that I am here not because of my background but because of my own achievements. I am here, a place with unbelievable opportunity for exploration and success, because I worked hard in school and my mom worked hard to support me. My mom has worked in clothing stores nearly six days a week for my entire life, work that is in no way her ideal occupation. I read The Chronicles of Narnia and learned multiplication in these stores, where ten years later I would read The Sound and the Fury and learn calculus. I am not the subject of the American Dream — my mother is, and no one could deny her that success. I am simply the way by which things might get a little easier. And the stories of my classmates who seek to help their families are truly inspiring; there are students from infamously underserved districts, students from rural areas with few resources, students whose parents had to risk their lives to get their children here, and students whose relatives are in far worse situations than simply looking for a better job. I hope that all of my Harvard classmates recognize what they have been given and that those who are from these backgrounds don’t sell themselves short. Children of Americans from all backgrounds are finding a way to pursue opportunities just as Adams described eighty-one years ago.

My hope for America is that we can work towards creating systems that work like Harvard does. The university does a phenomenal job of finding students who have shown that they have learned to make a difference for themselves and for others, despite backgrounds that pose a challenge to success. Harvard gives many students hundreds of thousands of dollars so that we can be exposed to the same opportunities for learning and for occupation as people who can rely upon future support from their families. I could never be

Dreams fOr my cOuNTry On loss, disillusionment, and hope.

By CHRISTINE WOLFE2012, few Americans seem to believe in.

When James Truslow Adams coined the phrase “The American Dream” in his 1931 work, The Epic of America, he could hardly have expected the political and cultural idealization that would arise around it. This encapsulation of the American spirit in a mere three words has resonated throughout this country for the last eighty-one years, but the cultural perception it presents harkens back to the words of the Founding Fathers in the 18th and 19th centuries. The idea that in America there exists the ability to rise through social ranks based not on birth but on merit is undoubtedly what drove men and women from across the world to come to this country. It is why our cities speak not one language but hundreds and why our universities contain not only every ethnicity of American but students and faculty from every corner of the globe. The American Dream is the narrative of the United States at its best, the United States as a country of “men created equal.” But the bleak years of the recent past have threatened the reality of this dream. Liberals and Conservatives alike have criticized it — what effect can an ideal that seems at least threatened and at most unattainable have on the American people and its government?

Some conservative groups, particularly those of the Far Right, claim that the American Dream has been manipulated to differ in significance from that which the Founding Fathers endowed. They claim that individual freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is what America should promote. They believe that the federal government impinges upon this freedom through regulation of programs like education and healthcare. The Left has a different take on what the dream means, holding a belief in the financial and cultural power of a strong middle class and upward mobility. Sociological scholars point our attention to the fact that the social structures and historical situations that inform this country make it impossible for certain Americans to succeed as highly as others, particularly for Americans in a racial or ethnic minority and single mothers. They envision the federal government as a protectorate of its people, providing support to those who need it, especially for those who are faced with the additional problem of discrimination of both social rank and pay.

In 2012, the problems this nation faces are bitterly similar to those Adams’ country faced in 1931. The United States is in the midst of a severe recession and has been since the financial crisis of summer 2008. Adams mentions the “weary and mistrustful” attitude of Americans in the 1930’s towards the dream, and it would seem that sentiment continues most painfully into the present moment. Congressional approval ratings are low, government infighting is bitter, and unemployment rates have plunged Americans into mass depression. Anyone who has suffered in this recession is part of the trickle down effect of economic collapse. But problems of the economy are so gargantuan and complex that it can seem to an average American that these problems can’t be solved. It’s what the candidates don't like to tell us


Forum

Women of AmericA, do you feel violAted? Do you feel, after more than a century of uphill battling for rights, that you still

haven’t reached that peak of equality? You do? Good, because you haven’t.

Social issues have become quite a significant factor of this cycle’s presidential election, reflec-tive of a recent gradual trend seen in political elec-tions across America. Issues like abortion policy, gay marriage, immigration, evolution, etc., are gaining importance on political platforms, both left and right. Why is this?

Perhaps it’s because social issues present a much more approachable facet of politics — it’s much easier to be passionate about these issues. Despite the obvious importance of economic is-sues, it’s just a lot harder to be impassioned over Keynesian theory. Even if you’re a Hayek fellow, the same rules of accelerated ennui apply.

But one of the biggest issues in this election is one that impacts, well, all of the population, but in particular one half of it: abortion. The feeling is amplified because of various anecdotes, some more ridiculous than others, of politicians bungling their responses when asked to speak about the issue. Perhaps the most memorable instance occurred in August this past summer when Republican con-gressman Todd Akin claimed that a woman’s body has the supernatural ability to “shut down” the pregnancy process if the rape is “legitimate.” More recently, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rich-ard Mourdock linked rape with divine purpose, al-leging that if a woman was raped, God must have intended it to happen to her.

During the campaign, American pop culture has whipped together a tremendous response to these controversial remarks. Political parodies of-ten make these comments the subject of ridicule, which helps the case a bit – but not enough.

Despite the backlash these comments have generated, not enough has been done. Ladies, we cannot sit here while someone attempts to take away our rights. Pro-life candidates talk on and on about protecting the rights of that unborn life, which in itself is a very noble goal, but what about the rights of the individual who is carrying it?

With murder and homicide, it is clear that tak-ing the life of another is clearly wrong. But with abortion, which some argue is a death in its own

way, comes the discussion of what constitutes life — this is where the gray area comes into play. This, combined with the pittance of a vaguely defined fetus-being’s “life” against the very tangible life of a woman, can understandably paint a conflicting picture. But, as much as I agree that life is pre-cious and must always be preserved, I’m not going to pretend that a tiny sperm that successfully be-gan a frenzied affair with an out-of-its-league egg has more rights than the woman who carries the stage for this drama.

I, however, do agree with the argument that if abortion is free and easily accessible, the potential for it to become an “easy way out” for those un-ready for children is real. I like to have a bit more faith in humankind than that, but I will admit that that might be an unfortunate consequence of being more liberal with abortion availability.

But what are the alternatives? A poor teenage girl, pregnant with no option of abortion, will prob-ably grow up with little to no money, flimsy — if any — family support, and ruined life prospects as far as she can see. Sure, we hear about these great success stories in the news every so often of people overcoming it all in order to remake their lives and give their children better lives. But these are anec-dotes and are the rare exception, definitely not the rule. Are you willing to condemn one of America’s most inspiring groups — young people?

And note, I say “people.” Guys, you’re in this one too.

Men are also affected by these issues. Though popular campaigning techniques largely target women by claiming to be on their side on issues like equal pay and pro-choice policy, men should also take interest in what politicians have to say on these issues. Gentlemen, if your dearly beloved becomes pregnant, do you really want to be feed-ing three mouths when you can barely feed two? Or, if you’re of a shadier sort, when you knock up some girl on the side, do you really want the whole world to know that you’ve thrown caution to the wind? Well, with hardliner pro-life policies, you won’t have a choice in the matter!

As with any situation, it’s hard to realize your true feelings when the issue is not applicable to you. For example, it’s very easy to be in favor of the death sentence at first glance. But what if you find yourself in that electric chair, for whatever

thankful enough for that. The government should be devising policies for people who have not been as fortunate as we at Harvard have; not everyone had the opportunity to become as devoted to school as we have been, and not everyone is a scholar. But certainly nothing should stop the government, the only thing some people have, from helping people who’ve never done anything wrong — and often have done nearly everything right — and have simply become trapped in “the way things are.” It is these people who give up on the promise of something better, and that is the last thing the government should want, not just for its citizens but for itself.

My mother and I have lost many things in

the last few years, including our store, our home, and our dog. We both feel anxious about turning things around, and I know we both had moments of feeling very lost and without much hope. But despite these things, I cannot give up on the promises of my country, one that, despite its many flaws, I am proud to be a part of. I am thankful that there existed a path for me in this country to pursue the educational opportunities that will lead to an easier life. I am not sure I would have felt as driven to make it here if the American Dream had not been a part of my and my family’s consciousness. But it is, and on top of my belief in my country, I have seen things getting better. There is still much work to be done, but no one ever it would be easy.

While I agree that no candidate can be perfect, there are real differences between President Obama and Governor Romney. What matters to me is what matters to the making of a future America. I will vote for someone whose first priority is ensuring that the People can live without the burden of weariness and can work towards a better future. I will vote for someone who wants to make America the “land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone.” I will vote for someone who believes in our Dreams.

Christine Wolfe ’14 (crwolfe@college) feels most patriotic when watching the HBO miniseries John Adams, because, let’s face it, TV is the real Great American Pastime.

cont. from pg. 5, Dream /

hard-to-imagine reason? Will you still be comfort-able with the verdict then? Or what if you’re the one pressing that button? Will you be okay with snuffing out a person’s soul, sending them into the perpetual unknown?

This situation is somewhat similar. It may be easy to blame the woman in situations outside rape and incest. But it may be something as in-nocent as getting pregnant whilst on a honeymoon, but later realizing that you’re just not financially or emotionally ready for children. At that point, wouldn’t you want the option?

The bottom line is that the option needs to be available. To steal that option away from poten-tial mothers should be a crime. When the govern-ment starts to control our social and private lives, a huge red, flashing, neon warning sign should go off in your head.

Clearly, women are still struggling to main-tain rights over their own bodies. We worry about equality in the workplace, as we rightly should, but we haven’t even stabilized control over the most basic right of all. If I can’t control what I do with my own body, I have bigger problems to worry about than equal pay.

So, like I said before, enough is not being done. A humorously insightful skit on Saturday Night Live about “g.o.b. Tampons” isn’t enough (“for a women, by Republicans”). A hilarious sarcastic proposal by Oklahoma Democrat state senator Constance Johnson to make it legally official that life begins at ejaculation is not enough. Sitting around, trust-ing the rest of America to make the right decision about a woman’s body is not enough.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said that he will cut government funding to Planned Parenthood and repeal the Roe v. Wade decision if he is elected. That means severely de-pleted funding for all Planned Parenthood services (which, contrary to popular belief, are not restrict-ed to just abortions) and make abortion illegal.

Sensible people of America, I implore you, please don’t sit at home and let others determine the fu-ture policies of your country for you. Whether it’s this issue or another issue that drives you to the polls, I beg you to keep not only your interests in mind, but to also keep in mind the interests of your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, and those of all your female acquaintances as well. We thank you.

Whitney Gao ’16 (whitneygao@college) will storm the streets in glorious bra-burning fashion if Roe v. Wade is indeed re-pealed.

Sincerely, Frustrated FemaleMy uterus, my call. | My uterus, my call. | By WHITNEY GAO


indyNews

A college student’s first presidential election is always a special time, even for those

not politically inclined. This is the only election that will take place in our college undergraduate careers, so we may as well make it a good one.

Luckily, we here at Harvard have access to some of the world’s best resources for political activism and participation. The largest and most influential group on campus for all things political is undoubtedly Harvard’s Institute of Politics — or, for the inner ranks, the IOP.

The IOP, as its website indicates, “was established in 1966 as a memorial to President John F. Kennedy” and is housed in Harvard’s Graduate School of Government that also bears his name. The Institute “aims to inspire undergraduates to consider careers in politics and public service” and has in that vein created multiple opportunities for students to get involved via internships, conferences, and campus programming.

One such program is H-Vote, which runs under the motto “My vote, my voice” and organizes an annual competition between Harvard houses (and freshman dorms) to see which house can gather the most pledges — pledges to vote, that is. Amanda McGowan, H-Vote Chair, has graciously taken the time to talk to The Indy about all things politic.

Indy: In your opinion, what are some of the greatest political misconceptions and/or delusions of our time? Amanda McGowan: That’s a tough one! I think the biggest misconception, especially among people our age, is that voting doesn’t matter and that one vote isn’t going to make a difference to the election or in our everyday lives. On the first point, individual votes absolutely do matter, and the red state/blue state divide is not destiny. Elections throughout the country are going to be incredibly close this cycle, and everything does make a difference. In my district, for example, our Congressman was elected in 2006 by just eighty-three votes — that translates to a few entryways or a few classrooms. That’s really crazy to think about. On the second point, between all the negativity and political showboating and theater, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the decisions made by elected officials actually do have a profound effect on our lives, on both

the national and local levels. Will I be able to find a job after I graduate? Will my friends who are gay be able to enjoy the same rights that I do? Will the high school I went to have to cut teachers, or its art or music programs? Will my hometown be able to afford to hire the extra police officers or firefighters it needs? These issues affect your life every single day, and if you have the opportunity to influence them, why not take it? In this country, real change can be brought about — and has been brought about, over and over again — at the ballot box, by people like you and me. That’s a really beautiful and powerful idea.Indy: What place do you think college students have in the voting population at large? What role do they play?AM: College students and young people are a really interesting demographic because it seems like we’re often overlooked by politicians, which is reflected pretty often in policy. If a politician knows that the majority of people voting him will be fifty-five years of age or older, he or she is not going to focus on issues that affect younger voters. It’s a sad truth (that I was often reminded of while growing up, when our school budget failed over and over again, every year). Recently, this has started to change because young voters were such a key demographic in the 2008 election. Sixty-six percent of voters aged 18-29 supported President Obama, and it made the difference. Young voters essentially decided the 2008 election and have the potential to do it again if we get out and vote.Indy: Particularly in this election, what is at stake for college students specifically? In other words, why do we absolutely need to vote?AM: I know this phrase is thrown around during every election cycle, but there really is so much at stake this year, especially for young people. Consider these issues, all of which will be impacted by this election: the availability of student loans, the affordability of college, the accessibility of health insurance (including contraception), the nomination of Supreme Court justices, the ability of young people born in this country to immigrant parents to work toward citizenship — the list goes on. More generally, this election presents an exceptionally stark choice between two competing social and political

visions — and we are the generation who, more than anyone else, will be living with the long-term results of that choice. In other words, don’t stay home! Indy: What H-Vote events can students look forward to in the coming week?AM: It’s really surreal to think that the election is only five days away. (I know for a lot of IOP people, myself included, it has started to feel like an unofficial fifth class because we spend so much time thinking about it!). In this final push, most of our efforts are being directed toward making sure people get out to the polls on Election Day or turn in their absentee ballots, so we’ll be holding study breaks and absentee ballot drives in each house and doing a lot of dorm-storming! On Monday, November 5th, we’re holding a pretty informal info session in Adams House for students who

are registered in Massachusetts, where we’ll be discussing the ballot questions and local races over pizza. (Of course there will be pizza — this is, after all, an IOP event). Then, on Election Night, we’ll be announcing the winners of the race.

Harvard students have been called to action. With all of the other things going on in our daily lives, it can be hard to remember what’s going on the real world. The IOP is here to remind us of what happens outside of Harvard and how much those things should matter to us.

Whitney Gao ’16 (whitneygao@college) and the rest of the Indy want you to cast your vote this week and next Tuesday so you can have an impact what matters to you!

I-O-Me The Institute of Politics’ H-Vote helps students’ voices be heard.By WHITNEY GAO

8 harvardindependent.com 11.01.12• The Harvard Independent

News

AmericAns might hAve A lot At stAke in 2012, but there is one that will make or break this election — the economy. The

global financial crisis of 2008 sent a shock wave through not only America, but also in countries across the world, and the preceding recession has hit Americans hard. No matter voters’ dedication to social issues, widespread unemployment remains foremost on the minds of much of the population, as does potential change in tax policy. President Obama was elected on a platform of change from the policies of the Bush administration that led to the financial crisis. President Obama’s 2008 campaign promised not only a stimulus plan to boost the economy but also a universal healthcare plan for Americans who had no choice but to cut health insurance from their precarious budgets.

But recovery does not come easily: unemployment rates rose to 11.3% in January 2010, leading voters to look once again for change in Tea Party congressional candidates, who saw a wave of success in the 2010 elections. The Tea Party ushered in a new form of conservatism in the United States, one that not only promised freedom from government regulation of taxes, education, and healthcare, but one that finally cemented the political presence of evangelical Christianity within Congress. The popularity of the Tea Party’s emphasis on cutting the size of government, which they argue would allow for individual freedom of choice, has impacted even moderate Republicans. Governor Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts healthcare plan is said to have been a model for President Obama’s federal healthcare plan, changed paths from his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts to address the necessity of the Tea Party’s plan to “Cut, Cap, and Balance.” The addition of Tea Party economic policies was crucial to his campaign’s success in the Republican primaries, as he had been heavily criticized for his moderate stances on both economic and social issues throughout the primary season.

Amidst the vicious campaign ads and sharp-tongued debates of the last year, things have started to pick up. Unemployment dropped to its lowest in years this month at 7.1%. More Americans report feeling better off financially this year than last year for the first time in five years, and this month, Congress hit its highest approval rating since May 2011. President Obama exhibits these numbers and the upward trend in job growth during his tenure as key reasons he needs to be re-elected and continue working to improve the economy in 2012. Governor Romney touts his experience in the business world as a sign of his many years experience with financial decisions and a plan to provide support to the private sector. Both candidates claim they will fight to make the middle class strong again. Those are their words — let’s take a look at the numbers.

The calculator is mightier than the sword.By CHRISTINE WOLFE

By the Numbers

6%

8%

10%

12%UnemPloymenT

Personal fInances In 2012 economIc confIdence

emPloymenT sTabIlITy

FEB. 2010

OCT. 2010

JUNE 2011

FEB. 2012

OCT. 1, 2012

OCT. 28, 2012

Americans who feel

Better off about their finances than

they did in 2011

Americans who feel

worse off about their finances than they

did in 2011

29% 49%JANUARY 2012 JANUARY 2012

38% 34%OCTOBER 2012 OCTOBER 2012

9% 15%INCREASE FROM

JAN. 2012–OCT. 2012DECREASE FROM

JAN. 2012–OCT. 2012

January 2012: -30March 2012: -21May 2012: -17July 2012: -26september 2012: -21

Average of weekly rates

In 2012, mean years worked in the same company was 9.2 years. this is up from 7.4 years in 2002.

Data from gallup.com

harvardindependent.com 9Th e Harvard Independent • 11.01.12

American Gangsters

Bootlegging, black markets, and mob dreams.By CLAIRE ATWOOD

the indyPICTURE SHOW




the indyPICTURE SHOWthe indyPICTURE SHOW

the indyPICTURE SHOWthe indyPICTURE SHOW

the indyPICTURE SHOWthe indyPICTURE SHOWthe indyPICTURE SHOWthe indyPICTURE SHOW

DirectorFrancis Ford Coppola

CastMarlon BrandoAl PacinoJames CaanRobert DuvallDiane Keaton

Film stills courtesy of starpulse.com.

Godfather's Cast (1972)

“I believe in America.” A shadowed face atop a crisp white collar

emerges from darkness, and Francis Ford Coppola’s three-hour mob epic The Godfather heaves to a start. Eighteen years later, in 1990, Martin Scorcese’s Goodfellas opens with an emblem of American freedom: a car hurtling down an open road. Its cargo is a body in the trunk that turns out to be alive and (to the extreme annoyance of the driver) kicking.

Generally seen as the fi nest spawn of the hollywood gangster mythos, these are fi lms by directors at the peak of their craft. I could rhapsodize on their artistic merits – The Godfather’s color structure, Goodfellas’ glorious tracking shots – but who needs convincing? Instead, in light of the upcoming election, what struck me during a recent back-to-back rewatching was the two fi lms’ treatment of the American dream. In other words: do they believe in America? And what would that mean to us right now?

Which takes us back to that opening line. The quote and collar belong to an Italian-American mortician seeking to avenge his daughter’s honor on the Anglo boys who maimed her. he has little reason to believe in America, whose courts and its values have failed him and sent him, groveling, to mafi a boss Don Corleone. Corleone (Marlon Brando, all jowls and rasp) chastises him for not coming as a son would to his godfather, but coldly and with promises of money.

“You found paradise in America . . . now you come to

me and say ‘Don Corleone, give me justice.’”

The message is clear: don’t believe in America – believe in the family.

We are unsure at fi rst of how we are to feel about this engineer of murder, waxing eloquent on family and honor. As the fi lm goes on, however, we come to see him through the archetype of the immigrant father grasping at better things for his children. Michael, war hero and most talented of all Don Corleone’s sons, was supposed to make it the honest way – as a politician. But he is tied to the family business by blood in both senses of the word. And time and again, from the allegory of scene one to the corruption of the leering cop McCluskey, we see that American “legitimacy” does not equate with “right.” Coppola’s America is a land of infi nite fi nancial opportunity and infi nite fi lth, where the traditions of the homeland are mucked up by materialism over generations. Families are fragmented as they uproot from Little Italy and migrate west, following the trail of cash from olive oil to unions and gambling to drug traffi cking and prostitution rings.

Such is the state of the new york mafi a in Goodfellas. Scorcese’s mobsters are in it for themselves. For henry hill, then a bored kid in an Irish-Sicilian working class family, being a gangster meant nice cars, double-breasted suits, and, most importantly, the freedom to do whatever, whenever. he can walk into the Copa and doors literally open in their path. Funds running low? Rob the airport. henry

and his wise guy compatriots never really grew up. They just learned to lie, cheat, steal, kill, and hemorrhage profanities, because that’s what keeps the drinks coming.

here we see the fracturing of the American Dream. When tony Bennett croons the fi rst few bars of “Rags to Riches” in the opening scene, it’s not horatio Alger that scorcese has in mind. his wise guys would rather skip the work and go straight to the excess, and if they rose from humble beginnings, they sure as hell aren’t bragging about it. Which is why “go home and get your shinebox” sends an already psychotic Joe Pesci over the edge. They are modern-day Gatsbys, taken to extremes of depravation and low-lifery, with tony-collared shirts instead of silk.

henry’s dream, like Michael’s, is not sustainable. he wants too much too fast, and has to fi ght for it with men who let each other live only as long as it’s convenient. It is his status as an outsider that keeps him from getting complacent. When he senses that his coworkers are coming for him, he turns informant and enrolls in Witness Protection. The fi lm’s end leaves henry and his family in the suburbs, living what could conceivably have been the American Dream for his immigrant parents. But for henry, it’s worse than prison – at least there, everybody knew who he was. Instead, for the fi rst time in his adult life, henry is forced to taste the bitterness of being nobody.

On the one hand we have Michael Corleone, trying to

legitimatize the Corleone family with murders and buyouts but foiled by birth. On the other we have henry hill, sunk by his own Icarian desires. They have in common that they dreamed and failed. It’s no coincidence that both fi lms end with visuals of closing doors. They are Fitzgerald’s boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into respective pasts of violence and insignifi cance.

Artistic treatments of the American Dream seldom fail to remind us that even in the land of opportunity, our capacity for self-invention is fi nite. And as a country, our limits have seldom been more painful or more clear, from the collapse of our fi nances to the bedlam in the Middle East. Yet election journalists continue peddling that battered phrase, which carries with it as much disappointment as it does stubborn, futile hope. We are in love with henry hills and Michael Corleones and Jay Gatsbys; we love to see them fall. But what these stories – and, to a great extent, our national literature – don’t tell us is how we should proceed once we come up against those limits. in fi ction, that’s the point where the door closes or the curtain falls. As America emerges from the wreckage, perhaps what we need is not someone to reanimate the Dream, but someone who will show us how to move beyond it.

Claire Atwood ’16 (catwood@college) hopes not to wake up to a bald eagle’s severed head in her bed.


The United States of Advertisements

Close reading campaign ads.

By TERILYN CHEN

With so much money, time, and effort put into making advertisements

perfect, it is safe to say that mistakes virtually do not exist in the realm of advertising, and that every seemingly unimportant decision made about every minuscule detail in an advertisement was a deliberate one.

That ’ s why the de ta i l s in advertisements — and what they imply — are so interesting.

In this case, the advertisements in question are two presidential campaign television advertisements, specifically Barack obama’s “mosaic” and Mitt Romney’s “Failing American Workers.” the two ads, first released in June 2012 and September 2012, respectively, both have negative messages, with the two candidates attacking one another. The use of visuals is important to the meanings of both ads. Visual and aural subtleties allow for the clear projection and emphasis of both campaigns’ messages.

Obama’s “Mosaic” argues, “As governor, Mitt Romney did cut taxes...on millionaires like himself. But he raised taxes and fees on everyone else: $1.5 billion.” The video starts out (after viewers hear Obama approve the message) with a short black-and-white video of Romney standing at a podium saying, “I’m going to reduce taxes” in 2002. The next shot is also black and white and is a picture of Romney walking into an airplane. The background music is insincere and a little reminiscent of playful, suspenseful sitcom music as the camera zooms in to Romney’s face.

the effect is one that has a Vh1-like quality, as if to imply that Romney’s past decisions were frivolous and air-

headed. Suddenly the video switches to color, and the narrator begins to talk about the present, showing three consecutive shots of “real” American people allegedly being affected by Romney’s “raised taxes and fees,” as the text on screen reads. The Obama campaign is clearly appealing to middle-class Americans here, as the three images show a mother-son-daughter trio on a farm, a dad and a sad young girl, and a middle-aged woman in a clean, modest house. During these three shots, the camera zooms out slightly (so slightly that it’s almost unnoticeable), implying that Romney’s decisions are alienating to these regular middle-class Americans.

After this more personal appeal, the video switches to its second section, which gives a list of all of the people and industries that Romney’s raised taxes have allegedly hurt. The narrator starts to list: “Over a thousand fee hikes: On health care. On school bus rides. On milk.” As the list goes on and on, the narrator’s speech accelerates. Meanwhile, the screen shows photo after photo of Romney’s alleged victims: a cute child drinking milk as the narrator says “on milk”, a tiny toddler painting a wall as the narrator says “on lead poisoning inspection.” The photos also switch with increasing speed, creating the illusion that the list of wrongs Romney has committed is an infinite one growing at exponential speed. Adding to this effect is zooming visuals, making switches between photos seem like the uncovering of layers and layers of everyone Romney has allegedly hurt. The message here is that “the damage is deep.” This movement also creates the illusion that the viewer is moving farther

and farther away from the victims — bringing alienation to the forefront.

At the end of the advertisement, all of these small pictures make up a greater mosaic representation of Romney. This mosaic is not like most, which are beautiful works of art made up of small humble parts — the Romney mosaic is made up of everyone the Obama campaign claims Romney has hurt. The ad ends with a convincing “Romney economics didn’t work then and won’t work now.”

Romney’s “Failing American Workers” attacks Obama for allegedly failing to protect American jobs. The advertisement starts out with a visual of an American flag and a chinese flag in front of a background that seems to be a dark, brick manufacturing plant. “This is America’s manufacturing when President obama took office,” the narrator says matter-of-factly, as if legitimacy is assumed. “This is China’s.” Each flag is built of bricks, and represents the number of manufacturing jobs in each country. The background music is unsettling and edgy.

The narrator claims that under the obama administration “for the first time, China is beating us” in terms of manufacturing jobs. The Chinese flag grows in size at this point, as the already faded American flag shrinks. The visual here is especially important for emphasis, since zoom is utilized to maximize the space the chinese flag takes, helping to make the point that China is “taking over.” When the chinese flag grows to full size, it covers part of the text above the flags, even though in the same space, the American flag at full-size did not. This, again, is a simple visual emphasis of the Romney campaign’s

point.The second por t i on o f the

advertisement shows Romney talking to workers about standing up to the Chinese government, whom Romney refers to as “cheaters.” When Romney says “[it’s time to] makes sure we protect jobs for the American people,” the camera zooms in to Romney’s face, making Romney look big, strong and capable.

The blame for this loss of jobs is placed on Obama, and so a small, faded picture of Obama shows up on what is left of the faded American flag. Just like Romney was depicted as incapable of leadership in “Mosaic”, Obama here is shown looking down, implying defeat and incapability. Obama’s picture is also much smaller than the large, deeply red chinese flag. The video ends dramatically, leaving viewers with a definite impression of doom.

The two ad strategies are more similar than one would think. According to usA today, both advertisements offer misleading claims. What makes them so convincing, or at least what allows them to make such an impact on viewers, is their presentation. The use of visuals in both helps to emphasize and illustrate points, and zooming and fading help to instantly let viewers know what their impressions of certain people or ideas should be. This leaves us, the viewers and educated voters, to be responsible for watching with a discerning eye and look beyond our candidates’ surfaces for the facts.

Terilyn Chen ’16 (terilynchen@college) expects great things from her president, whether advertised or not.


indySportS

A Canuck's First TouchdownBy MILLy WANG

The Americanization of a Canadian mind.

We Great NortherNers areN’t exactly proficient in pigskin. I had never been a big fan of

(American) football, probably because I’ve never had much exposure to the sport. My high school didn’t really have a football field (we used half of it to build more classrooms), and so I’d never been to a football game. And frankly, being a Canadian pretty much meant that I was an obligate hockey fan. Despite the (somewhat shameful) fact that my local team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, hasn’t won a single Stanley Cup championship in my lifetime (it’s been 46 years and counting), I still go to a couple hockey games each year.

It was not until I joined the Harvard University Band that I attended my very first football game. And it wasn’t quite what I had expected at all. Despite my lack of experience with the live experience of the game, I’m not wholly ignorant of the way football works. I had briefly played it in high school during phys-Ed class. Well, actually, the unit that we had on football was grouped together with ultimate Frisbee in the school curriculum, which probably explains why I had always thought that the two were pretty much equivalent. I apologize to all the football and

Frisbee fans out there that I may have inadvertently offended. Nonetheless, I knew that the goal in football was to get a touchdown (that’s when you get the ball past the opposite end zone), attack whoever has possession of the ball (hence the large pile ups and accounts of injuries), and run like crazy if you have possession of the ball (towards the correct end zone, of course).

But I was surprised at the lack of intense action during the first real football game I witnessed. I’d always imagined football to be this fast-paced and rather dangerous game with both teams all gung-ho about taking each other down. Along with that notion was the idea that opposing teams barrel towards and attempt to viciously tackle each other, eventually leading to a large pile up that I’d often seen on TV. I guess it’s not surprising that I would have these preconceived notions about football, since these are the moments that are most often replayed and sensationalized by the media. But despite what I had seen on television, I watched the game play out with interesting strategy and even some finesse. I still remember the conversation that I had with my dad before the Princeton game.

Me: Hey Dad, I’m heading over to Princeton tomorrow with the band to play at the football game.

Dad: That’s great. Have fun.

And I thought that was that. We went on to talk about other things, like how I was enjoying my time in band, until a few minutes later when my dad came back to the topic.

Dad: Wait, by football, do you mean American football? Not the other football?

Me: Err...what other football? Oh, you mean soccer? Well, Dad, I’m in America after all...

Dad: Oh, I thought that you meant the other football. Isn’t American football the one that’s kind of violent?

Me: ...violent? Uh, yeah, I guess it is somewhat. But I only play music, so I won’t really know.

Band has really shaped my experience with football. I love being a part of a group of energetic, fun, and high-spirited people who cheer for every advance and groan for every bad call. There is just so much school spirit

floating around that it’s contagious. Every time there’s a down, we play a tune. Every time there’s a touchdown, we play a fight song, and when we’re on defense we chant, “Repel them, repel them, make them relinquish the ball!” We’re really there with the team each step of the way, through every touchdown, interception, turnover, and advancement. We’re there to keep the fighting spirit going and boost morale. I’ve really come to learn more about football through all my helpful band-mates who answered my never-ending stream of questions during the first two games (really, hockey is so much easier to understand. A goal is a point. There isn’t any of this 6 point, 3 point or 2 point business).

Of course, being in the band meant that I play music, not football, and so I actually have no sense of how violent it can get. But I’ve witnessed three instances so far where a player had gotten injured on the field and couldn’t get up immediately. During these moments, the stadium is dead silent as both sides wait for the injured player to rise. And an astounding applause echoes throughout the stadium when he finally does.

It is at times like these that I’ve really grown to appreciate football.

This sense of camaraderie, of this “we’re all in this together” spirit, is truly moving. No matter how much you cheer for your own team and make fun of the other team, there is still this deep unspoken sense of mutual respect for each other. It is at these games, I’ve realized, that I can see greatness of human nature. Sometimes we are bloodthirsty — no doubt about it. We cheer for our team to tear their way through the defenses and score. But at other times, we are compassionate, praying for the well-being of the injured player regardless of what team they are on. And I feel that it is through these deep emotions that everyone bonds in these games. Football is a brutal sport, but in a sense, it is the danger in it that brings people together.

Maybe football is not as refined as other sports like golf or swimming. But it brings out the American spirit unlike any other sport that I’ve seen so far. Little by little, I’m coming to see why football is considered the quintessential American sport.

Milly Wang ’16 (keqimillywang@college) would prefer to watch football on ice.

The Harvard Crimson is introduced at the 2011 meeting of The Game. The Crimson beat Yale 45-7. Photo by Maria Barragan-Santana

drawn & quarteredJOHN McCALLUM

Documents

The Pre-Election Issue